Why doesn't NASA, now with its high and mighty objectives, re-uptake and revive project Orion?

Question

It seems like the only good way to get to Mars and the moon and start colonizing right away to me. For those of you who do not know what project Orion was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/project_ori...

A 1950's project of using nukes for space propulsion.

It was not used due to the cold war and the tensions it would cause. The secondary reason is fallout. However, my reasoning is as follows: If you launch just 2 of these vehicles, you have all the material to start independence from earth and colonization activities in space…so…the amount of fallout from just two vehicles…would just amount to a few nukes…which have been dropped throughout the 20th century….

This would not put that much extra radiation into the environment, but supply enough of a payload to start large-scale activities in space…catch my drift? It may even cost less than slowly putting material through hundreds of rockets…

You need a critical mass of things to make things independent….Once you have things that can support a moon base, (water modules, living headquarters, research center, etc)….the astronauts can start ‘living’ there and start ‘figuring out’ ways to start ‘using off-world materials’ for further independence from earth…This is why we are building the moon base…so we can eventually have independent acitivites from earth in space.

We just do not have the critical mass of ‘equipment’ to start colonization and exploration, such as going to mars (which is the purpose of the moon base, correct?). However, just ONE OF THESE Orion blasters could provide a sufficiently large payload to create a moon base….

So if NASA is serious about getting my generation riled up about space, they better act like they are serious about it and not just another show…It seems to me large scale operations, if are really intended, should start with an early boost with a bold idea…..

…..just like in the days of Apollo---they were bold ideas---the moon, the Russians, the Apollo program….why, instead of just using re-engineered Apollo relics to satisfy a meager goal…

We get on the front seat of exploration and start fresh with a new cutting edge and BOLD idea….of the new space exploration era……PROJECT ORION…

I think Nasa should think about it seriously…there is no cold war anymore, and I am sure with enough political sway they could accomplish it….and I am pretty sure it would end up costing less in the end instead of releasing the modules by rockets and the enormous amount of money of getting the payloads one by one to orbit and then construction instead of just firing them up in one blast with just ONE Orion blaster…

Furthermore, I wonder what would happen, if 15 years down the line--China creates a similar project like Orion..would the USA be forced to follow suit to keep our supremacy in space?

student:

The points you offered are interesting and I do not know enough to speak of the engineering weakness. But it seems, just intuitively, that that sort of mechanism for energy-propultion transfer is a lot more efficient than something like a rocket...

first, because nuclear power is one of the most efficient transfers of energy humans have devised...instead of the barbaric throwing matter the back-door to create a forward force (I just think this is barbaric, I don't know why)...It seems the mass/propultion is a lot more efficient than a rocket transfer....even though the impulse of the blast may only supply part of the energy to forward propultion for the orion vehicle...

Second, a rocket has to take the fuel with it, and its short lived in its acceleration....the nuke mechanism has the advantage of being accelerated quickly, but also through a long enough impulse with successive ones to create very fast speeds over time.

About robots:

I don't know what you mean by this being cheaper...

I am not talking about sending a bunch of retarded machines to examine the ground and take scientific measurements...

I am talking about full blown exploration on the moon and engaging in independence in space..

I don't think robots are 'cheaper' for this grander goal.....yes, if your just talking about scientific studies of the ground, or water resources, etc.

Not for human bases...not at least they develope 'intelligent robots' which I don't think will come for another 25 years or so.

you still need to fire the rockets into space to carry the robots to carry out their experiments...the moon bases objective is to initiate human habitation on the moon....robots can do some simple tasks...but in the end it will be us that start figuring out how to use resources out there for our more grander goals.

I see your points...but I fail to see how using robots will be less expensive to fullfill our

bigger goal of the moon base...

It would seem to me, just intuitively, that it would be less expensive...just to pile a huge payload into a tanker like Orion...and fire it into space....and then you have enough material in space so the 'robots' can start their thing...

I fail to see how robots are 'cheaper' in starting our moon base...were talking about rockets...many, many rockets fired into space over 2decades to get the necessary modules in place to initiate the moon base and lunar living by technicians and astronauts.

It would seem to me a lot faster, and a lot cheaper with Orion...robots do not fit into the 'cheaper' equation if your talking about large scale projects like a moon base..

and when I am referring to mass/propultion efficiency...I am basically saying that rockets...a significant portion of their mass...is just fuel....this seems to me incredibly inefficient...

an orion, has nukes, a small proportion of its huge mass....that propell its huge payload (the modules for the moon base), into space...

Yes, there are other mechanisms like solar sails, etc ONCE YOUR IN SPACE...

but there is no other, MORE EFFICIENT energy transfer system (the current moment), for mass to orbit than ORION.

This could 'boost' our initial 'step' in space exploration...I don't know, whatever.

I guess there could be engineering challenges. I read the wikipedia article, however, and it says most of the engineering hurdles had been solved before it was scratched, most notably by stainslaw ulam. So I don't think its anything WE, can't manage...besides, its a bigger challenge that way, which will motivate us just like during apollo.

Political hurdles, the same.

Answer 1

I bet it takes the Chinese less than 50 years.

Shame really - Western civilization just never had the courage ...(they killed the project when it became obvious that there would always be some radio-active pollution and the dear American public would never stand for even ONE 'probable' death per launch ... this is the same American public that are fixated on the 'disaster' at 3 Mile Island (deaths == ZERO - unless you count the morons in auto accidents driving away in panic).

Also, FYI, no matter what Greenpeace says, Russians are NOT 'dying like flies' from that other world shattering 'disaster' Chernobyl (deaths, after > 20 years == approx 59).

Answer 2

Project Orion as nuke-based propulsion has four main engineering weaknesses, and a major political problem.

First, the explosions transfer only a conical fraction of their impulse back towards the spaceship.

Second, absorbing the periodic shock requires a huge mechanical mass transfer mechanism, put under constant stress.

Third, technologies such as ion thrusters powered by nuclear reactors make more efficient use of nuclear energy to accelerate reaction mass.

Fourth, robotic exploration is a far cheaper step for both increasing scientific knowledge, and setting up colonization base camps.

There is also one major political problem, that being the necessary technological investigation into shaped nuclear warheads, which could be viewed as having military uses.

In short, the solution looks like an old cold-war-era hammer trying to find a nail, when viewed in terms of today's possible solutions.

-- addendum / response --

When i say robotic exploration is a cheaper step towards colonization, i mean the following:

1) Life support systems and biological beings are heavy cargo.

2) If the mission is to land a human, you need to land a human as the final step. Robots can still be sent ahead in smaller, lighter preparatory missions. If autonomous control can be developed to the point of preparing a base for humans out of local materials, then the cost savings would be huge.

Answer 3

With todays technology Project Orion looks kindof barbaric. Try googling other projects like, Longshot, Prometheus, and NERVA. All these projects use nuclear powered reactors and generators to achieve the same affect with greater advantages. Also I think NASA stop work on this nuclear engine but it was supposed to be used on the shuttle in the future but thats a dead end now, VASIMR, google that you can find interesting info on the project. Look up Project Daedalus, it was to be used for unmanned interstellar travel. I think whenever we as humans here the word NUCLEAR we get scared because of not only the potential for good but also the terrible power it could develop into. Nuclear weapons can be hundreds of times stronger than what they currently are but we signed accords with the UN and other nations not to expirement with anything stronger than what we currently have, in fact nuclear weapons today a about 30 times more powerful than the original 3 that started this whole mess or scare depending on how you look at it.