based futurism thread
"The story of Orion is significant, because this is the first time in modern history that a major expansion of human technology has been suppressed for political reasons."
-freeman dyson
decades of innovation later, Orion is still the only way forward for humans.
today we will dispel popular myths and misunderstandings surrounding this technology which has the potential to totally revolutionize the species in the timeframe of decades.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
popular assumption:
>the propulsion is harmful to the vehicle's occupants or the vehicle
all Orion designs are working with immense payload capacity and inherently plan for a wider than necessary radiation umbrella to protect the crew. larger designs utilize saline water, lead and large mechanical areas to buffer radiation to background levels.
the pusher plate used to receive the mechanical force as well as thermal shock of the bomblet has been demonstrated in testing to *not ablate* when coated with a graphite-impregnated oil.
popular assumption:
>the propulsion is immediately dangerous to human and natural ecosystems
using unmodified nuclear weapons, Dyson calculated the Orion would cause between 1-3 eventual fatalities from cancer per launch from exposure to fallout.
however, this was purely a thought experiment on his part. The Orion would not need to use fission bombs for propulsion.
modern fission-primed fusion bombs have been used in excavation projects with a 98.9% fusion yield. Meaning these bombs can operate with more power than fission weapons and with virtually no fallout at all.
other radiation such as gamma and xrays are scattered to safe levels of distribution by the time they reach the ground. this can be enhanced actively with different pusher plate designs or a small chemical booster first stage or passively by creating water vapor clouds over the launch site.
popular assumption:
>being built around a magazine of nuclear devices, the rocket is a safety hazard
this is perhaps the most ignorant assumption.
nuclear devices do not chain-react. if a single bomblet were to detonate accidentally it would not cause a catastrophic failure.
this brings us to the next point; within the Orion design, the explosive and fissile material of the bomblets are mated at the last moment, fractions of a second before the bomblet is released and detonated. further, tamper designs of the fission component allow the bomb to have extremely small yields until milliseconds before detonation, drastically reducing the damage of accidental nuclear detonations to within the range of their weight in tnt
>virtually no fallout at all.
assume a hefty 400kg fissile mass. 35kg of that is fissionable tamper, the rest is fusion component.
a controlled fission reaction will create 'dangerous' isotopes from about 0.4-0.6% of the fissionable mass in the form of neutron-rich atoms. this is the 'fallout' we talk about.
that's 21 grams of potential isotopes, about 5% of which can actually be absorbed by the human body before decaying.
finally you get 1.05 grams of this material. this amount is harmless unless consumed directly, and even then would not cause radiation sickness. instead, this tiny mass is being spread over an area hundreds of kilometers wide and also exposed to thermal gradients which will further reduce the radioactive component.
this is figuring the very worst fission rates as well. you could do much better if such was your intention.
to elaborate, you could easily design a tamper with a 5-10kg mass or less.
this does 2 things:
1. much less fallout by mass
2. the products of such a tiny fissionable mass would be further involved in the fusion mass due to neutron availability and this creates a situation where the fallout would be annihilated by the fusion component.
modern nuclear devices can be designed without fallout. that's literally the reality and it has been that way since the late '80's.
Best thread in months. Bump
>modern nuclear devices can be designed without fallout.
Source on that?
you're asserting your ignorance.
Do you understand the difference between a fission, fusion and thermonuclear device?
fission generates unstable isotopes. fusion generates helium.
>The public records for devices that produced the highest proportion of their yield via fusion-only reactions, and therefore created orders of magnitude smaller amounts of long-lived fission products as a result, are the USSR's Peaceful nuclear explosions of the 1970s, with the three detonations that excavated part of Pechora–Kama Canal, being cited as 98% fusion each in the Taiga test's three 15-kiloton explosive yield devices, that is, a total fission fraction of 0.3 kilotons in a 15 kt device.[26] In comparison, the next three high fusion-yielding devices were all much too high in total explosive yield for oil and gas stimulation: the 50-megaton Tsar Bomba achieved a yield 97% derived from fusion,[27] while in the US, the 9.3-megaton Hardtack Poplar test is reported as 95.2%,[28] and the 4.5-megaton Redwing Navajo test as 95% derived from fusion.[29]
en.wikipedia.org
By the mid 70's we had 98% fusion yields. The more fusion there is, exponentially less fallout is created by the fission tamper since it is both smaller and being affected by the fusion.
notice how I characterized your argument as a "popular assumption" ?
people often assume in situations where they haven't made an effort to educate themselves on the topic. if you're going to contest an argument someone else has considered at length at least educate yourself before you throw your opinion around.
Bamp
So no source on nukes with no fallout?
That's fine. Insults are almost as good as sources
until you get a pure fusion device there will be unstable isotopes. this is how the the universe works.
your argument that this is in a dangerous quantity is fundamentally wrong. there is so little fallout in a thermonuclear PNE no one is at risk no matter how paranoid you choose to be.
modern chemical rockets by comparison are dirtier and a greater immediate health hazard.
you have presented no ideas of your own, which is why you seem lacking in basic knowledge on this topic.
either try harder to understand the topic (do research and don't expect to be spoon-fed hyperlinks) or you are just another person blindly accepting unjustified paranoia.
Just stop dude you don't know what your talking about
>modern chemical rockets by comparison are dirtier and a greater immediate health hazard.
How much fallout do they generate?
Actually homeboy just confirmed there are no devices the generate no fallout.
So maybe YOU dont know what you're talking about
Peter Elson did bazillions of these images, i liked his style.
Not following the trajectory of the discussion just to drop stale memes and try to feel smart. Classy
please tell me this is a book
> virtually no fallout at all
remember the actual wording you snarkily pointed to? no one is asserting nuclear fission primed devices don't create fallout. is it harmful? absolutely not.
I gave you the science but something tells me that's not enough to sway your unfounded opinionation
chemical reactions very rarely create unstable isotopes. what they do create is a much larger portion of their mass into carcinogenic and toxic debris, gas and particulate matter directly over inhabited areas often occupied by thousands of sight-seers.
unlike fallout, this is harmful if inhaled. fallout is only harmful when metabolized.
are you trying to have an intelligent discussion about this? it seems like you're just digging a deeper trench of ideology for yourself.
most of them are really good too. very prolific dude
probably is but not sure what book. may have been an Analogue cover john harris did a few of those I think
The memer watched an HBO miniseries so he's an expert in nuclear technology now lol
>remember the actual wording you snarkily pointed to? no one is asserting nuclear fission primed devices don't create fallout. is it harmful? absolutely not.
>modern nuclear devices can be designed without fallout. that's literally the reality and it has been that way since the late '80's.
>fallout is only harmful when metabolized.
DUDE. READ THE WORDS:
>no one is asserting nuclear fission primed devices don't create fallout
>modern nuclear devices can be designed without fallout... it has been that way since the late '80's
I'm talking about designing fusion bombs, of which a pure variation does not yet exist.
See what happens when you try to have an argument with no prior knowledge? You absolutely miss every single mark.
Why are you arguing over a subject you don't vaguely understand? there are a dozen other threads for your low effort posts
Ok brainiac, where's your source?
Radiation sickness is prevented by replacing cesium and iodine gaps in the human body with its stable isotope form.
This prevents the unstable isotope from pooling in the body and causing chromosomal and tissue damage.
You can be exposed to fallout safely as long as these isotope gaps are filled. This is common knowledge.
Again, obvious ignorance is obvious.
Lol confirmed mong
If any of you knew anything about fission, fusion or the design of nuclear bombs you would realise this guy is 100% correct. The estimation of radiation from fission is roughly correct and fusion is far cleaner so it is completely expected to get no fallout. It is people with no understanding of things that ruin it for everyone else. Fear mongering about nuclear power has been one of the most damaging things to the modern world.
Sorry no 'significant' fallout. Not enough to kill anyone. Unnoticeable in cancer rates.
Nnngh those trips
>Fear mongering about nuclear power has been one of the most damaging things to the modern world.
Completely agree. our introduction to atomic energy was pretty fear-inducing but at this point it should be apparent how useful nuclear power and propulsion could be.
Most people still believe wholeheartedly the cold-war adages surrounding these techs. It's tremendously irresponsible that these notions drive legislation and policy and not just public opinion...
If everything went to plan it is not dangerous to the ecosystem. If a huge payload of nuclear material disintegrates in the atmosphere during launch it would be an utter environmental disaster. Regardless of whether it is a fussion or fusion hybrid bomb.
This is a key reason why they don't place nuclear weapons and materials in orbit.
An Orion would not disintegrate during ascent-- this is intrinsic to its design.
There are several considerations here:
1. An Orion drive rocket does not need to reach velocities equal to that of chemical lifters while in dense atmosphere. This is its greatest advantage over engines bound to the rocket equation. It can ride to the edge of atmosphere at very low velocities and achieve orbit once safe from aerodynamic forces.
2. The Orion is designed around extreme reciprocating mechanical forces which no other rocket has. Other rockets disintegrate because they are built as lightweight as possible.
3. The Orion achieves its structural integrity by having a virtually unlimited mass budget. The bomblets can be built strong enough to not come apart under shear stresses. The magazine can be built strong enough to not break open even on impact with terra firma although a launch-abort system and retrieval drogues would both be considered and likely used in such an instance.
4. If safety concerns are still paramount even though the above solutions are viable, then fly the thing to orbit with exactly enough bomblets for ascent and then bring the remainder up in 'safe' quantities on standard rockets. This is numbingly inefficient but still an option.
and not to split hairs, but they have put nuclear materials in orbit every time an RTG has been used on spacecraft. the precedent is not worth adhering to if it's been broken already.
And let me be clear; the Orion is not the end-all to space utilization.
It offers a completely unsurpassed payload and this is exactly what's needed for establishing orbital infrastructure.
You can place an entire self-sufficient moon base on the moon with habitats, facilities, foodstocks, resources and ISRU equipment on Luna with a SINGLE orion launch.
You can establish a LEO gateway station with decades worth of supplies with crews over 100 people with a SINGLE orion launch.
We wouldn't be launching orions around the clock for the next 25 years but the technology allows us to actually utilize space so we don't have to keep sending rockets up.
Very true, but and RTG is hardly comparable to chemical rocket loads with fissile material.
And I understand an Orion would be built to be as sturdy as possible. But saying containment of these materials is guaranteed is just simply not possible when you're working with those kinds of velocities and forces.
>containment of these materials is guaranteed is just simply not possible
That's the contingency though; it is possible and proven. If it weren't, that factor would have ended the Orion program (direct executive intervention ended it after the program was already proven inside and outside of testing.) They overcame the structural considerations phase during scale testing.
You use small, weak bomblets on the order of a few kilotons on ascent and the big 1-3mt ones when safely in orbit. Oscillations are never uncontrollable with pulses, there's no fuel sloshing around and if you start veering you turn the thing off and switch to recovery mode. It's magnitudes more stable than a chemical rocket both in mechanism and structure.
Don't just assume they didn't consider the forces involved.
The US gov't and USAF funded multi-million dollar planning projects to use these designs as orbital battleships and permanent military installations. They knew how well this concept could work.
Bump
Best part of this thread was user getting schooled and realizing he should probably persue some education lol
Seriously tho cool thread quite a breath of fresh air on this shitstorm board
Bump
Neat, I've never heard of this Orion project before.
So If I understand this propulsion system correctly, they would essentially be detonating fission bombs externally behind the craft. Sending a force into these absorption plates which would push the Orion along?
I remember reading about Orion before. What kind of speeds can the spacecraft potentially reach? Could it make human exploration of the outer solar system feasible?
en.wikipedia.org
Feasible, but if we wanted to visit Alpha Centauri it would still take roughly a millennium.
Essentially yeah. The plate has a close-able channel to allow the bomblets through its center axis.
Thermonuclear bombs with a filler working much like a shaped charge direct most of the energy in a cone towards the pusher plate, which recoils and transfers the energy to the craft. By detonating the next pulse just before the plate can fully rebound you get incrementally larger thrust impulses to a point.
Setting aside interstellar for the moment this is where i'd like to see us make it to within my lifetime
I would say not only feasible but economic as well. Probably the only technology to this day which wouldn't require fuel depots, ISRU and careful mission planning for a
Bumping a cool thread
what is stirring out there in the way of new physics?ftl space travel, distances shrink
by a factor of a hundred,,alcubierre has done work on it,so does asteron X,if the past is a predictor of the future, millions of kiddies just barely able to crawl,mostly confined to a runged wooden crib,,juniors eye the situation,leg tied to a rung, he diddles with the knotted daddys tie until it straightens out,then hollers to himself,FREEEEEEEEEDOMMMMMMMMMM
outa the crib,,into the hallway looks right left,,with binky in the hatch,,heheheheh,,down the halllway,,still quiet,,down the stairs,he giggles,made it to the first floor,look right look left,,heh still no mama in sight,,,the front door,,yeah,,,,,,,,,gofrit, door is open to let a breeze in,ma's on break in the kitchen,,she hears little noises of something on the floor,sees the kid,,,COME BACK HERE YoU/ yOU
"stream of consciousness"
more like stream of drug-addled verbal diarrhea or perhaps just sever mental illness
All I'm gonna say is that it got magnitudes worse after the word 'freedom'
Alcubierre drives are imo the most expensive pressure cookers ever concieved...
