[HN Gopher] Project Orion
___________________________________________________________________
Project Orion
Author : tosh
Score : 66 points
Date : 2023-03-16 18:09 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| aftbit wrote:
| See also Anathem by Neal Stephenson
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Orion Project [pdf]_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22691219 - March 2020 (1
| comment)
|
| _Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9025611 - Feb 2015 (11
| comments)
|
| _Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019627 - Sept 2011 (1
| comment)
|
| _Project Orion is one of the stupidest, most wonderful ideas
| ever conceived in America._ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=261348 - July 2008 (6
| comments)
|
| That's less than I expected - are there other threads?
| antondd wrote:
| _Interstellar nuclear-powered transport (1968)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28132756 - Aug 2021 (34
| comments)
|
| There are a few more, under different titles. I remember
| reading Dyson's autobiography a couple of years ago and he
| mentioned his involvement in the research. Absolutely amazing
| stuff.
| didericis wrote:
| There's a great BBC documentary on this called "To Mars by a
| Bomb", highly recommend it. Was one of my first introductions
| to Freeman Dyson, ended up reading his autobiography as well.
| Was a remarkable man, and one of my favorite people to listen
| to.
| smilespray wrote:
| It's on YouTube, and I second this recommendation.
|
| https://youtu.be/xYoLcJuBtOw
| hermitcrab wrote:
| I watched all 157 of these: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?
| list=PLVV0r6CmEsFzDA6mtmKQE... Really interesting.
|
| I spoke to him once at a book signing and asked him about
| Orion. In summary he said: would it have worked - probably,
| should it be done - probably not. Although he did make the
| point that pretty much every big engineering project kills
| people.
| marktangotango wrote:
| There was a classic science fiction story with a twist on this
| idea; a low tech species was about to be discovered by a more
| advanced species. And according to the rules of the more advanced
| species, any planet that wasn't capable of space travel would
| become a client or vassal, and a planet with space travel would
| be seen as a peer. The protagonist built a pusher style rocket
| using an explosive, and launched the lightest person he knew into
| orbit, who happened to be his girl friend.
|
| I keep thinking this was a Larry Niven story, maybe someone here
| is familiar?
|
| Edit; another classic story was the novel Footfall by Niven and
| Pournelle which featured launching the USS Missouri into orbit on
| an Orion style pusher to battle the invading aliens.
| Arrath wrote:
| I very much have a soft spot for Footfall. Sending up a
| battleship kludged into an Orion style ship to battle alien
| invaders is just so cool.
| variaga wrote:
| I haven't read that book in 30 years, but the description of
| experiencing the launch from inside the craft was so succinct
| and evocative I still think about it from time to time.
|
| "God was knocking and he wanted in _bad_. "
| vhodges wrote:
| One of my favourite lines ever! Note, it wasn't from the
| perspective of inside the craft but rather the towns people
| huddled in a bunker in Bellingham.
| mpweiher wrote:
| > Footfall by Niven and Pournelle which featured launching the
| USS Missouri into orbit on an Orion style pusher
|
| Yes, there was an Orion. No they didn't launch the USS
| Missouri. The ship was called Michael and featured, among other
| crazy weaponry, X-Ray lasers of the SDI type, i.e. some
| material (ruby?) pumped by a nuke. The nuke would destroy the
| material, but in the process get it to lase X-Rays. Heck, if
| you're using nukes for propulsion, might as well do that as
| well.
|
| Maybe they repurposed the guns for something?
|
| I distinctly remember some dialogue that there was some fairly
| rough welding of thick steel plates going on, none of the
| ultra-fine tolerances of traditional rocket engineering.
| vhodges wrote:
| replying to all... The story you're thinking of is King Davids
| Spaceship by Jerry Pournelle. It IS a co-dominion story (so
| same universe as The Mote in Gods Eye w/Larry Niven)
|
| A few other uses of Orion in fiction that I am aware of:
|
| The Ship 'Michael' (as in avenging angel) from Footfall (Again
| by Niven and Pournelle).
|
| And the ship from Orion shall rise by Paul Anderson.
|
| A CBC Miniseries featuring a (faked) Orion derived interstellar
| ark supposedly launched in the 60's and the people that have
| been living on it for almost 40 years.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| "King David's Spaceship". I believe it was by Niven, but I'm
| not sure.
| nyrath wrote:
| "King David's Spaceship" aka "A Spaceship For The King" by
| Jerry Pournelle
| KineticLensman wrote:
| That doesn't sound part of Niven's Known Space canon.
|
| However, 'Footfall' by Niven and Pournelle does have an Orion,
| as does Invisible Sun, by Charles Stross.
|
| Nothing obvious in [0]
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stories_featuring_nucl...
| ianburrell wrote:
| Project Orion is a really bad idea. I guess it could be a good
| idea in specific situation where have to get a lot of mass off
| the planet and don't care about the effects.
|
| Problem one is that detonating a series of nuclear bombs in the
| atmosphere. The first couple are close to the ground and produce
| local fallout, the higher ones produce global fallout.
|
| Problem two is that detonating nuclear bombs in space causes EMP.
| That doesn't destroy electronics on ground as thought but will
| knock out the electrical grid. The extra radiation will knock out
| satellites in space.
|
| There is interstellar Orion, Project Daedalus, but that is quite
| different with inertial confinement fusion and magnetic fields
| directing the exhaust.
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| Not as "spicy" an idea as the Nuclear saltwater rocket however,
| which instead of discrete bombs involves dissolving a load of
| bomb-grade fissiles into water and then ejecting them out a
| conventional rocket engine, with the idea the solution goes
| critical somewhere in the vincinity of the exhaust nozzle. Now
| if you're thinking "Does that replace singular discrete nuclear
| explosions with a continual nuclear explosion shrouded in an
| expanding cloud of radioactive superheated steam?", the answer
| is yes, yes it does.
|
| Weirdest thing is the design doesn't actually have as much
| potential ISP as a pulsed detonation system like an Orion,
| despite being a bonafide torchship. Go figure
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket
| nwah1 wrote:
| Launching from lunar orbit would obviate EMP and terrestrial
| radiation concerns.
|
| But those are the least of the concerns.
| ianburrell wrote:
| The problem with that is Orion is that it is heavy. It only
| makes sense when launching the whole thing from the ground.
| Orion has been proposed for interplanetary propulsion since
| it is pretty efficient. But would need to be convertible from
| ground-launch to space propulsion. Nuclear rockets are pretty
| good and safer to launch.
|
| The other problem is that nuclear weapons are expensive.
| Something like Davy Crockett is 2kg of plutonium, and mid-
| sized Orion would use 800 to get to orbit. Plutonium is
| $4000/g which means $6.4 billion to launch Orion. Orion that
| puts 1600t in orbit. Or 10 Starships which is less as
| disposable rockets and way less if reuasable.
| philipkglass wrote:
| In 1965 the Atomic Energy Commission put the cost of
| plutonium 239 at $10/gram, which by simple consumer price
| indexing (only a rough guide, admittedly) would make it
| $96/gram today.
|
| See Table I in this publication "Values In Spent Fuel From
| Power Reactors":
|
| https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4618921
|
| At $96 per gram instead of $4000, that's a much more
| attractive $154 million to put 1600 tons in orbit. Uranium
| enrichment costs have fallen greatly since the 1960s as
| centrifuges have replaced gaseous diffusion, so uranium-
| fueled units would probably cost less (despite the greater
| mass of uranium required).
|
| I'd say that the main modern problems of a terrestrially
| launched Orion are treaty violations and giving a plausible
| cover for nations to again pursue developing "peaceful"
| nuclear explosives.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| IIRC the estimate was that the extra radiation from a launch
| would kills tens of people per launch, not thousands. Still not
| great (especially if you are one of those victims), but not as
| much as you might expect.
| tppiotrowski wrote:
| There is also a book called Project Orion: The True Story of the
| Atomic Spaceship. It's still sitting on my shelf, but I don't
| remember it being a particularly inspiring read because it was
| tailored towards interstellar travel when we hadn't even reached
| Mars yet.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| Makes me wonder if there ever will be a type of propulsion that
| doesn't rely on throwing out mass behind a spaceship.
| toast0 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail doesn't throw mass out
| the back. Although, it's not a lot of propulsion, it's
| something.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| Title should better be "Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)".
|
| There's too many "Orion" things out there to make it clear that
| this specific one is about nuclear propulsion.
| breppp wrote:
| Similarly crazy idea, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Hercules
| A nuclear tipped SAM, blow all the missiles out of the sky
| together with the sky
| HPsquared wrote:
| Related, Sprint missile test (anti-ballistic-missile missile).
| Extremely fast acceleration, you can see in the test footage
| which is not sped up.
|
| Mass: 7,700 lbs.; Thrust: 650,000 lbs.
|
| Around 100 G of acceleration, reaching Mach 10 within 5
| seconds.
|
| "The first stage was exhausted after only 1.2 seconds, but
| produced 650,000 pounds-force (2,891 kilonewtons) of thrust. On
| separation, the spent first stage disintegrated due to
| aerodynamic forces. The second stage fired within 1 to 2
| seconds of launch. Interception at an altitude of 1 to 19 miles
| (1.5 to 30 km) took at most 15 seconds."
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)
|
| https://youtu.be/kvZGaMt7UgQ
| [deleted]
| roywiggins wrote:
| The Russians still have theirs.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_s...
| moffkalast wrote:
| And well, the Genie missile of course
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie
| ianburrell wrote:
| Nuclear tipped SAM isn't too crazy for the time. They were
| defending against nuclear-armed supersonic bombers and knocking
| out multiple with one missile was good idea. Early SAMs also
| weren't that good.
|
| There were lots of nuclear tactical weapons (some bonkers) at
| the time. Nuclear torpedos. Nuclear anti-submarine rockets.
| Nuclear artillery shells. Nuclear tactical rockets.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| it was a fun plot point of the Remembrance of Earth's Past
| trilogy (Three Body Problem) too
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| There is a Kerbal Space Program mod [1] that adds this to the
| game. It is hysterically fun to use because it is insanely
| unbalanced compared to normal space flight requirements. Want to
| change your orbit 180deg and fly backwards? No problem. Goto any
| planet the "direct" route? Sure, why not. Take off from the
| launch pad so fast you'll think the game broke? Not a problem -
| The Kerbal's don't worry about a little fallout.
|
| No idea how this would ever actually work in reality for manned
| spaceflight. For unmanned it seems relatively doable (ignoring
| the entire cost of getting it off the ground and into space
| first). But for a manned mission? Being subject to 2-4g is one
| thing, but to have it happen regularly... like a jackhammer
| almost? Sounds like a _really_ bad trip. You could not do
| anything while that engine was firing (not that it 'd be easy to
| do something under 2g constant acceleration) without risk of
| being in the wrong place/position at the wrong time. I don't know
| what the long terms effects of repeated, assumingly rapid, 2-4g
| pulsing is on the human body.... but I'd guess it falls under
| "can't be anything good" category.
|
| [1] https://umbraspaceindustries.github.io/UmbraSpaceIndustries/
| galacticaactual wrote:
| So there are ways to make this interesting in the game and
| bring it back to balance. Some recommendations:
|
| - The USI pulse nukes are expensive. Play on career mode so you
| are cash constrained and have to rigorously plan for their
| build, use, and refueling.
|
| - Roleplay not using them anywhere near low home-planet orbit
| for fallout reasons. I.e. the ship is built and is parked in a
| shipyard in Cislunar space and kerbonauts must ride an
| intermediary shuttle vessel to crew it.
|
| - Use a life support pack and planet mods that add
| interplanetary destinations. Having your kerbonauts on a nuke
| ship around an extrasolar planetary body far away from home
| with limited supplies will add plenty to the mix.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Based on the amount of time a Kerbal can survive orbiting the
| sun in their barely-shielded capsules, I am inclined to think
| that they are immune to radiation damage, like tardigrades.
| adrenvi wrote:
| Project Orion uses a pusher plate mounted on giant springs to
| spread out the force of each explosion. If the system is
| designed correctly it should result in constant acceleration.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| This was supposed to be in Kerbal Space Program 2, and you can
| see an early version of it in some of the promotional
| materials. Time will tell when it makes its way into the game.
| st_goliath wrote:
| An other quite interesting concept (also a little less "out
| there" and actually, successfully tested) is the NERVA engine,
| also linked at the bottom of the article[1].
|
| It uses a nuclear reactor to heat up a single propellant (liquid
| hydrogen) which then rapidly expands as it goes out the nozzle at
| the end, resulting in quite high specific impulse and is more
| efficient than a chemical rocket.
|
| If we want to go really _far out_ in terms of crazy rocket
| designs, there is also the concept of the nuclear salt-water
| rocket[2][3].
|
| This one uses enriched plutonium or uranium salts, dissolved in
| water, inside a neutron-absorbent fuel tank design. The water is
| pushed out through a pipe, where an uncontrolled chain reaction
| starts. If it goes fast enough, it explodes right inside the
| engine bell, pushing the rocket. The proposed design in the
| original paper is supposed to generate hundreds of gigawatts of
| thermal power. This is comparable to the Chernobyl reactor #4
| when it exploded, but unlike Chernobyl (which only exploded once)
| or the pulsed Orion engine, it could run _continuously_. The
| stuff that flies out of the nozzle easily reaches escape velocity
| _of the solar system_.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA?useskin=vector
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-
| water_rocket?uses...
|
| [3] Obligatory Scott Manley video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvZjhWE-3zM
| atoav wrote:
| The nuclear salt reactor one is the answer to the question:
| "How can we make rocket engine testing more dangerous."
| perihelions wrote:
| There's one more: the boring idea of combining a closed,
| electric-generating nuclear fission system with an (electric-
| powered) ion engine. Both components being flight tested and
| not crazy.
| jerf wrote:
| That doesn't sound like something that could get you off of
| the Earth.
|
| It's probably a great choice for once you're already in
| space, where being able to apply even very small thrusts
| nearly-continuously really adds up.
| Laremere wrote:
| Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2423/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-16 23:00 UTC)