Project Orion: a re-imagining by Rhys Taylor

Rhys Taylor's Orion project continued- depicts the launching of a 4000 ton class Orion, with STS derived solid rocket boosters.
from http://www.nuclearspace.com

the Orion propulsion idea is a crazy sounding one, but it would work, its the "firecracker under a tin can" principle times a Billion! The U.S. conceived it in the 50's the Chinese could do tomorrow. to get the best thrust you use a thermonuclear shape charge driving a multi-kiloton mass, spacecraft on top of large multistory high shock absorbers backing up a pusher plate coated in an anti-ablation oil. this whole thing would act like an atomic pogo stick.


with the right designs the environmental effects could be minimalised- or not

incidentally this video could have been shot at "Jackass Flats" site of the Project Pluto tests-the world's first nuclear ramjet engine

we could still do this if we wanted to, this idea offers the best in heavy lift capability

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• nuclear
• space
• project
• Orion
• 1950's
• Insane
• fusion
• drive

[twk373]

The blastoff scene was impossible. Chemical rockets require mass ratios in excess of 20; what we saw was a ratio less than 2. Were chemical rockets that powerful, we wouldn't need Orion in the first place. Indeed, the point of Orion is that it can put astronomical payloads into orbit. Of course, the fact that it can do that means it can send those astronomical payloads to other planets.

[saddogmobile]

(artistic license) same as the sound

three ways to launch this sucker, cannon, toss, or tee-up.

Make a hole detonate a bomb in the hole with the ship as a plug at top.

Use adequate chemical thrust to get the ship off the ground so that a bomb can be airburst under it.

suspend or surmount the ship on tower/s with a bomb between it and the ground.

[aoeaoae]

actually, 20:1 is for orbital speed; all we need here is altitude even with zero speed, to make nuke detonations safe(r).

But what about the EMP danger? Maybe it is safer to detonate CLOSER to the ground, because of EMP?

[saddogmobile]

E.M.P. can be accounted foe and the effects of blasts minimized with planning and slection of remote sites. of the "three ways to launch" two use nuclear directly with the toss up only getting the ship off the ground and into position for an air-burst so a rocket apogee of a few kilometers not orbital is needed.

[LouistheHedgehog]

It doesn't look very aerodynamic from underneath.

[Atymeson]

@CestLaGuerreMPInc Those are the habitat sections being suspended on tethers so that they can be spun for artificial gravity. having them so far out allows the spin rate to be lower and minimize nausea.

[nqdp6]

@saddogmobile nuclear explosions don't generate EMPs. The way the explosion interacts with Earth's upper atmosphere and magnetic field generate EMPs. So if you're in space, EMPs are no big deal.

[G777GUN]

@aoeaoae

Hi yaaaaaa,

Not closer to the ground.

[Sabelkatten]

Spin gravity crew capsules, presumably.

[CestLaGuerreMPInc]

Anyone know what those outstretched arms are (are for?) that deploy at 1:09 of the animation?

[cocodrilll]

I think they àre doomed

[MMSchlenk]

Well...And how getting back to earth?

[buckfushes]

cool!

[hellomate639]

Um. I'll take a space elevator instead. Seems easier once we have the nanotubes.

Space elevator: go up into space, send a load off with VASIMR descendant thrusters, get there in a month with an absolutely massive spacecraft and drop a second elevator so that you don't have to burn through the atmosphere.

In fact, even if we DON'T build an elevator here on earth, we should use that in our Mars mission because its so much safer.