Mission to Mars: Orion nuclear propulsion - Orbiter Space Flight Simulator

[RalPHCABO]

maybe had some problems with real nuke force into deep space.

but very nice clip. tks

[thebaskill]

shit, if NASA hadn't been such pussies and further developed this, we would have had a manned landing on mars or a moon base by the 90s

[1DanConnors]

@thebaskill Actually the original plan was to arrive at the moons of Saturn some time in the 1970's.

[Scottrchrdsn]

Interesting.



[mylifeisnapless]

Why not an alternative for just exploring mars, bringing back little to no economic return for such a large investment? We don't want to see manned mars missions go the way of manned moon missions. Let's go to Ceres first. Most likely 20% water by mass, providing shielding and fuel for future rockets. Also water for terraforming mars, making the process faster. Fund it by the entirely gold large asteroid in the asteroid belt. Physical movement of materials could be done by slingshot, too.

[1DanConnors]

@mylifeisnapless By chemical rocket a one way trip to Ceres is 2.5 years (over 3 times the length of a trip to Mars). A 1st generation Orion could do it in a couple of months. No solid gold asteroid has been discovered, but, assuming the discovery of a 1 percent gold asteroid, a 1st generation Orion could return, maybe, 100 tons of it, with a value of around 3 billion dollars. A much larger Orion would be needed to actually turn a profit this way. Not saying it couldn't be done, just not today.

[mylifeisnapless]

@1DanConnors Totally not today. Here's the resources. I was kinda fibbing about an entirely gold asteroid, but there's definitely incentive. Such an asteroid could pay for future missions, and provide raw materials to be used in space for the building of future spaceships. The spacecraft doesn't even have to carry the stuff back. It could slingshot the materials (in small packages in case it misses) into an orbit around the moon. The time waiting for materials is long, but worth it.

[1DanConnors]

@mylifeisnapless Maybe you saw the spoof of a solid gold asteroid hitting Earth in 2020, driving the gold market into the celler. Whan the expert recommended replacement of platinum for gold futures--too much--hilarious. I agree; there is untold wealth waiting in the asteroid belt. In fact a huge civilization could emerge there as very large (100 mile diameter) artificial planets are built. With the population on the inside, rotating to produce "gravity" these worlds could be very Earthlike.

[Ian8505]

I'm not saying this won’t work well, but I would to mention that the bomb has very little effect in the vacuum of space. The pressure wave would be very weak. I’m not sure this would be a cost effective means of space travel. JMO

[1DanConnors]

@Ian8505 2,000 low yield nuke bombs: 20 billion dollars, max. Building/testing the basic vehicle: 20 billion dollars. Building/testing the chemical launch vehicle: 20 billion dollars. Total: 60 billion dollars for the first Orion. Bombs for 2nd Orion: around 4 billion. Second Orion: 5 billion. Second chem booster: 2 billion. Total: 11 billion. Chemical Mars mission: it can't be done. Total cost: 0 dollars. The question is, do we want to explore space or not? Current US deficit 1.5 trillion/year.

[lanunselat]

i think you only need to explode one bomb every few weeks. We still need gravitational slingshot to give us the headstart to say 200,000kmh. After that, we accelerate using the bomb. This will spare the equipments and the crew from a sudden jolt when you use the nuclear bomb propulsion directly from the earth orbit.

[Ehelon]

Whoever decided to score this with Holst's Mars is a goddamned genius!!!

[Shuttheheckup735]

ME

WANT

ANTIMATTER

ENGINE

RAWR >:|

Seriously when the hell's NASA getting more funding? We coulda had men on mars long ago...

[Putz4Ever]

@Shuttheheckup735 Well Nasa has been slacking off lately, but after some petition i think they are getting back on their feat, they just sent a rover called curiosity to space, that is huge, and are planning on sending a man to mars in no, not 10 years, but in the next 3 to 5 years.

[FurlogTheGiant]

@Putz4Ever

man on mars in 3-5 years?

no way man no way!

[Putz4Ever]

@FurlogTheGiant Check the NASA website and look for Orion.

[ChilesGreen]

We need a thruster utilizing continuous nuclear fission.  Propulsion from thousands of nuclear bombs is ridiculous.

[33333138]

I Have Download The Orion,Is So Funny LOL

[NoiDontWantFries]

Next up: Daedalus! :P

[TheFacebookisbad]

radiation+antimatter needs and the list go on but is a good idea

[ThePearlofdarkness]

it's a good idea, the idea of nuclear propultion compaired torocket fuel, finally an engin not powered by oil.

[golthimere]

This type of ship is too heavy to launch from the ground. I'm in astronautics; we'd build it in orbit, from prefabricated parts launched on smaller rockets. The warheads would be launched in incomplete; nuclear material separate from high explosive triggers. Once assembled and manned, the craft would be towed outside of earth orbit, and then the first warhead would pop off. It may sound scary because of the whole nuclear thing, but this is our best bet to reach the outer solar system. We'l do it

[1DanConnors]

@golthimere That's a complete load of BS. It's powered by nuke bombs; it could take off from Jupiter!! Using your concept of reality the ship would never be built. There's no way our civilization could put 1,000 tons of anything in orbit. Look how long it took to "finish" the space station. As long as people like you run things we are going nowhere in space. Maybe the Chinese will have the balls to build Orion. It's clear the land of the sheep and home of the tree huggers never will. US RIP.

[keyofdoornarutorscat]

@1DanConnors Land of sheep and tree huggers?

I think America is land of the fat and lazy.

[greekfitercod4ever]

@golthimere the only answer is anti-matter

[baalisgod666]

@golthimere Exactly. People should realize that space is full of dangerous radiation already, so no problem. I hope I get to see it.

[SuperRobertmatrix]

no!!! you are spoiling the idea with your crappy video!! ...note that no way are they going to use the engine so close to earth!!

[ashia4life313]

Won't work, in 1947 this was tried at the Salt flats and failed because the tests subjects became irradiated.

[MillerCaster0]

how is mars in november?

[KukleRUS1]

parachute at the Mars O_O

[greekfitercod4ever]

too much fallout

[icars98]

2:37

WTF Why is it so still!?

You mean it could float in orbit without any movement!?

[Eagle1Division2]

@rseferino1

That solar array at the bottom of the screen at launch... I thought it was about to get a power surge O.o

[JuanGMSG]

lol thid music is really like another one from star wars.

[MrLOMPST99]

nice song (at 1:21 I hope that this space ship no longer breaks down)

[eiverr]

Cancer drive :P

[xSolidCake]

Reminds me of my Kerbal Space Program ship ;3

[Cactarpus]

@xSolidCake agreed

[gattomattott]

questo progetto è mediocre consuma ancora troppo con esplosione del combustibile gran parte del energia dello scoppio si disperde in tutte le direzioni,io so un sistema migliore, in grado 1 di consumare molto meno ,2 garantire un accelerazione costante pari a 1g che permetterebbe di avere la forza gravitazionale perenne nelle spazio, ed in pochi anni raggiungere quasi in 95% della velocità della luce,come?se mi date 100.000.000 di euro ve lo dico

[STRK3R1234567]

I know, project Orion was freaking awesome, but its not Star Wars....

[ApolloWasReal]

Great animation, though using Orion-type propulsion to leave or re-establish earth orbit is a spectacularly bad idea. Nuclear weapons tests in space by the US in the early 1960s injected huge amounts of charged particles, mostly electrons from beta decay of fission products, into the Van Allen belts. What few satellites were in orbit then were quickly killed by the extra radiation.

Orion propulsion should be done only far far away from the earth.

[1DanConnors]

@ApolloWasReal In other words, Orion should never be flown-period. There's no way our technology can assemble an Orion far from Earth. There's also no need for it to built in deep space. An Orion launch from LEO (about 100 miles) would fire all its mininukes--for the acceleration--far before reaching the innner Van Allen belt. The output of an early model Orion (as here depicted) would release less than 250 kilotons. As I've said before the sun supplies nearly all the belts' charged particles.

[ApolloWasReal]

@1DanConnors An Orion launch at 160 km would still release an enormous amount of beta radiation into populated orbits, and it would take some time for that radiation to drain out. Check the reports of the high altitude nuclear detonations by both the USSR and the USA.

Yes, the sun supplies nearly all the belts' charged particles because we're no longer detonating nuclear weapons in space. There's even a treaty against it.

I'd use a nuclear thermal rocket to leave earth orbit.

[1DanConnors]

@ApolloWasReal The artificial radiation belt you're referring to was created by the Starfish Prime test. The bomb had the power of 1.3 megatons, and was detonated at an altitude of almost 400 miles. The minimal Orion shown in this clip masses slightly less than 1,000 tons and would release a total explosive force of less than 150 kilotons. The individual blasts would have a yield of less than 1 kiloton each and a range of action of about 40 kilometers. As I've said previously the sun would input

[1DanConnors]

about 4,000 times the charged particles and radiation of the Orion during the entire time of its acceleration. Using a nuclear thermal rocket to haul the Orion to a spot above 24 hour orbit (deep space), you'd need dozens of launches to assemble a 1,000 ton Orion at that distance. Each launch would require 1,000 tons of LH2 in LEO. Our civilization can't do this. 3 small Orions could haul a 500 ton factory into the asteroid belt, which would be capable of building truly large, efficient ships.

[ApolloWasReal]

@1DanConnors Oh, I don't dispute that it would be harder to do without Orion propulsion in LEO.

The real problem is getting all that stuff into LEO in the first place. Surely you don't suggest using Orion from the surface??

167 tons to the asteroid belt doesn't sound like much. The Saturn V could hurl 100,000 lb (50 tons) from the surface toward the moon, which is nearly earth escape.

[1DanConnors]

@ApolloWasReal As long as Orion ignites its main engine above the atmosphere I'd have no problem. A subortical launch with an apogee of 100 miles would do fine. The main problem with nuclear thermal rockets is something called reactor decay after heating, and it's one of the reasons NERVA was cancelled. When you shut down NERVA's reactor it doesn't begin to cool immediately. Unless you run several thousand pounds of LH2 reaction mass (called coolant in the industry) through the core after...

[1DanConnors]

shutdown, the core will melt. This aftercooling takes hours and lowers NERVA's practical Isp below 800. Also, I didn't say a 167 ton factory to the asteroids; I said 500, the cargo of 3 minimum sized Orion launches. Here I'm figuring an Isp for the mini Orions of about 1,600, a total delta v requirement of 12 miles per second, and only 2 of the 3 ships returning to Earth (one being used as a one way cargo carrier). A 500 ton factory, nuke powered, highly automated, could accomplish quite a bit.

[1DanConnors]

The first thing it would do is reproduce itself several times over. When it got to 20,000 tons it would start producing really big ships, capable of reaching anywhere in our solar system. Eventually it would become so large a permanent crew would be needed, who would be housed in some sort of O'Neil colony. By then it would be entirely sef sufficient, and we would have a permanent Human presence in deep space, which is something I believe we really need.

[putiovas20]

Chernobyl in the sky xD

[illustriouschin]

Go, fuck machine, go. Fuck everything in space.

[AgrivatedKillah]

Whose guy that proposed a nuclear battle ship? Lmao

[1DanConnors]

@AgrivatedKillah An AF general, a brainless fool. He had no effect on anything. This is our one chance to redeem Hunanity's future. We can throw it away on argunements on how much this is going to harm the "Earth Mother", or we can actually do something. We can advance outward to the stars, or we can retreat to join the dolphins on their march to their end in the Sun's Nova period.

[JFrazer4303]

Note also that a monster booster like the Sea Dragon by Truax as designed at about the same time as Orion, could do it.

"not as fast as we think it is"... A stripped down crew-only ship, in Earth orbit after a slow cargo ship was safely in Mars orbit, could ignore synodic periods and blast straight to Mars when the two planets were physically closest. 21 days Earth orbit-mars orbit.

[1DanConnors]

@JFrazer4303 I honestly believe the ship depicted is longer than 10 meters (33 feet). I would say at least 150 feet long and at least 20 feet wide. The mass given in the article accompanying the video is around 1,000 tons. This is still a very small Orion, and, as such, very inefficient, payload limited. If 4 were launched at once, with only 2 for the return trip and 2 as one way cargo carriers, you'd get a very respectable cargo to the surface of Mars. My "guestimate" is over 200 tons.

[2771]

@1DanConnors Ten meters is a reference to the diameter of the pusher plate not the length of the ship, I believe the ship designed for a Mars mission was a ten meter pusher plate and a length of fifty meters, it had a mass of 1,000 tons. There were designs that were as long as 1,000 meters with plats in the 100 meter diameter range.

[1DanConnors]

@2771 I stand corrected. Would really have liked to see that 1,000 meter ship built. We could have explored much of the solar system by now. Instead we're still paddling around LEO in our chemically fuelled canoes. The US, of course, is nonger even capable of building the canoes.

[2771]

@1DanConnors Wouldn't it be awesome to have 1,000+ M long ships, I really wish people would grow up and get over their fear of nuclear power.

[JFrazer4303]

The ship depicted is copied from the ten meter design, which was to be lofted to a hyperbolic trajectory above most of the atmosphere by S1_C booster.

It includes the forward end with it's crew stations for boost, extra shielding provided for the nuke powered flight, and artificial G spin induced provisions.

With a huge booster like the one depicted, the entire 500+ ton ten meter ship could be lifted to orbit, where perhaps it's towed above the Van Allen belts.

[superotherguy1]

What's the music?!?!!??!?!?!?!?!??!

[1DanConnors]

@superotherguy1 Holst's "The Planets Suite" The Mars movement. Check the credits at the end of the film clip.

[superotherguy1]

Music?!?!

[LOLReaper05]

you could drill through asteroids with that!

[illuminationclub]

We've already been to Mars.......dumbasses

[deathrooster14]

@illuminationclub Uh no we havent...

[pmcmanus420]

What's the music for the soundtrack?

[SlyTy98]

Could you explain why the ship doesnt explode from the nuclear energy or does space change the properties of a nuke

[maximusfive]

@SlyTy98

1.) The nukes used would be significantly smaller than ones that would be used as weapons; Probably less than a kT each.

2.) There is little to no 'air' in space to carry a shockwave, so a major component of a nuclear weapons damage capability doesn't exist.

3.) The 'pusher plate' at the back of the ship is a giant steel plate, more than a few meters thick, this 'absorbs' the blast energy and converts it into kinetic energy for the ship.

[Apvatar3000]

ironic..that we are destroying this alive planet called earth and yet fascinated about going to mars for exploration ..for what ?...signs of live ? ironic in so many ways..

[mariamole011]

is this a compute game?

[helljumpr5150]

Can you try one using the NERVA engine?

[omega4chimp]

Why not just build a giant gasoline pipe line tarts hoot off onto space from earth that have gasoline space stations along the way like we do on earth?

[GrayFox2k8]

earth to mars and back to earth in 4 weeks. nearest star in about 60 years. they should really put more effort in this engine by using those bombs for something actually good for mankind.

[mariamole011]

@GrayFox2k8 four weeeks from and to mars, so we could do tourism there.

[masterdelrap]

best way to travel the universe

[kurtu5]

Its funny how the most complex piece of equipment here are the two Mars shuttles. Thats the hard engineering problem here. Orion is a snap in comparison.

[Fragem420]

just ban nuclear propulsion in low earth orbit.

[TheOriginalMACchine]

The Moon and Mars is loaded with TRITIUM, if we had a rocket engine that ran on tritium we could REFUEL AFTER WE GET THERE!

Every time you see news from NASA stating they have discovered MORE water on the Moon or on Mars, it is NOT REALLY WATER they talking about its tritium and deuterium, the suns radiation makes everything radioactive.

We already could have bases on the Moon and Mars with fast heavy lifters to mine the astroid belt, those bases wouldn't even need any resources from Earth!

[TheOriginalMACchine]

WHY WASN'T THIS DESIGNED TO USE TRITIUM ???

Trigging mechanisms on nuclear warheads use tritium (heavy water), thus, it is the nuclear fuel that is the easiest to ignite.

Tritium has a half live of 20 years and is relatively safe and has LOW human toxicity compared to all other forms of nuclear fuel, well, accept deuterium which could also be used, the point is if they used tritium we would have been on Mars by 1975 and they would NOT have had to kill anyone to do it !

[Merto6]

They could build it around the moon and launch it from there. I'm sure finding life on mars or europe or anywhere in the solar system will ignite the race to visit other planets again.

[RecklessTornado]

Mommy, what are those flashes in the sky?

[lightfdar]

I know you had the best of intentions but this is a terrible way to get around the universe. The pollution is overbearing and its not as fast as you think it is.

[rseferino1]

@lightfdar The space is filled with lethal radiation, I do not believe that the explosion of a hundred atomic bombs come to that.

[lightfdar]

@rseferino1 yes it is small to the universe insignificant even, but remember humans are of that scale insignificant in comparison to the universe, check out what I'm saying

[1DanConnors]

@rseferino1 Great video, thanks! Don't be discouraged by the critics. They are fools with no creativity of their own. My suggestion would be to launch a fleet of 4 over a short interval. They would travel together for mutual support in the event of (for example) a failure in the life support systems on one. The beauty of it is that only 2 would need to return to Earth. The other 2 would be one way flights, enabling us to bring hundreds of tons of payload to Mars' surface. A base could be built.

[lightfdar]

@rseferino1 yes it is an amazing video with a wonderful concept.

[cdoftx]

@lightfdar Not so, once you're outside of the Earth's orbit there's no impact whatsoever.

[lightfdar]

@cdoftx well maybe my reasoning is shoddy. However to me it seems that to the pilots of this rocket would be putting themselves in allot of danger riding a toxic go cart through space while only being 200 feet away from the explosion. Also this rocket would leave a trail of highly radiative Debris everywhere it went which would accumulate and make each round trip more dangerous for humans. Don't think I'm treading on your dream I like the idea of interstellar flight, just not this way.

[lightfdar]

I prefer project Daedalus which to me was innovative for its time however its way too large and there are way currently to improve upon the concept. I like the ( tau zero foundation ) good people with amazing ideas check them out. I also like the (Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket) however I think there are better ways to pull it off like using fusion instead of just plasma for even better thrust. deep space travel is essential for survival, again I just don't like doing it this way

[bfmlc]

@lightfdar Really stupid comment. What 'pollution' exactly? Radiation constantly emitted by the Sun alone equals trillions of Hiroshima bombs exploded every passing second. As for speed - this is by far the fastest method of propulsion available to humankind at this point.

[lightfdar]

@bfmlc sadly you need to do some reading check my other comments, I give references to better alternatives, as for the best speeds possible if you check around you'll find the initial or first set of calculations were off and the would not be such amazing speed as we first thought. Lastly pollution, the density of the radiation of the sun which is 93 million miles away is insignificant to the density of radiation and other radiative material which is only 200 feet away. think about it.

[bfmlc]

@lightfdar Nobody's advocating launching it from the surface anymore, so your wining about atmospheric pollution is moot. As to making strong statements like 'the initial or first set of calculations were off', you will have to explain what this BS is founded upon. Please indulge me and show me who and when disproved Dyson's calculations.

[lightfdar]

@bfmlc Again you still need to do more reading. As a launch in orbit would still be a bad thing, for even in orbit one would have to take into consideration the earth's magnetosphere as any explosions within the magnetosphere would carry radioactive materials back to earth. Low Earth orbit would generate an electromagnetic pulse that could cause significant damage to computers and satellites, as well as flooding the van Allen belts with high-energy radiation.

[lightfdar]

@bfmlc now if you read my other comments you would have seen where I stated the risk to the lives on board this toxic go cart. As radiation in the living areas would be as high as 700 Rad per an explosion or pulse and there are say 2000 pulses for any decent acceleration <_< also bear in mind anything over 500 Rad leads to a decrease in blood cells an increase in cancer by 1 in 250, and with 1000 Rad you get radiation sickness, low blood count and a 1 in 125 chance of cancer.

[lightfdar]

@bfmlc Lastly my comments on the speed of the ship >:3 the speed of plasma debris is proportional to the square root of the change in the temperature. which is still a huge speed since nukes get so hot so fast but you can't stay too close to the fire cracker or you will get burned, the diameter of the nuclear fireball is proportional to the square root of the bomb's explosive yield. Then you work out yo specific impulse Isp= (C0*Ve)/Gn this stats the amount of material that hit the plate

[lightfdar]

@bfmlc times the velocity of plasma all over acceleration of gravity. So even though the velocity of the plasma may be very high(^_^ 10 kiloton of TNT=100 km/s with a distributive area of 100 meters in diameter; 1 Megaton = 10,000 km/s to 1000 m dis) aka your nozzle velocity all of it will never hit your pressure plait. But why take my word check the wiki under 'Interstellar missions' it shows the max speeds, Orion's is 3%-5% of 'c' . Also look at watch?v=3l2QopJbDBs&feature=pl­ayer_embedded.

[lightfdar]

@bfmlc In closing I come not to hurt or to step on anyone's ideas or dreams I would love to wake up and just decide to go to the edge of the universe however this method while innovative for it's time had many flaws and quite frankly I think this generation can do better. So the next time we meet please no insults, lets debate this like gentlemen and come to a better understanding of each others ideas.

[kurtu5]

@lightfdar

Orion scales and is fast. You could dome over Manhattan and put a huge plate underneath it and launch it to Alpha Centauri at .83c. The bigger you make them, the more efficient they get.

[1DanConnors]

@lightfdar You have no knowledge of what you're saying. Outer space is not the size of Earth. The volume of our solar system alone excedes the volume of Earth by 1 x 10 to the 18th power. With an average density of 100 nucleons per cubic centimeter, if you flew a million Orion flights the average density would still be less than 101 nucleons per cubic centimeter. The velocity potential of Orion is 1,000 times that of our best chemically fuelled rocket. Quit hugging the trees, and do the math!!

[lightfdar]

@1DanConnors Do yo start a conversation by trying to insult someone or are you void or even incapable of manners. Second were in any of my comments have you seen me state that outer space is the size of the earth. I would advise before you embarrass yourself go and read my other comments and see my arguments before just spouting nonsense.

[1DanConnors]

@lightfdar Quote "The pollution is overbearing and its not as fast as you think it is." This is from your last post. It indicates that you have no conception of the enormous volume out there (10 to the 18th power x Earth for just our solar system, which is a flyspeck against the immensity of the galaxy). Almost all that volume is a vacuum better than anything we can create on Earth. Anything dumped into that void will expand to nothingness very quickly. I've read your other posts. They are...

[lightfdar]

@1DanConnors WOW <_< you misunderstand me completely. First off you seem to be cherry picking from my comments since (a) that is not my last comment and (b) I go on to explain why I said the pollution is overbearing. Reason such as the amount of radiation reaching the pilots and the fact that space was never just empty space and that you have complex magnetic fields like the earths magnetic or Ionic or Van allen radiation belt and one would have take into account effect on them.

[lightfdar]

@1DanConnors Also do you know ow long your very quickly will and what effects that radiation could do? Especially if it were to fall back into the earths north or south poles. Now the condescending bit, it was never my intention to be condescending if I was I apologize to the community. The riddled with errors part I would like you to educate me on this since I have have not found my figures. I give you en dot wiki dot org / wiki / Project _ Orion

[1DanConnors]

@lightfdar ..mostly condescending and riddled with errors. The diameter of a nuclear fireball is proportional to the cube root of its explosive force not the square root as you stated. EMP effects from mininukes in low orbit would not even reach the ground. The reference blast that got EMP in the books was a multiMEGATON device. 90 percent of the directed energy nuke pulses will leave the pusher plate at velocities an order of magnitude greater than escape velocity, having no effect on Earth.

[lightfdar]

@1DanConnors and ( op3nyourmind7 dot word pr3ss dot com to - inifnity - and - beyond/) these two sites seem to agree with what I have reported so if you have other source material I would love to see it. What you said about mini nukes is correct you would need nukes in the scale of megatons to give off an EMP however if I'm not mistaken were there not plan to do exactly this in there writings. Even though they had plans to make the booms shaped a specific way so as to direct

[lightfdar]

@1DanConnors most of the energies toward the plait even then allot of radiation would go in every direction also I think what your trying to say here (90 percent of the directed energy nuke pulses will leave the pusher plate at velocities an order of magnitude greater than escape velocity, having no effect on Earth.) is that it would escape from the earths orbit so fast it would not harm the earth. My concern are how do you know how long it will take to leave orbit and were u got the 90% from??

[lightfdar]

@1DanConnors correction there should be a ' false' in the second comment on the second to last line. also to find my sources type in google ( The velocity of the plasma debris is proportional). Ow a good site for you would be (pdf geni dot com) (Project Orion nuclear propulsion)(NUCLEAR SPACE PROPULSION) amazing book that will show you allot of alternatives. I don't come to slander or step on dreams just knowledge and understanding. Please let us help each other to understand each others ideas

[1DanConnors]

@lightfdar Is English not your native language? I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what you're trying to say. I believe you are concerned with radiation from the blasts harming the crew. This would only be a problem with an atmospheric launch. Alpha, Beta, and Gamma radiation would not penetrate the pusher plate and payload to reach the crew. However, neutron flux, reflected off air molecules would. A launch from low orbit wouldn't have this problem--no air for the neutrons to bounce off.

[1DanConnors]

@lightfdar Second problem nuclear fallout. The vast majority of nuke fallout is produced by ground level blasts. These vaporize and irradiate millions of tons of dirt, concrete, steel, and people, which is then blasted into the jet stream where it traverses the Earh, falling out. A low orbit Orion launch will produce no fallout, but some charged particles that might have a negligible effect on the Van Allen belts, created by charged particles from Sol in quantities vastly greater than an Orion..

[1DanConnors]

@lightfdar ..could ever hope to create. Since radiation from the Van Allen belts doesn't currently reach the ground, it would be pointless to worry that a .0001 % increase would cause it to. Normal fluctuations in the belts greatly exceed that change. I sure wish we got more than 100 words per post in this forum. My source material is several textbooks on nuclear physics, a civil engineering text my dad used when he was building bomb shelters for the Air Force in the 60's, and my own mind.

[1DanConnors]

@lightfdar The CE text is where I learned fireballs are proportionl in diameter to the cube root of the greater force. Think about it. A 13 megaton device is 1,000 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. It has 1,000 times the volume of fire. Volume of a sphere (fireball) is 4/3 pi r^3 .Ten cubed is 1,000. The bombs used for Orion were not normal A bombs. They didn't produce a fireball, but a fire cylinder, similar in practice to the Monroe effect used in H.E.A.T. artillery rounds. Almost all..

[1DanConnors]

the explosive force is channelled into a cylindrical plasma capable of penetrating most tanks' armor. Interestingly enough the heat flash of a nuke is proportional to the square root of its power, which is what makes big nukes so devastating. Ditto the EMP flash. So the EMP for an Orion mini nuke would be about 1/30th the radius of a 1 megaton bomb (maybe 10 miles). Later really big Orions will be built in space, far from Earth, because the nukes they use would be too big to be used near Earth.

[1DanConnors]

@lightfdar Finally (at least for tonight) Orion has a built in safety feature that no other type vehicle can have. Its pusher plate gives the crew complete protection from the most powerful solar flares. Just keep it permanently pointed at Sol, and the crew will be in the shade (as long as crew compartment diameter is less than pusher plate's). The crew of any other type vehicle caught in a flare might as well hold a lily. They're dead. So Orion becomes the safest interplanetary transportation.

[lightfdar]

@1DanConnors You know your actually pretty cool. Ow could you give me the name of your dad's book :) I might just need it, or should i say i would like to read it. Yes I agree with you on the length of the post, they are way too short for any decent explanation of ideas. Please tell me your going to peruse Engineering I think you would be good at it. I have to agree partially with most of your comments like the shielding of Orion, I disagree with the extent to which it would be able to sheild..

[lightfdar]

@1DanConnors there are other points that makes scene like you think the effect will be negligible on the Van Allen belt, I disagree since of the number of booms per sec and me just not knowing conclusively what the end result will be. I put it too you that if project Orion was ever to be done, allot allot of the IFs would have to be removed, with allot of testing. We would have to find out exactly what the long term effects are, if you want people like me happy. Have a good night :)

[1DanConnors]

@lightfdar I'm going to give you some figures that are true, but unprovable over such a short space. Earth recieves 1/(2 x 10^9) of Sol's total output. This amounts to the complete conversion of 4 pounds of matter per second into energy. The energy is in the form of heat, UV, and charged particles (which make up the Van Allen belts). A minimum sized Orion (as here depicted) releases the equivalent of less than half a pound of energy over its entire accelleration period of about 500 seconds...

[1DanConnors]

This energy is also in the form of heat, UV, charged particles, etc. During the time it's accellerating the Earth recieves 4,000 times as much heat, UV, etc. from the sun as it does from the Orion. After Orion's engine shuts down, luckily, the sun continues to pump out the same amount of energy. In 1 hour we get about 30,000 times the energetics of an Orion launch. Dad's old book CE Handbook for USAF Construction was printed in 1958. I wouldn't look for it at Amazon.com. I majored in Physics.

[1DanConnors]

@lightfdar The pusher plate protection from radiation (including solar flares) is virtually complete. An inch of steel reduces or deflects incoming radiation to half its incoming value. Ten inches reduces it to 1/(2^10) or 1/1,024th of incoming. The pusher plate in the video is about 30 inches of steel. It reduces incoming radiation to less than one billionth of its incoming value. This is what protects the crew from exploding nukes less than 200 feet away and from solar flares.

[lightfdar]

@1DanConnors WOW.... I have to double check these figures. To think steel would have these properties I though this would be a repeat of the nuclear plane were they stick some lead on the other end of it and hope for the best. Ow I myself am studding to be an Engineer :) stuff like this interest me. Ow I'll give a more complete thought by Friday I'm kinda swamped with work so this was just so I didn't appear rude.

[1DanConnors]

@lightfdar I got the figures from Wikipedia "Fallout Protection" (hope I spelled Wikipedia right). Their information seems to be more objective and less influenced by emotionalism and politics than most internet "information" sites. I have just one question. When you start a sentence with "Ow" what does that mean? Main problem with the nuke plane was the neutron flux bouncing off air molecules and bypassing the shadow shielding. That and they couldn't get the engine light enough.

[1DanConnors]

@1DanConnors Make that Wikipedia "Radiation Protection". Sorry, having a fallout problem of my own. My brain is falling out.

[Abdikarimelmi]

@1DanConnors What NASA and AF need's is another Cold war.

[lithicyde]

@lightfdar remember that the sun is nuclear powered.

[OrogDeMalfur]

what was going on 2:30 - 2:40

[RecklessTornado]

@OrogDeMalfur Mars Orbital Insertion

[Armigo91]

5seconds stay. Damn, was mars really that boring. Perhaps install orulex, supplies the scenery with some elevation.

But otherwise,

wicked video.

[rseferino1]

@Armigo91 Being one of my first videos, sorry. Orulex did not even exist when I did. See my other video, where an EVA and mountains and valleys on Mars.

[GaunletofDestruction]

I love the music. Its so inspiring!

[45AnthraX]

What advantage does pulse propulsion have over a Nuclear Thermal Rocket? It seems somewhat inefficient in comparison.

[rseferino1]

@45AnthraX On the contrary, is one of the most efficient propulsion methods that have been designed. Nuclear Thermal Rocket allow tens of kilometers per second. Nuclear propulsion press to reach thousands of kilometers per second.

[lightfdar]

@rseferino1 I think you should check your data again nuclear thermal should be of speeds near c if done properly. Also Nuclear propulsion is one of the most inefficient mean of transportation. Remember what efficient means, come again.

[rseferino1]

@lightfdar Do not ask me. Make the physicist who heads the nuclear test "INCA" in June 1956, physicists Stanislaw Ulam, Freeman Dyson and Theodore Taylor. Orion propulsion be more effective, "REALISTIC AND TESTED" there is today, the rest is decades or centuries in the future.

[VTOLAircraftMad]

didn't stay on mars for long!

[warspitejr]

like the Mars music from "the planets"

[RecklessTornado]

@warspitejr Cause it is!

[CalculatorFrenzy]

Jon's Law: Any propulsion system powerful enough to be interesting is a weapon of mass destruction.

[Winner8501]

*hundreds of nukes are detonated in the skies of an alien planet*

"Greetings, we're humans from the planet Earth. We come in peace..."

[KittyRokher]

@Winner8501

>implying that the nukes are detonated that close to a planet in actuality

[NittanyTiger1]

So far, I've been unable to get the Nova SSTE rocket into orbit alone. I haven't been able to find an add-on for general rocket ascent autopilot except for LaunchMFD, which doesn't really work for me. Did you launch the Nova SSTE and put it into orbit manually?

[Joshuapilot4444]

Nice Video I really like it.... :)o(

[MoonBurgle]

nice choice of musics.

[Atymeson]

Awesome, That was a great job with the video and a nicely executed mission. That is my favorite ship to use in the game and I seriously hope to see this technology implemented in my own lifetime. I was always curious as to the correct procedure for landing those Ford Landers, I always ended up crashing.

[MrOrionRebel]

@Atymeson I just subscribed to you and invited you to be a friend. I am designing an upgraded version of Project Orion that I dubbed "Project Orion II" which has the same type of shape as the Orion but the propulsion of Project Daedalus. Orion II will also use phase-shifted electrodyamic drive with its fusion pulse propulsion, like a vast hybrid car in deep space. I am designing Orion II to carry missions throughout the solar system on short timescales and to even take us to the stars!

[nveesky]

Nicely done!!