we can build an orion if we: A. build heavy lifting rockets to move industries to the moon and/or a near earth asteroid...or B...build a one shot Orion on earth to put industry in orbit
I think that the low g's of the moon would be best for industry. They've got aluminum oxides in the soil from which aluminum and oxygen can be extracted. Water in ice form can be found in the deep craters of the lunar poles. It would be a great stepping stone for a trip to Mars. But it may take 20 years of careful research and development to get to Mars. There's simply too much that could go wrong.
Absolutely wonderful choice of music. Not only because it is Mars related, but it really seems to fit the vision of the original project. Good editing too!
Holtz, a composer from the twenties, after terrible WW1, no wonder the military band sound for Mars, god of war. I like this cut on his album (anybody remember those, LOL), but my favorite of all is the Jupiter themed one, it's calmer and very "grand" sounding like a space mission should sound (other planet themes are good too). If you liked this theme you'll love that one. It will be played for our future mission to the moon of Jupiter, Europa!!!
The Shuttle was so noisy when it launched, it used to set off car alarms at the VAB. This thing, with eight SRBs and 25 first stage engines, would set off car alarms in *Miami*!
The funny thing was the original plan to launch Orion was to be out west they were going to dig a pit, and launch it using the atomic bomb propulsion system.
I was 9 years old when we landed on the moon in 1969. Our teachers would bring televisions into classrooms to watch the later moon flights, (Apollo 14-17). We all new we were headed for mars. The vehicle assemble a building at Cape Kennedy was looking ahead for re-engineering for Orion. When NASA stopped going to the moon it was sad time for me and surely the country. I can't explain the hope, the pride in America, the general optimism that NASA's space program had brought this country through the sixty's and into the 70's. Cut a little military spending and waste, and shift the money to NASA. We could all experience the wonderful elation the space program can bring.
We could definitely afford to cut a ton of money from the military are you kidding? It's a cash cow. Instead of one stealth fighter for all branches we need missile ai research and payload capacity on drones and cheaper strike aircraft in higher numbers. But what we need most of all is education funding and motivation, and NASA funding would trickle down to both of those ends as well as adding tons of high paying jobs.
I think I’ve watched the greatest simulation of one of mankind’s greatest achievements. “And now, we leave this planet, the dusty red rock named after the God of War. We depart the planet of war, in peace. Humanity has forever left it’s mark here, and hopefully we will return.”
Zypofaeser There is a slightly easier way to reduce fallout. Cover the launch site in a giant metal plate. Radioactive fallout is caused by dust being sucked into the mushroom and getting irradiated, eliminate the dust, and you eliminate *most* of the fallout. Furthermore, you can launch from Antartica, or a sea platform near antartica, so that the wind currents keep any fallout that is produced there.
In an interview for George Dyson's book, Freeman Dyson said that an Orion in space would be much less dramatic. Without air to absorb and re-radiate the prompt flash energy, a small bomb in space like these pulse units would show at best a brief tiny spark on detonation, followed a tiny fraction of a second later by a building flare of plasma piling up on the plate.
I just finished watching a documentary about the Orion project. It was proposed that the vehicle would have to be extra heavy to reduce the acceleration to a survivable level. So unlike, chemical rockets, it could have had handled the massive payloads necessary for an interplanetary voyage. There is no way a chemical rocket would be able to take such a vehicle into space. Just look at the Apollo rockets. As massive as they were they could only handle a payload of a few men with supplies for about a week. With the extra distance and supplies necessary for at least months if not years, there is no way a chemical rocket could lift that in one go. There's only really 2 options. 1. Use the Orion thruster to take off, which would require thousands of nuclear bombs to be exploded in Earths atmosphere, or 2. construct the huge ship in space using smaller efficient chemical ships to ferry supplies and materials to the construction site.
The boosters for the Apollo missions could put 100+ tons into orbit (1st and 2nd stages). This consisted of the third stages and the entire Lunar mission hardware in that configuration. It also put up the Skylab station volume. Bigger than the volume in the ISS, and in one launch. If the ship were broken into sections, several launches would put up the 500+tons Mars mission. Alternately they looked at using only the 1st booster stage to lift the entire ship into a high hyperbolic hop above the atmosphere, where the Orion engine would fire up. No way it could lift it into orbital velocity, but it could put it up to orbital altitude to get the bomb detonations out of most of the atmosphere.
This system is so misunderstood of how amazing it is. Large ships could not only be launched from earth but also built in space like we did with the ISS. Building one in space would allow the ship to be very large and carry enough impulse charges so it can continually accelerate and de-accelerate at 1g to its destination keeping the passengers exposure to zero gravity at a minimum as well!
@@rseferino1 Damn that's a real shame. It'd be real unfortunate if the video with the original soundtrack were to appear on some other site somewhere wouldn't you say
The original designs actually had planned for the entire ship to be launched from a remote location on a graphite-plated launch complex. The entire point of the project was to develop a way to lift ridiculously heavy payloads into orbit.
Orion was (and maybe still is) a brilliant idea until we can figure out that whole matter/antimatter thing. To solve the fallout problem, use conventional rockets to bring up the stages of the interplanetary craft to a stable orbit for assembly. Additional rocketry is used to push the craft beyond the magnetosphere. The the orion drive could be fired up. With current technology, speeds within 1-10% lightspeed are possible. 40-50 years to the nearest star? With time dilation that'd be at least feasable for a robotic mission.
Agreement on the space-assembled ship. Disagreement on using it as an interstellar ship or probe. See Forward's Starwisp interstellar probe. We could start mapping the Oort halo and interstellar space and send probes to other stars when we get space factories and huge solar power microwave beaming satelites like those proposed for sending power to Earth. Even Orion, with only maybe .1C is still not suitable for interstellar traavel (because it's stll a rocket, unlike Forward's concept with beamed sails.) But it is fine for opening the solar system out into the cometary cloud.
Seven Seas17 There is a formulation for calculating time dilation. It goes like this:t1 = t0 x (1 - (v^2/c^2))^.5 Where t1 = rate of time passage in the ship, to = rate of time passage on Earth, v^2 = ship velocity squared, c^2 = speed of light squared.
Forget the high g-force, primitive project orion, this is the future of nuclear propulsion: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission-fragment_rocket That one million specific impulse tho, it is everyone to dream almost come true!
It was the 1960s, it was thought more on Titan and Saturn's rings and Jupiter's moons had not yet been revealed in detail, were thought as the Earth's moon
Intentional ... after discovering, in the orbit of Mars, Deimos to go near. After the flyby, I made an adjustment of 185 m / sec in the inclination of the orbit, for return to Earth.
I would insert the mission into a retrograde Mars orbit avoiding the need for heatshield and large booster to get to Phobos, or detach Lander 2 prior to Mars orbit insertion and do an aerobraking maneuver. Most of the fuel is needed to link up with the mission (perhaps in a polar orbit) after visiting Phobos. Thank you for the video.
The thing about Orion is unlike every other plan to travel in space, Mass does not matter. So you could have 4 landers. Two to Mars, One at the Pole and one else were and one to the Moon of Mars and you still have a backup incase of a emergency..
In a word: COST. If the basic vehicle mass is 4,000 tons (an early model), developement cost is 20 billion, pad launch expense 1 billion (same as later STS launches) then the 1st launch costs 21 billion. If you haul the 4,000 tons to orbit developement cost is still 20 billion dollars, but you now must spend over 60 billion dollars (60 launches of a chemical payload version of STS) to haul the pieces to orbit. Add the fact that our technology isn't capable of 60 launches in less than a decade.
Rseferino Orbiter Filmmaker If you are referring to Orion, then no. - Orion exist within KSP.. as a mod. If you refer to the contents and things available to do - then you are correct.
I also got most of my information from wikipedia, a site I find more balanced than most. This is historical fact, however; in the 1950's the US government was exploding large fission devices only 65 miles away from Las Vegas. In all over 200 devices were set off above ground over the course of a decade The largest yielded over 100 kilotons. There was some radiation damage to humans, but no EMP damage to equipment. That one 100 kton bomb released more energy than an Orion ground launch to orbit.
The indiviual bomb blast contemplated for Orion were in the range of 0.1 to 0.25. kilotons. Their EMP radus would have only been a few miles on Earth. Once in orbit they would no longer have had any EMP footprint on Earth. Only really big multimegaton bombs, fired in orbit did EMP damage over large areas. The Orion would have been launched from a remote area of the ocean, where what little EMP it produced would have no effect.
The reason for the square root is that a 100 kiloton bomb will produce an area of effect 100 times greater than a 1 kiloton bomb, but that area will have a diameter only 10 times greater. The formula for area of a sphere is 4 x pi x (diameter) ^2. That's diameter squared. My figure of 75 if squared, is around 5600. Nukes are powerful, but they're not the end of the world. In the 50's hundreds of bombs with total yields of 100's of megatons were set off. Cancer death rate now: higher than then.
The bomb HAS to be nuclear to do any good. A regular TNT bomb releases much less energy than a similar mass of ordinary chemical fuels. In theory there IS a limit to the size of a liquid fuel rocket. It's called the cube root squared law. What it means is if you double the dimensions of a rocket the mass increases to the cube (twice as wide=4 times the mass; twice as long=8 times the mass. But the thrust increases only to the square of the original. Engines with twice the area produce 4 times the thrust. So, if you doubled all the dimensions of a Saturn 5, its mass would increase by 8, but its thrust would only increase by 4. It wouldn't leave the launch pad.
I would just like to say that everything you have said in the past comments is my opinion as well. It pains me, a lot, as someone who loves science and discovery, to know that such a craft was conceived years ago in the 1950s, and workable with THEIR technology, yet we have ignored it. A massive vehicle capable of carrying large crews across our solar system in a matter of weeks. Something capable of fully opening space to the human race, allowing for discovery and exploration, even profit from the vast resources of space. A peaceful use for nuclear weapons which would literally send us to the stars. Its simply incredible and yet all to real. All this, and it has been rejected and forgotten due to stupid hippy liberals scared of destroying the environment while block head conservatives don't see the point and possibilities. So we sit here rotting while our country tries to police the world and at the same time carry its citizens from cradle to grave and digging deeper and deeper into debt.
MrLittlelawyer The very environment depends on the amounts of resources we are able to acquire somewhere other than Earth (eg Asteroids), which in turn will be economically viable through any engines that have as much of DeltaV as Nuclear Pulse Rocket. Environmentalists are anti-scientific and anti-progress kind of people and it would be a good idea to simply ignore them. Which regretfully is easier said than done.
Aigars Rosenbergs Since they and their spiritual descendants now rule most of the planet, it's impossible to ignore them. They stopped the US supersonic transport. They have stopped construction of new nuclear power plants in the US for over 40 years. They stopped production of Freon on the grounds it was 'eating the ozone layer'. They shut down a billion dollar dam claiming it would endanger the snail darter, a lousy sub species of minnow. They delayed construction of the Alaska pipeline for over a decade, because it would. endanger the migration routes of the caribou. Never mind that CONUS white tailed deer had learned to cope with over 100,000 miles of superhighways. They are still stopping oil mining in northern Alaska, using arguments straight off a oijha board. They make up a voting majority of US citizens, and, since this one time participatory republic descended into a 'pure' democracy they now control the central government of the United States. As long as their philosophy exists Orion will never be built, large scale human migration into space will never take place, progress in general will stop.
I never thought It was that bad in US. In former USSR they did not care about environment at all, so there were indeed so me negative consequences. However, this was a low price to pay for the scientific progress. Hopefully, installing totalitarian/dictatorial government is not what it would take to knock out the crazed greens. Thus, only way to do this is increase awareness of this issue, but sadly majority of the people are too detached from it.
How do you get the view of trajectories showing orbiting bodies as cross hairs with Orion in green and celestial bodies in orange? Really want to know.
Why would assembling the rocket in pieces in orbit be a better idea? You would need dozens of highly expensive, unreliable launches by chemical rockets to bring up the payload of one small Orion. If you're going to assemble an Orion in orbit at least one, and probably more, launches would be needed to bring up the nuclear warheads. What if one of the chem rockets with, say, 100 warheads on board blows up and crashes on Earth, sprinkling nuclear warheads all over the northern hemisphere? The cheapest AND safest choice is to ground launch the original Orion. You would only need to launch one from Earth. A 10,000 ton Orion that delivered over 9,000 tons to orbit would carry a whole factory into deep space. Out in the asteroid belt that factory would build even bigger factories that would construct all the future Orion type vehicles. Ships massing over a million tons would drop down to geosynchronous orbits to pick up their crews, then journey all over the solar system. This is one possible future for Humanity. The only other possibility is that we throw in the Darwinian towel, and begin the long retreat to the sea. Playing with the dolphins until the growing sun vaporizes the planet.
At least 6 launches of a Saturn-V to assemble the =~550 ton Mars ship. maybe two of them carrying the bombs. One, if it's just the Pu "pits" of the bombs to be assembled (less than 10% of he mass of the pulse units) Greatly assisted we can presume, by a "Skylab" type station volume (another S1-C booster) plus lifting the crews. Look at the containers for shipping nuclear wwaste. They test them by ramming trains into them. I point out that the crew of the Challenger survived the break-up of their ship. At least some of them, because some seat-back air systems were turned on, and forensic studies show the impact with the ocean is what killed them, but the crew cabin was still relatively intact on the ocean floor. A container of nuclear fuel would survive and not scatter bombs or fissionables. As to advocating ground launch: only if your family lives down wind, and no one else. I also point out that the bigest technical difficulties were in the rapid pulse cycling of a ground launch. Very much more complex and demanding and unforgiving than using the pulse rocket only in space. Total agreement in enthusiasm for the future, of huge ships crossing the solar system.
John Frazer The 550 ton version of Orion is too small to take advantage of the economies of scale offered by larger sized vehicles. Its specific impulse is only in the range of 1,600. That and its low mass would severely limit its payload and its range of missions. A 10,000 ton ground launched Orion would need about 1/2 a megaton of total explosive force to achieve low Earth orbit. Less than 100 kilotons of that would be detonated inside. Earth's atmosphere. For comparison a single bomb test back in the 1950's released 20 megatons of energy, 40 times as much explosive force, over 100 times as much fallout as a 10,000 ton Orion launch. It would only need to be launched once from Earth. Scale models, using chemical explosives, were successfully launched from ground level during the life of the project. A chemical rocket carrying bombs, crashing, would have every terrorist organization on Earth looking for the components. They wouldn't need to find many to assemble their on home made nuke.
Daniel J. Connors Modern uprgades improve the operformance even of the 10 meter ships a good deal (see MSFC "External Pulse Plasma Propulsion" and "project Gabriel" for newer looks into this) Yes, it's not as good as a 40+ meter big ship. Too bad we don't like living in environments with freely released actinides and heavy metal vapors and short-half-life trans-uranic elements drifting about. Pirates who want to get their hands on weapons-grade Pu after a failed booster would have to beat the first-world navies to the site and the salvage operation. Bet that anything carrying weapon-grade fuels would be carefully tracked and monitored. Air strikes for anyone unauthorized trying to move in on it. Even Dyson and especially Theodore Taylor the designers of Orion felt the release of bomb debris in the atmosphere would be unethical. They were in favor of the nuclear test-ban treaties, even if it wasn't possible to get exemptions for tests of a nuke-pulse engne. Plenty of opportunity to loft test engines into space for tests there, and the treaties could be modified to allow such a demonstrably non-weaponized release of nuclear explosive energy in space. It was the engineers working on it who were nervous about the rapid cycling of the engine for the ground launch. Yes, we could probably get it to work. Most see the space-only use as the way to go. ASAP, space-constructed ships on the order of Dyson's "Super Orion" or newer design mag-sail Orion will be liners for crossing the solar system. Again, the fissionable fuel parts were the smallest mass fraction of a pulse unit, and the propellant to be vaporized was over 70%. Any space colony 'way out there which could refuel it with propellant (ices or things chemically like plastics work well) is a good destination, and ths ship varies stockpiles of empty pulse units waiting for propellant for the trip onward.
John Frazer The mini Orion in orbit would be better than nothing. If nothing else is available I would like to see it built. It's as unlikely to be built as the larger ground launched version. You see, as Orion supporters retreated to orbit, the tree hugging hippies--who oppose all technological progress--changed their arguments against it. "Now," they argue, "EMP from the blasts in orbit will ruin my laptop, making it impossible to log onto face book or twitter." "The energy released will triple the size of the van Allen radiation belt." "Radiation will reach the ground because the Earth's magnetosphere will suck it down to the surface at both poles." "People will be blinded by the orbital detonations of mini nukes." "My astrologer told me this would be the end of life on Earth." These are all arguments I've read before on this forum. I've read many more, equally stupid, objections to Orion. I believe opponents to the program will settle for nothing less than the ships being constructed in orbit around Luna from material mined and built on Luna. In other words Orion would never built. Finally, background radiation. The main reasons given for approving the test ban treaty were: to limit the ability of smaller nations to make their own nukes, and to prevent future increases in the cancer death rate. At this point in time two bit countries like Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, and God knows how many others already have, or soon will have, their very own nukes. As for cancer, the death rate and incidence of cancer is much higher now than it was at the height of the nuclear arms race, over 50 years ago. Apparently the very low rise in background radiation had no effect on human cancer. The only things now releasing radioactive by products into the atmosphere are coal burning power plants.
Sad that by 1970 they did the nuclear reactors for Submarines, such stuff, and the TR 3B series of actual nuclear powered engines, not just for the energy, but for the impulse, that made part of the "UFO" visions, at least the Triangle Shaped ones. The version widely known is just the TR 3B Aurora, but obviously it's not the only nor the last, and it's admitted it works with such nuclear engine. But not used to actually go to space, more for Earth based missions -_- And people hating around.
Fun fact: In the sixes the Outer Space Treaty was signed that prohibited any WMD's to be placed in orbit or on other celestial bodies. This pretty much makes the Orion Illegal.
I admittedly am not an expert on the subject; I got some of my info from Wikipedia, you can check it yourself, you can search: Nuclear electromagnetic pulse -> Generation -> Weapon yield According to the info there, the area of a bombs EMP is related to its yield, as the square root, but other effects contribute. These other effects you can read about render Orion size bombs far more dangerous for EMP than multi-megaton devices. The article will explain the ionization of air as well.
A multimegaton bomb set off in orbit ionizes NO air. There's none to ionize. The area of a bomb's EMP pulse is directly related to its yield. Thus the Starfish space test (1.4 megatons) produced 5600 times the EMP of a 1/4 kiloton Orion pulse. The affected sphere of the 1/4 kton devices would be 1/75th the radius of the Starfish. If we allow Starfish an EMP radius of 500 miles, an Orion nuke would have an EMP radius of 7 miles. It wouldn't reach ground level once Orion reached 10 miles altitude.
Well, first, the NASA 8 to 20 man Project Orion was to be launched on a Saturn V, that certainly did not look like a Saturn V. Note that a Saturn V first stage had five engines and there were no solid propellent booster rockets with the Saturn V.
To: rseferino1 You have seen that the powers in charge of the planet have no intention of allowing Orion to be constructed, even in the tremendously downscaled version you have shown in this film. I urge you to develope a video showing Orion as it was originally concieved; a video of a 10,000 ton Orion, launching from Earth. A video to show what Orion is truly capable of. I'd do it myself, but, alas, I lack the ability to do it.
NASA had planned a Mars direct flight for 1974-8, using the Saturn V-N - The second stage was to be Nuclear-thermal rocket, using Hydrogen as a mono propellant. The engine was flight ready, and had fired at full thrust for over 2 HOURS straight, (they ran out of hydrogen) Nixon killed the maned flight program.
It's funny to see anti-nuclear people react to project Orion, as if any amount of radiation we could produce would be anything but a drop in the ocean compared to natural radiation levels in space.
I saw some predictions for 80's Mars landings and early bases. That based on "straight line", and successful planning/execution of manned space missions from Apollo on ward. But as we all know: "Man Plans, but God Laughs."
Orion will never be launched from Earth because: (1) even though its possible to build bombs that have little radioactive fallout, the EMP created by the blasts as the thing took off under nuclear power would affect a very broad area, and (2) a lift to orbit with a chemical system, as in this video, is out of the question. The pusher plate on the vehicle would just by itself weigh in at 150-200 tonnes .. that's just the plate, not the ship, payload, or bombs.
The estimated fallout is enough to kill 1-10 people via cancer pet launch. The fact the fallout would spread across vast areas, the radiation increase of the average human would be so small it's statistically negligible.
Larry Phischman Well, its more efficient than using atomic weapons most of the time. But sure, give all of your astronauts radiation poisoning and cancer
Why has this been marked as spam? It's the fucking truth people; just because you prefer one or the other doesn't change what came first. Except of course, that if the one you prefer came first, the second is a ripoff; and if you prefer the second, the first is inspiration.
the real orion didnt need a booster it could carry 50 people to space and was many times the size of the spacecraft shown here. dont know where this came from but its not an accurate simulation of what orion was ment to be. there is a good doc from the bbc on orion watch that and youll see what I mean.
There is a "real" Orion, only several designs. This is the version with disc drive 10 m proposed in 1964 by General Atomic for NASA, with 8 crew. The version of which you speak is the original proposal by Freeman Dyson. In fact, it was bigger because it launches from the surface of the earth by nuclear explosions. ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000096503.pdf
what bothers me about orion is the fact that it's detonating a nuclear device behind it. there surely have to be statutes regarding nuclear propulsion in LEO... anyone else think that the idea is quasi dangerous for human civilization?
What costs more; 200 mini nukes or 50,000ntons of chemical fuel? Toward the end of its opertional lifetime each STS launch (space shuttle) cost one billion dollars and delivered 25 tons of payload to orbit. The payload of the original base design Orion to orbit was over 2,000 tons. The STS would have cost 80 billion dollars to match that. What pollutes the air more; 250 KTons of nukes (most detonated above atmosphere) or 60,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (a byproduct of solid fuel rockets)?
emery collins How would it be a bad idea? Space is full of all sorts of radiation from natural sources (the sun, black holes, super-heated ionized gas, other stars, pulsars, quasars, supernova, etc.) Little explosives like these wouldn't change a thing. As for detonating them in low earth orbit; you'd have an entire atmosphere below it to absorb the X-ray emissions from the blast. Our atmosphere already does that to a small extent, absorbing X-ray emissions from natural cosmic sources. Plus, fallout wouldn't be a problem, as that's only caused when the dust from a ground detonation is sucked into the nuclear cloud and irradiated.
It’s not a problem in deep space, but detonating a nuke in LEO would cause an EMP burst that would fry electronics on the ground over a large area. An Orion ship would probably need to be launched from a high orbit or the moon.
well i agree with the nuclear propulsion but i am worried about radiation.You know what i am talking about? the radiation can pass through metals easily. But we can also use that technology to get back from mars.
There are metals and alloys out there that can withstand huge amounts of radioactivity but I'm worried about what would happen if we denoted nukes in orbit it's been done before but last time it created a radiation belt around and destroyed a shit load of satellites I say if we use nuclear pulse engines we wait before using them say we active them about moon distance
According to General Atomic design, a portion of spacecraft has extra layer of radiation shield to protect the crew during the "burn" (or should I say...boom?). The bomb has a yield of only a few kiloton, so the radiation should dissipate in a few hour. The crew can then enjoy the flight from the rest of the spacecraft.
what if they were to restart reasearch in pulse rockets a bomb does not have to be nuclear to have a large blast force vacume bombs would be perfect for this
why does the second excursion vehicle that lands on the asteroid need to have the same fuel array as the ship that lands on mars . It would not need to carry very much fuel at all.
In fact, the vehicle makes several changes of orbit consuming fuel. Phobos (moon, no asteroid) is at 12000 km altitude, and the vehicle must go, adjust its orbit, then return and meet with the Orion.
Wasn't Orion suppose to rotate head over heels to provide artificial gravity? I have seen interior designs with that in mind. www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artificialgrav.php#pigeon
THere was another drawing that had part of the payload dedicated to truss arms and habs that spun around the ship's long axis. This would be a better option for longer trips. A high propellant mass-fraction crewed ship makes the jumpto Mars in 21 days, but it's stll several months to the moons of Jupiter or Saturn.
I don't think using one heavy lifter that contains everything is a practical concept. Assembly in earth of all the components would be a better choice.
This is the second of 2 replies; Firstly, I would love it, if this would work. I'm a space enthusiast myself, but according to the info I read in Wikipedia it won't work. If you have other sources of this info, please share. It sounds like you are assuming the effect of the EMP will depend on something like: (energy yield)/(distance)^2. This is what I once thought. But there are other effects that contribute.
My only complain is this design ignores the one advantage of the Orion design.MASS DOES NOT MATTER.The same blast that propel a small craft would propel a larger craft.You could easily have a Orion craft to Mars with four or more landing craft.Two on Mars, One to the Martian Moon and a Back up incase of a problem.
How the hell does mass not matter? Acceleration is always F/m, so if you have a bigger ship, each bomb will give it a smaller shove. Maybe you mean the fact that nuclear explosives can be made a lot more powerful while keeping them the same weight?
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000021516.pdf This paper examines External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion (EPPP), a propulsion concept that derives its thrust from plasma waves generated from a series of small, supercritical fission/fusion pulses behind an object in space. ... The appeal of EPPP stems from its relatively low cost and reusability, fast interplanetary transit times, safety and reliability, and independence from major technological breakthroughs.
But it is not practical in real life due to resources to make and space to launch or in other words,it is not practical to build of it is larger and if the use is not great for its cost
The idea of blowing bombs behind a space craft for propulsion is crafty. and ok for the 60s n all. but it seems for today thats a bit embarrassing that thats the best we can do lol. Kinda inefficient too considering the explosions are omnidirectional.
The explosions are not omnidirectional. The pump is designed with materials of different densities, less dense materials vaporize faster. If a pump, then a layer of dense material and then placed a light material, which can focus the light material plasma go in one direction, that is, toward the drive plate. The design was implementing tungsten as dense material such as expanded polystyrene thin material. Not fully directional but a large part of the kinetic energy is focused on the plate.
Lakario Davis I think a more important problem is the chance of creating a series of EMP blasts that would destroy silicon based electronics below the explosions on Earth while in Earth orbit.
Sarge Rho Well, I'm not a scientist, but Wiki says that EMP is produced by gamma rays striking atoms in the upper atmosphere and ionizing them, the resulting free electrons create a huge current that the Earth's magnetic field bends toward the Earth's surface. *Even the USSR's small 300 kiloton test produced major telephone line damage.* While typical size expected for Orion was 0.14 kt size, with a possible Earth surface launch (yes, it has been considered), repeated EMP while leaving the atmosphere would still be problematic. All things considered (especially "Murphy"), I'd still rather have it built orbiting the moon and lunched from there.
FarSeeker8 It's mostly X-Rays causing EMPs. I know that surface launch has been considered, and it's the only thing it's really useful for: Getting a metric fuckton of stuff to space in one go. Fusion and Antimatter engines would be more efficient in space..
What's really amazing is that the mission you have shown is the most conservative, least ambitious, smallest, version of Orion that was ever concieved. The moderate version could have cut travel time in half, and delivered 10 times the payload to Mars. The BIG version would scare today's generation of tree hugging panzies out of their pants.
we can build an orion if we:
A. build heavy lifting rockets to move industries to the moon and/or a near earth asteroid...or
B...build a one shot Orion on earth to put industry in orbit
I think that the low g's of the moon would be best for industry. They've got aluminum oxides in the soil from which aluminum and oxygen can be extracted. Water in ice form can be found in the deep craters of the lunar poles. It would be a great stepping stone for a trip to Mars. But it may take 20 years of careful research and development to get to Mars. There's simply too much that could go wrong.
Iraq war cost $2 trillion. I wonder how many times we could have gone to Mars with that money ?
Fuck we could have been to the edge of the solar system by now had we spent all that money on space exploration
We spend 10 trillion dollars on welfare and other social entitlements. With that money we could have gone to alpha centauri.
You speak the truth. Everyone else that I have met are either brainwashed or just don't get it.
And the best part is that the money spent goes to high paying jobs and Ally Nation's trade relations
War is profitable. Not space
I have to say that you are the absolute best at making Orbiter cinematics, applause to you sir!
Note: there was a moon landing on July 20, 1969; but it was not on Phobos. It was a bit closer to home :} Nice video, well done to re-master it.
Absolutely wonderful choice of music. Not only because it is Mars related, but it really seems to fit the vision of the original project. Good editing too!
sounded like something that would be in star wars at the start of the song
Holtz, a composer from the twenties, after terrible WW1, no wonder the military band sound for Mars, god of war. I like this cut on his album (anybody remember those, LOL), but my favorite of all is the Jupiter themed one, it's calmer and very "grand" sounding like a space mission should sound (other planet themes are good too). If you liked this theme you'll love that one. It will be played for our future mission to the moon of Jupiter, Europa!!!
The Shuttle was so noisy when it launched, it used to set off car alarms at the VAB. This thing, with eight SRBs and 25 first stage engines, would set off car alarms in *Miami*!
25 F-1A engines (@ 1,800,000 lbf each) + 8 Titan IIIC SRMs (@ 1,315,000 lbf each) = ~50,520,000 lbf @ liftoff.
The funny thing was the original plan to launch Orion was to be out west they were going to dig a pit, and launch it using the atomic bomb propulsion system.
I was 9 years old when we landed on the moon in 1969. Our teachers would bring televisions into classrooms to watch the later moon flights, (Apollo 14-17). We all new we were headed for mars. The vehicle assemble a building at Cape Kennedy was looking ahead for re-engineering for Orion. When NASA stopped going to the moon it was sad time for me and surely the country. I can't explain the hope, the pride in America, the general optimism that NASA's space program had brought this country through the sixty's and into the 70's. Cut a little military spending and waste, and shift the money to NASA. We could all experience the wonderful elation the space program can bring.
+Jack V COOOL
+Jack V COOOL
+Jack V COOOL
We could definitely afford to cut a ton of money from the military are you kidding? It's a cash cow. Instead of one stealth fighter for all branches we need missile ai research and payload capacity on drones and cheaper strike aircraft in higher numbers.
But what we need most of all is education funding and motivation, and NASA funding would trickle down to both of those ends as well as adding tons of high paying jobs.
SpaceX will send a manned mission to Mars before NASA.
For a tenth of the cost.
One small step for Musk, a giant leap for the free market.
I think I’ve watched the greatest simulation of one of mankind’s greatest achievements.
“And now, we leave this planet, the dusty red rock named after the God of War. We depart the planet of war, in peace. Humanity has forever left it’s mark here, and hopefully we will return.”
It's a shame that Project Orion was never finished.
Nic Quattromani They should begin testing such vehicles on the far side of the moon. No fallout on earth, but its still relatively close to home.
Zypofaeser There is a slightly easier way to reduce fallout. Cover the launch site in a giant metal plate. Radioactive fallout is caused by dust being sucked into the mushroom and getting irradiated, eliminate the dust, and you eliminate *most* of the fallout. Furthermore, you can launch from Antartica, or a sea platform near antartica, so that the wind currents keep any fallout that is produced there.
Sarge Rho While that would reduce it, it is still on earth. The problem with that is that anti nuclear people will still go mad.
They are continuing project Orion you know
Raduim Gaming No, they aren't. The Orion they're working on is a space capsule, and has no connection to Nuclear Pulse engines.
In an interview for George Dyson's book, Freeman Dyson said that an Orion in space would be much less dramatic. Without air to absorb and re-radiate the prompt flash energy, a small bomb in space like these pulse units would show at best a brief tiny spark on detonation, followed a tiny fraction of a second later by a building flare of plasma piling up on the plate.
I just finished watching a documentary about the Orion project. It was proposed that the vehicle would have to be extra heavy to reduce the acceleration to a survivable level. So unlike, chemical rockets, it could have had handled the massive payloads necessary for an interplanetary voyage. There is no way a chemical rocket would be able to take such a vehicle into space. Just look at the Apollo rockets. As massive as they were they could only handle a payload of a few men with supplies for about a week. With the extra distance and supplies necessary for at least months if not years, there is no way a chemical rocket could lift that in one go. There's only really 2 options. 1. Use the Orion thruster to take off, which would require thousands of nuclear bombs to be exploded in Earths atmosphere, or 2. construct the huge ship in space using smaller efficient chemical ships to ferry supplies and materials to the construction site.
The boosters for the Apollo missions could put 100+ tons into orbit (1st and 2nd stages). This consisted of the third stages and the entire Lunar mission hardware in that configuration. It also put up the Skylab station volume. Bigger than the volume in the ISS, and in one launch.
If the ship were broken into sections, several launches would put up the 500+tons Mars mission.
Alternately they looked at using only the 1st booster stage to lift the entire ship into a high hyperbolic hop above the atmosphere, where the Orion engine would fire up. No way it could lift it into orbital velocity, but it could put it up to orbital altitude to get the bomb detonations out of most of the atmosphere.
i saw this when this vid first came out here on yt . good job.
This system is so misunderstood of how amazing it is. Large ships could not only be launched from earth but also built in space like we did with the ISS. Building one in space would allow the ship to be very large and carry enough impulse charges so it can continually accelerate and de-accelerate at 1g to its destination keeping the passengers exposure to zero gravity at a minimum as well!
Yeah I thought about that countless times. It's just.... money... it always costs way too much money
I miss the old soundtrack what happened?
Copyright, I modified or deleted the video.
@@rseferino1 mrhp I hate copyright
@@rseferino1 you modified this video. The original music is Mars - Holst.
@@rseferino1 Damn that's a real shame. It'd be real unfortunate if the video with the original soundtrack were to appear on some other site somewhere wouldn't you say
Very good. I always liked the concept of Orion spacecraft.
Nuclear tests in space were done on similar 400 km height and EMP caused disasters in 50s, so it would take a mutch-mutch higher orbit.
Right maybe about lunar distance
The nukes used by orion are about thousand times weaker than the ones that caused trouble in the 50s.
migkillerphantom plus they are shaped charge nukes, which focuses explosive power to the front/ Orion's pusher plate.
Sheriff S, much like a claymore mine.
The original designs actually had planned for the entire ship to be launched from a remote location on a graphite-plated launch complex. The entire point of the project was to develop a way to lift ridiculously heavy payloads into orbit.
Great timing of the video with the music (1:17, 2:24, 3:04, 4:20, and 5:14).
Thank you, first I choose the music that I will use, then I make a script with all the scenes with their times.
@Mayor Icelacke the first: The Planets, Op. 32 "Mars, the Bringer of War", 1914
Orion was (and maybe still is) a brilliant idea until we can figure out that whole matter/antimatter thing. To solve the fallout problem, use conventional rockets to bring up the stages of the interplanetary craft to a stable orbit for assembly. Additional rocketry is used to push the craft beyond the magnetosphere. The the orion drive could be fired up.
With current technology, speeds within 1-10% lightspeed are possible. 40-50 years to the nearest star? With time dilation that'd be at least feasable for a robotic mission.
Agreement on the space-assembled ship.
Disagreement on using it as an interstellar ship or probe. See Forward's Starwisp interstellar probe. We could start mapping the Oort halo and interstellar space and send probes to other stars when we get space factories and huge solar power microwave beaming satelites like those proposed for sending power to Earth.
Even Orion, with only maybe .1C is still not suitable for interstellar traavel (because it's stll a rocket, unlike Forward's concept with beamed sails.)
But it is fine for opening the solar system out into the cometary cloud.
I wonder if there are any charts that can plot potential time dialtion as velocity approaches c.
ionia23
Google turned up several calculators.
Seven Seas17 There is a formulation for calculating time dilation. It goes like this:t1 = t0 x (1 - (v^2/c^2))^.5 Where t1 = rate of time passage in the ship, to = rate of time passage on Earth, v^2 = ship velocity squared, c^2 = speed of light squared.
Forget the high g-force, primitive project orion, this is the future of nuclear propulsion: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission-fragment_rocket
That one million specific impulse tho, it is everyone to dream almost come true!
It was the 1960s, it was thought more on Titan and Saturn's rings and Jupiter's moons had not yet been revealed in detail, were thought as the Earth's moon
Nice propellant cross feed on the lander, that would be cool to see in real life
Excellent video there.
The initial plan called for missions to Mars by 1965 and Saturn by 1970. Travel to the moon was not very important to planners Orion Project
I did not design this spacecraft, please see this documentary: th-cam.com/video/xYoLcJuBtOw/w-d-xo.html
Intentional ... after discovering, in the orbit of Mars, Deimos to go near. After the flyby, I made an adjustment of 185 m / sec in the inclination of the orbit, for return to Earth.
it isn’t the same without the music ;-;
I would insert the mission into a retrograde Mars orbit avoiding the need for heatshield and large booster to get to Phobos, or detach Lander 2 prior to Mars orbit insertion and do an aerobraking maneuver. Most of the fuel is needed to link up with the mission (perhaps in a polar orbit) after visiting Phobos. Thank you for the video.
The thing about Orion is unlike every other plan to travel in space, Mass does not matter.
So you could have 4 landers. Two to Mars, One at the Pole and one else were and one to the Moon of Mars and you still have a backup incase of a emergency..
The first time I heard about Project Orion was in a book about the son of scientist Freeman Dyson. The book is called The Spaceship and the Canoe.
This technology was created in the 1950s and 60s we could've been to Mars many times over if we would've implemented it.
6 years after this video was posted and we are not even close to this mission
It's actually Gustav Holst's "Mars, Bringer of War", part of his "Planet Suite".
Very well said Mate!
In a word: COST. If the basic vehicle mass is 4,000 tons (an early model), developement cost is 20 billion, pad launch expense 1 billion (same as later STS launches) then the 1st launch costs 21 billion. If you haul the 4,000 tons to orbit developement cost is still 20 billion dollars, but you now must spend over 60 billion dollars (60 launches of a chemical payload version of STS) to haul the pieces to orbit. Add the fact that our technology isn't capable of 60 launches in less than a decade.
This is so epic!!!!
I was just about to comment here: 'Very Star Treky', thinkening that this was a modded version of KSP.
This has more than KSP looong years ...
Rseferino Orbiter Filmmaker If you are referring to Orion, then no. - Orion exist within KSP.. as a mod.
If you refer to the contents and things available to do - then you are correct.
it was made on 1921
The videos is wonderful! Why whould anyone dislike this?
Probably people from General Atomic.
Nice, I thought you were done with these videos :P
I also got most of my information from wikipedia, a site I find more balanced than most. This is historical fact, however; in the 1950's the US government was exploding large fission devices only 65 miles away from Las Vegas. In all over 200 devices were set off above ground over the course of a decade The largest yielded over 100 kilotons. There was some radiation damage to humans, but no EMP damage to equipment. That one 100 kton bomb released more energy than an Orion ground launch to orbit.
Ironically, the pre-integrated-chip technology of the 1950s was more resistant to EMP effects than today's technology.
Really two stages (rocket + SRB)
Nice video!
The indiviual bomb blast contemplated for Orion were in the range of 0.1 to 0.25. kilotons. Their EMP radus would have only been a few miles on Earth. Once in orbit they would no longer have had any EMP footprint on Earth. Only really big multimegaton bombs, fired in orbit did EMP damage over large areas. The Orion would have been launched from a remote area of the ocean, where what little EMP it produced would have no effect.
The reason for the square root is that a 100 kiloton bomb will produce an area of effect 100 times greater than a 1 kiloton bomb, but that area will have a diameter only 10 times greater. The formula for area of a sphere is 4 x pi x (diameter) ^2. That's diameter squared. My figure of 75 if squared, is around 5600. Nukes are powerful, but they're not the end of the world. In the 50's hundreds of bombs with total yields of 100's of megatons were set off. Cancer death rate now: higher than then.
The bomb HAS to be nuclear to do any good. A regular TNT bomb releases much less energy than a similar mass of ordinary chemical fuels. In theory there IS a limit to the size of a liquid fuel rocket. It's called the cube root squared law. What it means is if you double the dimensions of a rocket the mass increases to the cube (twice as wide=4 times the mass; twice as long=8 times the mass. But the thrust increases only to the square of the original. Engines with twice the area produce 4 times the thrust. So, if you doubled all the dimensions of a Saturn 5, its mass would increase by 8, but its thrust would only increase by 4. It wouldn't leave the launch pad.
I would just like to say that everything you have said in the past comments is my opinion as well.
It pains me, a lot, as someone who loves science and discovery, to know that such a craft was conceived years ago in the 1950s, and workable with THEIR technology, yet we have ignored it. A massive vehicle capable of carrying large crews across our solar system in a matter of weeks. Something capable of fully opening space to the human race, allowing for discovery and exploration, even profit from the vast resources of space. A peaceful use for nuclear weapons which would literally send us to the stars. Its simply incredible and yet all to real.
All this, and it has been rejected and forgotten due to stupid hippy liberals scared of destroying the environment while block head conservatives don't see the point and possibilities. So we sit here rotting while our country tries to police the world and at the same time carry its citizens from cradle to grave and digging deeper and deeper into debt.
Absolutely no doubt in that....its more like a common sense for geeks like us....Thumbs up!!
MrLittlelawyer The very environment depends on the amounts of resources we are able to acquire somewhere other than Earth (eg Asteroids), which in turn will be economically viable through any engines that have as much of DeltaV as Nuclear Pulse Rocket. Environmentalists are anti-scientific and anti-progress kind of people and it would be a good idea to simply ignore them. Which regretfully is easier said than done.
Aigars Rosenbergs Since they and their spiritual descendants now rule most of the planet, it's impossible to ignore them. They stopped the US supersonic transport. They have stopped construction of new nuclear power plants in the US for over 40 years. They stopped production of Freon on the grounds it was 'eating the ozone layer'. They shut down a billion dollar dam claiming it would endanger the snail darter, a lousy sub species of minnow.
They delayed construction of the Alaska pipeline for over a decade, because it would. endanger the migration routes of the caribou. Never mind that CONUS white tailed deer had learned to cope with over 100,000 miles of superhighways. They are still stopping oil mining in northern Alaska, using arguments straight off a oijha board.
They make up a voting majority of US citizens, and, since this one time participatory republic descended into a 'pure' democracy they now control the central government of the United States. As long as their philosophy exists Orion will never be built, large scale human migration into space will never take place, progress in general will stop.
I never thought It was that bad in US. In former USSR they did not care about environment at all, so there were indeed so me negative consequences. However, this was a low price to pay for the scientific progress. Hopefully, installing totalitarian/dictatorial government is not what it would take to knock out the crazed greens. Thus, only way to do this is increase awareness of this issue, but sadly majority of the people are too detached from it.
Yes! Finally!!!
How do you get the view of trajectories showing orbiting bodies as cross hairs with Orion in green and celestial bodies in orange? Really want to know.
Why would assembling the rocket in pieces in orbit be a better idea? You would need dozens of highly expensive, unreliable launches by chemical rockets to bring up the payload of one small Orion. If you're going to assemble an Orion in orbit at least one, and probably more, launches would be needed to bring up the nuclear warheads. What if one of the chem rockets with, say, 100 warheads on board blows up and crashes on Earth, sprinkling nuclear warheads all over the northern hemisphere?
The cheapest AND safest choice is to ground launch the original Orion. You would only need to launch one from Earth. A 10,000 ton Orion that delivered over 9,000 tons to orbit would carry a whole factory into deep space. Out in the asteroid belt that factory would build even bigger factories that would construct all the future Orion type vehicles. Ships massing over a million tons would drop down to geosynchronous orbits to pick up their crews, then journey all over the solar system.
This is one possible future for Humanity. The only other possibility is that we throw in the Darwinian towel, and begin the long retreat to the sea. Playing with the dolphins until the growing sun vaporizes the planet.
At least 6 launches of a Saturn-V to assemble the =~550 ton Mars ship. maybe two of them carrying the bombs.
One, if it's just the Pu "pits" of the bombs to be assembled (less than 10% of he mass of the pulse units)
Greatly assisted we can presume, by a "Skylab" type station volume (another S1-C booster) plus lifting the crews.
Look at the containers for shipping nuclear wwaste. They test them by ramming trains into them. I point out that the crew of the Challenger survived the break-up of their ship. At least some of them, because some seat-back air systems were turned on, and forensic studies show the impact with the ocean is what killed them, but the crew cabin was still relatively intact on the ocean floor.
A container of nuclear fuel would survive and not scatter bombs or fissionables.
As to advocating ground launch: only if your family lives down wind, and no one else. I also point out that the bigest technical difficulties were in the rapid pulse cycling of a ground launch. Very much more complex and demanding and unforgiving than using the pulse rocket only in space.
Total agreement in enthusiasm for the future, of huge ships crossing the solar system.
John Frazer The 550 ton version of Orion is too small to take advantage of the economies of scale offered by larger sized vehicles. Its specific impulse is only in the range of 1,600. That and its low mass would severely limit its payload and its range of missions.
A 10,000 ton ground launched Orion would need about 1/2 a megaton of total explosive force to achieve low Earth orbit. Less than 100 kilotons of that would be detonated inside. Earth's atmosphere. For comparison a single bomb test back in the 1950's released 20 megatons of energy, 40 times as much explosive force, over 100 times as much fallout as a 10,000 ton Orion launch.
It would only need to be launched once from Earth. Scale models, using chemical explosives, were successfully launched from ground level during the life of the project.
A chemical rocket carrying bombs, crashing, would have every terrorist organization on Earth looking for the components. They wouldn't need to find many to assemble their on home made nuke.
Daniel J. Connors
Modern uprgades improve the operformance even of the 10 meter ships a good deal (see MSFC "External Pulse Plasma Propulsion" and "project Gabriel" for newer looks into this) Yes, it's not as good as a 40+ meter big ship. Too bad we don't like living in environments with freely released actinides and heavy metal vapors and short-half-life trans-uranic elements drifting about.
Pirates who want to get their hands on weapons-grade Pu after a failed booster would have to beat the first-world navies to the site and the salvage operation. Bet that anything carrying weapon-grade fuels would be carefully tracked and monitored. Air strikes for anyone unauthorized trying to move in on it.
Even Dyson and especially Theodore Taylor the designers of Orion felt the release of bomb debris in the atmosphere would be unethical. They were in favor of the nuclear test-ban treaties, even if it wasn't possible to get exemptions for tests of a nuke-pulse engne.
Plenty of opportunity to loft test engines into space for tests there, and the treaties could be modified to allow such a demonstrably non-weaponized release of nuclear explosive energy in space.
It was the engineers working on it who were nervous about the rapid cycling of the engine for the ground launch. Yes, we could probably get it to work. Most see the space-only use as the way to go.
ASAP, space-constructed ships on the order of Dyson's "Super Orion" or newer design mag-sail Orion will be liners for crossing the solar system.
Again, the fissionable fuel parts were the smallest mass fraction of a pulse unit, and the propellant to be vaporized was over 70%. Any space colony 'way out there which could refuel it with propellant (ices or things chemically like plastics work well) is a good destination, and ths ship varies stockpiles of empty pulse units waiting for propellant for the trip onward.
John Frazer The mini Orion in orbit would be better than nothing. If nothing else is available I would like to see it built. It's as unlikely to be built as the larger ground launched version. You see, as Orion supporters retreated to orbit, the tree hugging hippies--who oppose all technological progress--changed their arguments against it.
"Now," they argue, "EMP from the blasts in orbit will ruin my laptop, making it impossible to log onto face book or twitter." "The energy released will triple the size of the van Allen radiation belt." "Radiation will reach the ground because the Earth's magnetosphere will suck it down to the surface at both poles." "People will be blinded by the orbital detonations of mini nukes." "My astrologer told me this would be the end of life on Earth."
These are all arguments I've read before on this forum. I've read many more, equally stupid, objections to Orion. I believe opponents to the program will settle for nothing less than the ships being constructed in orbit around Luna from material mined and built on Luna. In other words Orion would never built.
Finally, background radiation. The main reasons given for approving the test ban treaty were: to limit the ability of smaller nations to make their own nukes, and to prevent future increases in the cancer death rate. At this point in time two bit countries like Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, and God knows how many others already have, or soon will have, their very own nukes. As for cancer, the death rate and incidence of cancer is much higher now than it was at the height of the nuclear arms race, over 50 years ago. Apparently the very low rise in background radiation had no effect on human cancer. The only things now releasing radioactive by products into the atmosphere are coal burning power plants.
Fallout. That thing is like a nuke gun in space.
Sad that by 1970 they did the nuclear reactors for Submarines, such stuff, and the TR 3B series of actual nuclear powered engines, not just for the energy, but for the impulse, that made part of the "UFO" visions, at least the Triangle Shaped ones. The version widely known is just the TR 3B Aurora, but obviously it's not the only nor the last, and it's admitted it works with such nuclear engine.
But not used to actually go to space, more for Earth based missions -_- And people hating around.
We must build this today. We need to go to Mars now!
To think we could've been to Mars in a week with 60s technology funny how the universe works
Fun fact: In the sixes the Outer Space Treaty was signed that prohibited any WMD's to be placed in orbit or on other celestial bodies. This pretty much makes the Orion Illegal.
@@kellywilson-lawson1857 How humans on earth works, I guess... ;-)
Do you have this in an add-on for orbiter 2016 that I can download?
I admittedly am not an expert on the subject; I got some of my info from Wikipedia, you can check it yourself, you can search:
Nuclear electromagnetic pulse -> Generation -> Weapon yield
According to the info there, the area of a bombs EMP is related to its yield, as the square root, but other effects contribute.
These other effects you can read about render Orion size bombs far more dangerous for EMP than multi-megaton devices.
The article will explain the ionization of air as well.
A multimegaton bomb set off in orbit ionizes NO air. There's none to ionize. The area of a bomb's EMP pulse is directly related to its yield. Thus the Starfish space test (1.4 megatons) produced 5600 times the EMP of a 1/4 kiloton Orion pulse. The affected sphere of the 1/4 kton devices would be 1/75th the radius of the Starfish. If we allow Starfish an EMP radius of 500 miles, an Orion nuke would have an EMP radius of 7 miles. It wouldn't reach ground level once Orion reached 10 miles altitude.
Well, first, the NASA 8 to 20 man Project Orion was to be launched on a Saturn V, that certainly did not look like a Saturn V. Note that a Saturn V first stage had five engines and there were no solid propellent booster rockets with the Saturn V.
To: rseferino1 You have seen that the powers in charge of the planet have no intention of allowing Orion to be constructed, even in the tremendously downscaled version you have shown in this film. I urge you to develope a video showing Orion as it was originally concieved; a video of a 10,000 ton Orion, launching from Earth. A video to show what Orion is truly capable of. I'd do it myself, but, alas, I lack the ability to do it.
Wait wait, go to Mars before to go to Moon?
giuliano tulerman With Orion technology could have gone to the moon before the end of the 1950, Mars for 1969, and Saturn for 1975
giuliano tulerman th-cam.com/video/EecRSUeajQI/w-d-xo.html&
+giuliano tulerman He already did.
Rseferino Orbiter Filmmaker but failure could have cost a lot of lives
NASA had planned a Mars direct flight for 1974-8, using the Saturn V-N - The second stage was to be Nuclear-thermal rocket, using Hydrogen as a mono propellant.
The engine was flight ready, and had fired at full thrust for over 2 HOURS straight, (they ran out of hydrogen) Nixon killed the maned flight program.
9.8m per second to second
speed up and down.
It's funny to see anti-nuclear people react to project Orion, as if any amount of radiation we could produce would be anything but a drop in the ocean compared to natural radiation levels in space.
That would be molecular partials in the ocean not drop.
Very cool.
Orbiter Space Flight Simulator
Where did you get the Orion addon?
No way do I believe this happening in 1969, even with Orion. 1999 maybe, and wow wouldn't that have been nice.
I saw some predictions for 80's Mars landings and early bases. That based on "straight line", and successful planning/execution of manned space missions from Apollo on ward. But as we all know: "Man Plans, but God Laughs."
It's fabolous what technology can
d🌏.
I wonder if have we been in ALL OUR SOLAR SISTEM ( secretly)?
liked the music
:D
Um... The Nova seems to be too big for the crawler.
Terrific job anyway!
Orion will never be launched from Earth because:
(1) even though its possible to build bombs that have little radioactive fallout, the EMP created by the blasts as the thing took off under nuclear power would affect a very broad area, and
(2) a lift to orbit with a chemical system, as in this video, is out of the question. The pusher plate on the vehicle would just by itself weigh in at 150-200 tonnes .. that's just the plate, not the ship, payload, or bombs.
WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE SONG?
I reckognize it from Hellsing abrigded ep.4
i have a question: your first orion nuclear propulsion was made in orbiter 2006?
Do you have any information on the launcher system that put the Orion spacecraft into orbit?
Actually, neither look like the other. The only thing they share is spaceflight and landing on planets.
Wouldn't it be safer to use conventional means of propulsion to get the craft further from earths atmosphere before commencing the nuclear propulsion?
Nick Orr It would require hundreds/thousands tons of fuel.
True. But still that a lot of radiation, what effect would that have on the atmosphere?
Nick Orr en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_radiation_belts
Nick Orr It wouldo nlyaffect about 10 peole or sumthing
The estimated fallout is enough to kill 1-10 people via cancer pet launch. The fact the fallout would spread across vast areas, the radiation increase of the average human would be so small it's statistically negligible.
Treaties need to be amended so we can build these things. Then we can get to mars in a few weeks.
Or use VASMR or ion or anything else that isn't as dangerous as this
And less fun.
Larry Phischman Well, its more efficient than using atomic weapons most of the time. But sure, give all of your astronauts radiation poisoning and cancer
They wouldn't get cancer. And we have all of those nuclear weapons lying around that we can't use for war.
Larry Phischman SO just use the plutonium for reactors
Why has this been marked as spam? It's the fucking truth people; just because you prefer one or the other doesn't change what came first.
Except of course, that if the one you prefer came first, the second is a ripoff; and if you prefer the second, the first is inspiration.
the real orion didnt need a booster it could carry 50 people to space and was many times the size of the spacecraft shown here. dont know where this came from but its not an accurate simulation of what orion was ment to be. there is a good doc from the bbc on orion watch that and youll see what I mean.
There is a "real" Orion, only several designs. This is the version with disc drive 10 m proposed in 1964 by General Atomic for NASA, with 8 crew. The version of which you speak is the original proposal by Freeman Dyson. In fact, it was bigger because it launches from the surface of the earth by nuclear explosions.
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000096503.pdf
what bothers me about orion is the fact that it's detonating a nuclear device behind it. there surely have to be statutes regarding nuclear propulsion in LEO... anyone else think that the idea is quasi dangerous for human civilization?
What costs more; 200 mini nukes or 50,000ntons of chemical fuel? Toward the end of its opertional lifetime each STS launch (space shuttle) cost one billion dollars and delivered 25 tons of payload to orbit. The payload of the original base design Orion to orbit was over 2,000 tons. The STS would have cost 80 billion dollars to match that. What pollutes the air more; 250 KTons of nukes (most detonated above atmosphere) or 60,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (a byproduct of solid fuel rockets)?
Nice work on video , but nukes in space might be a bad idea and in low earth orbit probably not?
emery collins How would it be a bad idea? Space is full of all sorts of radiation from natural sources (the sun, black holes, super-heated ionized gas, other stars, pulsars, quasars, supernova, etc.) Little explosives like these wouldn't change a thing. As for detonating them in low earth orbit; you'd have an entire atmosphere below it to absorb the X-ray emissions from the blast. Our atmosphere already does that to a small extent, absorbing X-ray emissions from natural cosmic sources. Plus, fallout wouldn't be a problem, as that's only caused when the dust from a ground detonation is sucked into the nuclear cloud and irradiated.
It’s not a problem in deep space, but detonating a nuke in LEO would cause an EMP burst that would fry electronics on the ground over a large area. An Orion ship would probably need to be launched from a high orbit or the moon.
well i agree with the nuclear propulsion but i am worried about radiation.You know what i am talking about? the radiation can pass through metals easily. But we can also use that technology to get back from mars.
There are metals and alloys out there that can withstand huge amounts of radioactivity but I'm worried about what would happen if we denoted nukes in orbit it's been done before but last time it created a radiation belt around and destroyed a shit load of satellites I say if we use nuclear pulse engines we wait before using them say we active them about moon distance
According to General Atomic design, a portion of spacecraft has extra layer of radiation shield to protect the crew during the "burn" (or should I say...boom?). The bomb has a yield of only a few kiloton, so the radiation should dissipate in a few hour. The crew can then enjoy the flight from the rest of the spacecraft.
Well that's a nice a answer...
wow excellence....ops, kick off and play... Amazing....boom bbcode...jm...
what if they were to restart reasearch in pulse rockets a bomb does not have to be nuclear to have a large blast force vacume bombs would be perfect for this
nice game ,keep it up...USA
This music was in trinity and beyond I think
why do they call it the red planet when its not even red?
why does the second excursion vehicle that lands on the asteroid need to have the same fuel array as the ship that lands on mars . It would not need to carry very much fuel at all.
In fact, the vehicle makes several changes of orbit consuming fuel. Phobos (moon, no asteroid) is at 12000 km altitude, and the vehicle must go, adjust its orbit, then return and meet with the Orion.
Tha pusher plate diameter is too small the hot plasma from the nuclear explosion would fry the rest of the space ship
+Virgocygni56 upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Orion_pulse_unit.png
3.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/SaGdh9_gO6I/AAAAAAAACzI/Dsc0u_E7PvM/s1600-h/orioncharg3.jpg
2.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/SaGdsWBZQRI/AAAAAAAACzQ/GgdsOTESVdE/s1600-h/orioncharge5.jpg
I find it pretty funny that this is the first technical complaint ive seen
Wasn't Orion suppose to rotate head over heels to provide artificial gravity? I have seen interior designs with that in mind.
www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artificialgrav.php#pigeon
THere was another drawing that had part of the payload dedicated to truss arms and habs that spun around the ship's long axis. This would be a better option for longer trips. A high propellant mass-fraction crewed ship makes the jumpto Mars in 21 days, but it's stll several months to the moons of Jupiter or Saturn.
To get the full story watch "To Mars By A Bomb".
I don't think using one heavy lifter that contains everything is a practical concept. Assembly in earth of all the components would be a better choice.
But only 1 stage to Orbit? How?
Wow what simulator is this
technowarriorstv
Orbiter 2016
No, it's Orbiter 2010
This is the second of 2 replies;
Firstly, I would love it, if this would work. I'm a space enthusiast myself, but according to the info I read in Wikipedia it won't work. If you have other sources of this info, please share.
It sounds like you are assuming the effect of the EMP will depend on something like: (energy yield)/(distance)^2.
This is what I once thought. But there are other effects that contribute.
What is the music for this video you used
Mars, the Bringer of War (1914) The Planets, Op. 32, Gustav Holst
+Rseferino Orbiter Filmmaker thanks
Holtz, the Planets, he has a theme for all of the planets. This one is v. good but best IMO is for Jupiter!
My only complain is this design ignores the one advantage of the Orion design.MASS DOES NOT MATTER.The same blast that propel a small craft would propel a larger craft.You could easily have a Orion craft to Mars with four or more landing craft.Two on Mars, One to the Martian Moon and a Back up incase of a problem.
How the hell does mass not matter? Acceleration is always F/m, so if you have a bigger ship, each bomb will give it a smaller shove.
Maybe you mean the fact that nuclear explosives can be made a lot more powerful while keeping them the same weight?
why do the astronauts look like they are leaning against a wall?
It is a design flaw of compatible astronauts for this ship was supposed to be astronauts in suits of gemini type moving in weightlessness.
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000021516.pdf
This paper examines External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion (EPPP), a propulsion concept that derives its thrust from plasma waves generated from a series of small, supercritical fission/fusion pulses behind an object in space.
...
The appeal of EPPP stems from its relatively low cost and reusability, fast interplanetary transit times, safety and reliability, and independence from major technological breakthroughs.
whi does it look like the lazer screwdrive
In theory there is no limit to the size of a liquid fueled rocket.
But it is not practical in real life due to resources to make and space to launch or in other words,it is not practical to build of it is larger and if the use is not great for its cost
The idea of blowing bombs behind a space craft for propulsion is crafty. and ok for the 60s n all. but it seems for today thats a bit embarrassing that thats the best we can do lol. Kinda inefficient too considering the explosions are omnidirectional.
The explosions are not omnidirectional. The pump is designed with materials of different densities, less dense materials vaporize faster. If a pump, then a layer of dense material and then placed a light material, which can focus the light material plasma go in one direction, that is, toward the drive plate. The design was implementing tungsten as dense material such as expanded polystyrene thin material. Not fully directional but a large part of the kinetic energy is focused on the plate.
Lakario Davis
I think a more important problem is the chance of creating a series of EMP blasts that would destroy silicon based electronics below the explosions on Earth while in Earth orbit.
FarSeeker8 The nukes are low yield, and all of the X-Rays, which is what causes the EMP, are absorbed. So there wouldn't be a large EMP.
Sarge Rho
Well, I'm not a scientist, but Wiki says that EMP is produced by gamma rays striking atoms in the upper atmosphere and ionizing
them, the resulting free electrons create a huge current that the Earth's magnetic field bends toward the Earth's surface. *Even the USSR's small 300 kiloton test produced major telephone line damage.*
While typical size expected for Orion was 0.14 kt size, with a possible Earth surface launch (yes, it has been considered), repeated EMP while leaving the atmosphere would still be problematic.
All things considered (especially "Murphy"), I'd still rather have it built orbiting the moon and lunched from there.
FarSeeker8 It's mostly X-Rays causing EMPs. I know that surface launch has been considered, and it's the only thing it's really useful for: Getting a metric fuckton of stuff to space in one go. Fusion and Antimatter engines would be more efficient in space..
What's really amazing is that the mission you have shown is the most conservative, least ambitious, smallest, version of Orion that was ever concieved. The moderate version could have cut travel time in half, and delivered 10 times the payload to Mars. The BIG version would scare today's generation of tree hugging panzies out of their pants.
GOOD
I guess it just goes to show, opera pits should not perform symphonic suites!