Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
Project "Orion": Rocket Powered by an Atomic Machine Gun
darkroastedblend.com — The Ultimate 1950s Space Technology, which almost made it to Saturn Obviously, "almost" is a key word here, but apparently NASA still has "small secret contingency plan division" which is dedicated to preserving "Orion" nuclear propulsion technology - and reviving it in case of a killer asteroid threat.
Sh0rtstak- 745 diggs
- digg it
- divinediva, on 10/11/2008, -4/+20hugely entertaining
- sanman, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1Forget Orion -- let's have a nuclear-powered scramjet, to lift the heaviest payloads possible.
- rudeboyskunk, on 10/11/2008, -11/+5Let's get to the Moon first...one step at a time boys.
- starmanjones, on 10/11/2008, -11/+2nostalgically good. the article was completely happy talk. technically a bust and would have killed everyone on board with the shock of the blast not radiation. never came close to launch.
there are nueclear rockets that generate thrust by passing propellant over a neuclear heated core. these are probably the best "regular" type rockets we've every designed. but they were nix'd by the anti nuclear lobby in the distant past for fear of an explosion... that spread radioactive material. it wasn't likely but it was politically unsellable. they should be looked at again.- geoffg, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Why the ***** are you being dugg down?
- starmanjones, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1i have no idea. :D
but i did run across this. freeman dysons son.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/george_dyson_on ...
- starmanjones, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1i have no idea. :D
- geoffg, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Why the ***** are you being dugg down?
- Sloi, on 10/11/2008, -3/+15Paging Bruce Willis...
- Duckie502, on 10/11/2008, -8/+3Only if Aerosmtih was playing in the background.
- dha07030, on 10/11/2008, -8/+3We need another killer asteroid movie but this time it should NOT suck.
- diggafrica, on 10/11/2008, -3/+12I believe atomic propulsion system is the way forward. If we want to break out of the milky way, we need something with a real punch.. ok we just need to figure out how to control the explosion..
- xptoast, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2How about a real reactor that is similar to a nuclear reactor that would have a few stages.
1. Start nuclear reactor that needs cooling by means of passing water through the reactor core and the tube through another tank that cools it...this case that tank could be in the ocean. Steam produced by the insane temperatures could be made to be held in a pressurized tank.
2. Release pressure sending the initial forces required to launch.
3. Core then is cooled by forced air intake. The air is then heated and pushed out similar to a rocket.
4. Once in space where you no longer have air launch the main pod by having the nuclear core pressurize a held tank of water or gas. That way when the two sections blow apart by means of this pressure it would throw one piece back to earth and the main pod deep into space where rockets could do the rest of the work...
Or.....
Skip all that ***** and go straight to having a nuclear power plant power a ion thruster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster - PrometheusBorn, on 10/11/2008, -1/+1There is no room for error if you use nuclear explosions as a means to go forward. And unfortunately, you can't even make the argument that we have made current rocketry error free.
Nuclear power has many useful applications. Using controlled explosions is not one of them.
Nuclear Ion thrusters have a good shot, but again, is it worth the risk so that we can leave the solar system and explore... nothing? (At least a whole lot of nothing for many many years once we break the confines of our tiny system)- gquaglia, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1There is so much to explore in our own solar system. Enough to keep scientists busy for a hundred years. There is no reason to go beyond until we see what's in our own backyard first.
- gquaglia, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3Break our way out of the Milky Way?? This type of propulsion system would take decades just to reach the nearest star 4 light years away. This was designed for travel in our solar system, thats it. Unless you can find a way to warp space, change the laws of physics or find an old unused, jumpgate or stargate, then the Milky Way is all we will know.
- chevymanusa, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2diggafrica - ".. ok we just need to figure out how to control the explosion.."
That's what she said!
-Science rules
if you bury me, you are burying Science - KudDukan, on 10/14/2008, -0/+0There is no way that nuclear propulsion will get us out of the Milky Way. Even going at the speed of light(and getting anyone near that speed is another matter entirely), it would take several years to reach the nearest star, let alone another galaxy.
- xptoast, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2How about a real reactor that is similar to a nuclear reactor that would have a few stages.
- DarkSpan, on 10/11/2008, -1/+11What excellent illustrations
- Ramenhood, on 10/11/2008, -9/+1I thought this was The Onion.
- vsaint, on 10/11/2008, -4/+36Stupid space. Let's nuke the ***** out of it.
- gquaglia, on 10/11/2008, -2/+2The forces of the universe make our most powerful nuke seem like an air gun. There is nothing we could do that could ever harm it.
- frazw, on 10/11/2008, -1/+6How about a board with a nail in it?
- vsaint, on 10/11/2008, -1/+14What if we put two nukes together? What then smart guy?
- Bith8654, on 10/11/2008, -1/+3So a double barreled air gun? Twice as mildly annoying!
- silenceissexy, on 10/11/2008, -3/+2Vegeta, what does the scouter say about the universes' power level?!?
IT'S OVER 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!!
- gquaglia, on 10/11/2008, -2/+2The forces of the universe make our most powerful nuke seem like an air gun. There is nothing we could do that could ever harm it.
- satori3000, on 10/11/2008, -1/+8They built a nuclear powered plane:
http://www.aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-amer ...- xptoast, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1Good read.
- jamangold, on 10/11/2008, -3/+1...and it crashed.
- satori3000, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2would you please link me to where you got this information from? I have no record of the NB-36 crashing.
- migshark, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1Different kind of propulsion. That's essentially the same as what has come to be commonplace in ships and subs.
- satori3000, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1true, my real point here was that they threw the concept of atomic powered anything around in this time period. There are examples of it working quite well.
- Gojirra, on 10/11/2008, -8/+3Isn't this the rocket that would have completely irradiated the planet? I guess if we're going to Saturn, who cares about the poor people that are left behind on ***** Earth?
- MCA2142, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2You need mo eh-ju-ma-kay-shun
- PhYk3n, on 10/11/2008, -5/+4Scotty, prepare for warp drive!
"Captain, she cant take any more of this!" - jawagas, on 10/11/2008, -1/+5That really is an awesome speech on Ted. Orion really is the coolest name for anything
- TyrannousDotNet, on 10/11/2008, -0/+12much more info from the actual source! ( a first hand account)
george dyson (the son of the creator of orion) talking about it at TED conference, very interesting
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/george_dyson_on ... - TheGreatBelow, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4Cliff Burton!
- armakaryk, on 10/11/2008, -1/+14ah the 50's, when everything could be powered by nuclear bombs.
- TSK05, on 10/11/2008, -1/+16I don't know about nuclear powered rockets, but there is a lot of political ***** in terms of science going on with space these days. NASA wanted to and could have trashed the hubble space telescope and build a telescope two times better and launched it for the same cost as this repair. But no.. outrage from the public and astrophysicists who actually use the equipment were put on in back seat. And there is also ***** in regards to nuclear energy, instead of having to make these course corrections (via the shuttle every time it comes) on satellites and stations like the ISS due to huge solar panels causing drag through the ultra-thin atmosphere up there, we could have just powered them by a nuclear reactor. In fact, that's what scientists wanted to do. A hippie outrage later we have to keep boosting the ISS back into proper orbit every time and we have to keep preparing the solar panels, parts of which have broken more than once.
- Cerebron, on 10/11/2008, -0/+8Could also be useful to defeat the Fithp, should they attempt Footfall on our humble planet.
- g33b33, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3great book.
Dugg for being a reader.- fustercluck, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1I second that...
- g33b33, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3great book.
- baseballbear, on 10/11/2008, -0/+4science, ***** yeah
- RadiatedAnt, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2dugg for the weird steampunk shuttle
- FulcrumVitesse, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3If you like this, go read Anathem by Neal Stephenson. One of the best books I have read, it's a real nerd's delight.
- rz8472, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2There was also Project Daedalus in the 1970s, which was a huge robot-controlled fusion torch craft designed to survey nearby Alpha Centauri.
- Eqxy, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2So much for environmentally friendly modes of transportation...
- wacked, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4Agreed, TSK05, to some extent. Until we have the technology to build a space elevator, we shouldn't not play a dangerous game in using a nuclear reactor to power excursions through the atmosphere. Up there we should definitely be planning on building a reactor to power a proper space station. We're not even close to having enough money dedicated to the building of something much more permanent and physically secure, and that could properly house a nuclear reactor. Frankly, NASA and the military should share the same research and development programs, and in their entirety; limiting military integration solely to this purpose, and to the patent and sale of new innovations and discoveries to either specific American controlled military contractors or the the civilian market when appropriate. This would give them more money; not to say that their budget shouldn't be increased anyway! Space commercialization should be the priority of western countries, as it will be a very important part of the future of our economies; should we wish them to remain strong, and continue developing faster than the rest of the emergent world. NASA is currently a civilian organization, and it's success has been helped by the interest of civilians in it's missions and experiments. At times the government has used NASA flippantly and solely to galvanize the populace's support of the current administration. It's an organization between a rock and a hard place, with a bureaucracy that's probably comparable to that of some smaller foreign governments. And yet, it's still the most incredible civilian research agency on the planet, and has to me become one of the greatest human achievements of this age. The human race is growing up. If we don't kill ourselves anytime soon we may yet become a spacefaring species!
- TSK05, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1A) Use the reply button so I would see this faster :P
B) "Until we have the technology to build a space elevator, we shouldn't not play a dangerous game in using a nuclear reactor to power excursions through the atmosphere. Up there we should definitely be planning on building a reactor to power a proper space station."
I am not sure if you're saying that we shouldn't launch anything with nuclear reactors at all because it's not safe until we have a space elevator so that we can build it here and then take it up through a space elevator or if you're saying no nuclear powered rockets but nuclear powered generators in space are ok.
I would note that there are already nuclear powered satellites, some using RTG's and some using something else probably. There is no other way for satellites in low orbit (like say....spy satellites) to stay in orbit, and we know already that some of the old soviet union satellites used nuclear reactors (because some of them leaked..). I say keep going. NASA says keep going. Hippies say stop. - fragomatik, on 10/12/2008, -0/+0Well thought out comments from wacked and TSK05.
All arguments regarding nuclear proliferation in space, and nuke powered launch vehicles, and human extinction aside; this is the way I see the next 500 years of space exploration :
1. Space elevator - cheap access to space, permanent orbital stations/colonies/habitats
2. Orion/Daedalus - solar-system exploration/manned planetary missions (Mars, asteroids, Jovian moons,etc)
3. Solar-system exploitation - permanent bases/colonies/habitats
4. Nuke powered interstellar probes/missions - long-term manned missions/multi-generation colony ships
That 4th one, "nuke powered" implies something like Orion or Daedalus or some other nuclear pulse engine type vehicle.
As I understand it, maintaining a steady one gravity acceleration for six months will achieve something like 90% light-speed in six-months. That still means long voyages, but it makes trips to the nearest stars possible within the span of a human lifetime.
I don't know, maybe I'm being too optimistic, maybe not optimistic enough?
- TSK05, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1A) Use the reply button so I would see this faster :P
- mnetlucas, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1Why does Project Pluto have a penis?
- 355CJ, on 10/11/2008, -1/+1One thing people have to keep in mind is that other countries may not have quite the moral or humanitarian restrictions against building one like we have here.
Don't be surprised if you wake up one morning and find that China has just launched an Orion containing an entire moon base in one shot.
Whoever owns space owns the world.
I think this is an excellent way to use up some old nukes. Launch it from a platform out in the middle of the Pacific where the A bomb tests were conducted, or over the massive island of trash that is lurking out there. - UberRocket, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3This is a great compendium page of nuclear powered vehicles and delivery system - thanks for putting it together.
Being a small child in the 60's with a huge interest in all things Space-y, I absolutely remember Project Orion, and its various incantations - it was a serious proposal...and "nuclear power is bad" comments not withstanding, it's not without it merit.
Another fun-fact that the article doesn't mention that that the Discovery, from 2001, was powered by Orion engines. (Arthur C. Clarke talks about the specifics of it in the book version of 2001.) The reason Discovery looks like giant sperm in the first place is to keep the nuclear detonation component far from the crew cabin, and separated by radiation proof linkages in the long assemblage between the engines and the spherical crew cabin. The reason stated in the book that Discovery was powered by an Orion engine was that the US had to get to Saturn (the target planet in the book was Saturn, not Jupiter as it is in the movie) as fast as possible once the monolith on the moon started broadcasting, so they dug around the NASA wastebins to find anything they could that they could cobble together quickly. - Dagreenman, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4Atomic Machine Gun would make an awesome band name.
- wacked, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1I agree with you there. It'll take a ballsy president to make this happen, but I would say we haven't gone there yet because we've been erring on the side of caution. It will inevitably happen, but probably not soon enough for either of us.
PS. lol. sorry, been hoping around watching the Palin power abuse story start to emerge in mainstream online news. :P - rasde, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1lol oh wow so this will be the excuse for surrounding the earth with orbital bombardment installations
- gzmask, on 10/11/2008, -1/+0I say we build something like launch loop or space elevator to sent the necessary parts to GEO and then we can start to sent people to alpha centaur or other starts
- Licurgo, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2if the cannon is made of some material like diamond or something, maybe works
- ASSASSYN360, on 10/11/2008, -1/+1As if there wasn't enough radiation in space to deal with.
- palehorse864, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1Have to love the delayed laughter on some of his puns. "My Dad didn't want to send his kids, that's why we had a falling out."
- SammyStephens, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1***** YEAR
- savagesteve13, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1We had tested a working nuclear engine. They didn't test it too many times because it spits out lots of radiation but it does work.
- Psalms83, on 10/21/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/world_news/al_Qaida_Global_Firebal ...
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is