Geodesic
Of course, if we have a rocket launched by nuclear weapons people will stop using their cars.
And again, the millions of people who die in car accidents don't die because the car uses an IC engine.
Thirdly, anyone who 'cares' about the environment will protest the 'desecration of an unspoiled natural landscape'.
Finally, how are people going to get tothis launch site in the centre of Antarctica? My guess is, they'll fly - with fossil fuels.
What we need is a space elevator.
In the long term people will change over to cheaper kinds of cars. Energy from space would reduce electricity cost. This would have the result of making electrolysis cheaper. Electrolysis is employed for producing Hydrogen from sea water. City dwellers would also have the option of electric cars. A very attractive option if electricity prices drop. Especially during times of escalating oil prices.
People die in cars because they are inertia weapons. My point was that nobody is protesting the car despite the fact that a million people die every year. Why not? Because we don't want to keep a horse in the garage.
The unspoiled natural landscape in question is an empty wasteland of endless frozen water. The area affected by such a launch would be miniscule.
Q
Where's the physics behind this, or is this all talk without any physics to PROVE that it can work?
That has been Waynes problem all along these past years - he has yet to state a case for Orion that involves reality.
Physicists did the feasibility study for Orion back in the 1960's and concluded it was not only possible but the only practical method of reaching space. I find the rather condescending and insulting accusation that I can't back up the case for Orion with a sound scientific basis rather comical. I therefore accept your challenge. Since the effects of nuclear bombs are now well known, the opacity and and ablative qualities of varied materials well understood and the physics of reaction driven space engines exceptionally well documented in thousands of journals I welcome any criticism you have and look forward to answering your engineering questions. If I don't have an answer to your more complex queries I can enquire of my more knowledgable friends in the rocket engineering field. As Nuclear Propulsion is currently one of the options being discussed for Bush's Mars Mission initiative I find the notion that Orion technology isn't realistic rather an absurd and desperate claim.
Dinokg
JUST LAUNCH IN THE SAME AREAS OUT IN THE DESERT THAT WHERE USED IN THE PAST!
Fallout is irradiated material such as ground dirt. It was estimated that such a launch would have caused 10 fatalities back in the 60's. Employing neutron bombs would have mean't a tenfold reduction or a possible single fatality from inhalation of fallout. Quite surprising considering the level of fallout such a ground launch would have incurred. All massive construction endeavours incurr fatalities but even one death is deemed unacceptable. This is ofcourse an estimate made without employing any fallout reduction methods. With a heavy launchpad, specialised pulse units and numerous other factors taken into account it could work but Antarctica would be a much better choice in my opinion. Nevada is way too close to Los Angeles. The Antarctic wasteland would incurr far less fallout for numerous reasons.
phlog
So, what if a 'Project Orion' rocket suffered a failure at launch? Veered off course, like the first launch of Arianne5 (due to bad software!). If it crashed, with a load of nukes on board, and the casing of just one ws breached, you'd have a bit of a problem.
You are thinking of chemical rockets. No atomic bomb has ever accidentally detonated. If the shock absorber system failed the ship would just fall over. The bombs would remain intact. Even if one went off in the hold(impossible unless sabotaged) the rest would not follow suit. There would be no Challenger scenario with atomic bombs. They aren't highly combustible explosives. Instead it requires an intricate sequence of events to trigger them.
weed_eater_guy
I don't see any reason to wait. Humanity has waited long enough for serious spaceflight. After two consecutive world wars followed by a cold war the western nations are still recovering from the horror and are strongly opposed to another world war. Combined with a lack of any remaining frontiers to challenge us the radical and adventurous have no outlet for their energies. This is resulting in a gradually secularising mindset. We are becoming introverted in our thinking and that is a recipe for self destruction. Every civilisation has followed the same pattern. Expansion, renaissance, stagnation and finally collapse. We are already in the third phase. Without challenge, exploration and adventure our more creative and couragious citizens can only turn their abilities to fighting against one another. Plato's Republic written thousands of years ago illustrates this phenomenon of societies rotting at the core for lack of external stimulus. We need variety above all else and our homogenising global community is losing this precious resource. Only by conquering new worlds can we overcome it. Its a conundrum that we need to work together to achieve really great things and yet such collaboration invariably leads to anarchism and bureaucratic incompetence/corruption. Whats needed to unite humanity and set us back on the course of expansionism is an international effort to throw open the door to space. We have to be realistic about it. Such an endeavour will require the most compact source of energy at our disposal and scary as such massive power is we must tame it. Just as our ancestors tamed fire, lightning and explosive chemicals at great cost in lives but to the longterm benefit of us all. We must be daring. Risk is a part of life. We have already paid much of the cost in discovering and perfecting this technology. Its trial by fire is over. The alternative isn't worth contemplating. Remember that Rome had developed a primitive steam engine prior to its destruction. A potentially revolutionary technology which could have heralded an ancient industrial age if only they had realised what they had and fully embraced its exciting possibilities. When that Superpower collapsed the ensuing dark age for scientific research lasted millenia.
Stokes
That was a last ditch effort to keep Orion going. The upper stage Orion method may still succeed but I believe it is pandering to illogical fears. A serious study into the feasibility of ground launch would prove that the residual fallout of a well planned program incorporating innovative fallout reduction methods would not only be reasonable and practical but the only serious method of conquering space in our lifetimes.
