|
Orion
Nov 7, 2016 5:05:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by dragonkid11 on Nov 7, 2016 5:05:51 GMT
It was a shame that so much of the equation on Orion drive and Casaba howitzer is classified...
Then again, they are CLASSIFIED for a reason.
|
|
|
Orion
Nov 30, 2016 0:10:36 GMT
Post by morrigi on Nov 30, 2016 0:10:36 GMT
I mean, they probably wouldn't bother classifying it if it was a failure.
|
|
|
Orion
Nov 30, 2016 0:27:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by Durandal on Nov 30, 2016 0:27:19 GMT
Nukes in game can be used as a pseudo-NPP. However, they're omnidirectional, which means the efficiency drops quadratically with distance. Also, there is a very small window of detonation for actual use, too close and your ship gets toasted and flung away at high speeds, but a couple meters too far, and you'll just lightly bake your backside. Im surprised I missed this post. I had a conceptually working manually triggered NPP design that I've scrapped since then, but I may have redesign it now. (Maybe the ~3kt explosives I used before may not have had enough oomph.)
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Nov 30, 2016 2:52:29 GMT
I mean, they probably wouldn't bother classifying it if it was a failure. I wouldn't be so sure. Information is information - if having it keeps opponents from wasting money chasing pipe dreams, that's unfortunate for you in a zero-sum sense. If access to your information allows a rival to make a leap of insight you couldn't? That's disastrous.
|
|
|
Orion
Nov 30, 2016 12:01:57 GMT
Post by amimai on Nov 30, 2016 12:01:57 GMT
wasn't the main issue with Orion drive the sheer astronomical cost of the fuel for it? (something like $1M per fuel pellet, and it would take a couple hundred simply get off the planet)
unless you needed to go out of the solar system using Orion drives was simply not cost effective compared to more conventional systems, the only up side of the orion drive was the energy density of the fuel, giving you many more J/kg then any other fuel option
|
|
erik
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Orion
Nov 30, 2016 12:36:58 GMT
Post by erik on Nov 30, 2016 12:36:58 GMT
Besides the fact they'd have needed a lot of fissile material which would have been away from actual nukes, main problem was nuclear propulsion itself. Atmospheric, underwater and space tests were all banned in the 1963, and in the early 1970s NASA's budget cuts and declining political support for everything with the word "nuclear" in it stopped NASA from using NERVA too. They did do test runs on pulsed explosion propulsion, and the hydrogen NERVAs were test ran for 17 hours IIRC.
|
|
|
Orion
Nov 30, 2016 12:49:10 GMT
Post by dragonkid11 on Nov 30, 2016 12:49:10 GMT
Actually, the Orion drive would have so much lift and tonnage that it's actually COST EFFECTIVE compared to conventional systems.
|
|
|
Orion
Nov 30, 2016 14:24:47 GMT
Post by amimai on Nov 30, 2016 14:24:47 GMT
Actually, the Orion drive would have so much lift and tonnage that it's actually COST EFFECTIVE compared to conventional systems. yes that is why its good for interplanetary and extra solar travel... also for launching whole cities into space. the problem is the EM pulse generated by one of these drives of any significant size exiting the atmosphere would almost guarantee any piece of technology more complicated then a toaster would die a painful death in an area the size of Europe...
|
|
|
Orion
Nov 30, 2016 19:57:22 GMT
via mobile
Post by Durandal on Nov 30, 2016 19:57:22 GMT
Actually, the Orion drive would have so much lift and tonnage that it's actually COST EFFECTIVE compared to conventional systems. yes that is why its good for interplanetary and extra solar travel... also for launching whole cities into space. the problem is the EM pulse generated by one of these drives of any significant size exiting the atmosphere would almost guarantee any piece of technology more complicated then a toaster would die a painful death in an area the size of Europe... Good thing Antarctica is thawing out. Now as long as we don't have to deal with any pesky Tsalal...
|
|
|
Orion
Dec 9, 2016 15:51:32 GMT
Post by morrigi on Dec 9, 2016 15:51:32 GMT
yes that is why its good for interplanetary and extra solar travel... also for launching whole cities into space. the problem is the EM pulse generated by one of these drives of any significant size exiting the atmosphere would almost guarantee any piece of technology more complicated then a toaster would die a painful death in an area the size of Europe... Good thing Antarctica is thawing out. Now as long as we don't have to deal with any pesky Tsalal... The Arctic is melting, but Antarctica is doing just fine.
|
|
|
Orion
Dec 9, 2016 16:19:11 GMT
Post by The Astronomer on Dec 9, 2016 16:19:11 GMT
Orion drive is mainly for interstellar travels, not for space battles. It cannot thrust if you decided to retract it for protection, and even with thrusts, it's not very high, so dodging might not be viable.
Fun fact, a new proposal of nuclear pulse 'Medusa' included using a 'parachute' to collect explosion force. SOURCE: Project Rho
EDIT 1: oh, there is a lot more people than I thought...
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Tom on Dec 9, 2016 16:24:14 GMT
Orion drive is mainly for interstellar travels, not for space battles. It cannot thrust if you decided to retract it for protection, and even with thrusts, it's not very high, so dodging might not be viable. Fun fact, a new proposal of nuclear pulse 'Medusa' included using a 'parachute' to collect explosion force. SOURCE: Project Rho Unless I'm WAAAAYYY mis-remembering, what makes Orion so great is the fact that it has both high thrust AND high exhaust velocity. So it's equally viable for both dodging and cruising. As for protecting the shock absorbers, it's not so hard: just put an armored skirt over most of the length of the pistons. The nuclear flash is over in a split second, after that the pusher plate can be allowed to travel under the armored skirt without any worry over damaging the skirt from the inside.
|
|
|
Orion
Dec 9, 2016 16:24:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by dragonkid11 on Dec 9, 2016 16:24:16 GMT
Only if you are using Orion drive ship for slugfest.
For carrying huge amount missiles and drones? Orion drive is absolutely perfect.
|
|
|
Orion
Dec 10, 2016 2:03:36 GMT
Post by The Astronomer on Dec 10, 2016 2:03:36 GMT
Orion drive is mainly for interstellar travels, not for space battles. It cannot thrust if you decided to retract it for protection, and even with thrusts, it's not very high, so dodging might not be viable. Fun fact, a new proposal of nuclear pulse 'Medusa' included using a 'parachute' to collect explosion force. SOURCE: Project Rho Unless I'm WAAAAYYY mis-remembering, what makes Orion so great is the fact that it has both high thrust AND high exhaust velocity. So it's equally viable for both dodging and cruising. As for protecting the shock absorbers, it's not so hard: just put an armored skirt over most of the length of the pistons. The nuclear flash is over in a split second, after that the pusher plate can be allowed to travel under the armored skirt without any worry over damaging the skirt from the inside. Oh, torchship proposal! I guess I might need to reread these thing again...
|
|
|
Orion
Dec 13, 2016 17:26:35 GMT
Post by Pttg on Dec 13, 2016 17:26:35 GMT
Good thing Antarctica is thawing out. Now as long as we don't have to deal with any pesky Tsalal... The Arctic is melting, but Antarctica is doing just fine. Nope. Temperatures are way up and for 2016 sea ice levels are way more than two standard deviations down. There's puddles of meltwater over the surface. Considering that Antarctica is surrounded by sea, it's in bad shape, just not as-bad shape as the Arctic.
|
|