The Russian model uses a conventional chemical rocket to get into orbit and then fires up the nuclear powered engine. They dismiss any dangers due to rocket failures, which would scatter nuclear bomb materials and potentially explode all of the nuclear fuel aboard the rocket, by saying; ‘measures would be taken to prevent this’. In other words, an accident would NEVER happen. The advocate admits only ONE satellite containing plutonium crashed in Canada, and Russia had to pay a ‘fine’ to Canada for this ‘violation’ and clean up costs.
PLUTONIUM SATELLITES CRASHED AND BURNED, PLUTONIUM IS DEADLY DANGEROUS, NO POSITIVE USE OR ROLE IN THE HUMAN BODY
Humans have no defense against plutonium, because it is a man made and nuclear industry created radioactive element without any immune system or DNA defense, as does the radioactive potassium in bananas for example.
Wikipedia; “This article is about a nuclear rocket engine propulsion project.
An artist’s conception of the NASA reference design for the Project Orion spacecraft powered by nuclear propulsion.
Project Orion was a study of a spacecraft intended to be directly propelled by a series of explosions of atomic bombs behind the craft (nuclear pulse propulsion). Early versions of this vehicle were proposed to take off from the ground with significant associated nuclear fallout; later versions were presented for use only in space.
The Orion concept offered high thrust and high specific impulse, or propellant efficiency, at the same time. The unprecedented extreme power requirements for doing so would be met by nuclear explosions, of such power relative to the vehicle’s mass as to be survived only by using external detonations without attempting to contain them in internal structures.
As a qualitative comparison, traditional chemical rockets—such as the Saturn V
that took the Apollo program
to the Moon—produce high thrust with low specific impulse, whereas electric ion engines
produce a small amount of thrust very efficiently. Orion would have offered performance greater than the most advanced conventional or nuclear rocket engines then under consideration. Supporters of Project Orion felt that it had potential for cheap interplanetary travel, but it lost political approval over concerns with fallout from its propulsion.
The Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 is generally acknowledged to have ended the project. However, from Project Longshot to Project Daedalus, Mini-Mag Orion, and other proposals which reach engineering analysis at the level of considering thermal power dissipation, the principle of external nuclear pulse propulsion to maximize survivable power has remained common among serious concepts for interstellar flight without external power beaming and for very high-performance interplanetary flight. Such later proposals have tended to modify the basic principle by envisioning equipment driving detonation of much smaller fission or fusion pellets, although in contrast Project Orion’s larger nuclear pulse units (nuclear bombs) were based on less speculative technology.
The Orion Spacecraft – key components.
The Orion nuclear pulse drive combines a very high exhaust velocity, from 19 to 31 km/s in typical interplanetary designs, withmeganewtons
Many spacecraft propulsion drives can achieve one of these or the other, but nuclear pulse rockets are the only proposed technology that could potentially meet the extreme power requirements to deliver both at once (see spacecraft propulsion
for more speculative systems).
(Isp) measures how much thrust can be derived from a given mass of fuel, and is a standard figure of merit for rocketry. For any rocket propulsion, since the kinetic energy
of exhaust goes up with velocity squared (kinetic energy
= ½ mv2), whereas the momentum
and thrust goes up with velocity linearly (momentum
= mv), obtaining a particular level of thrust (as in a number of g
acceleration) requires far more power each time that exhaust velocity and specific impulse
(Isp) is much increased in a design goal. (For instance, the most fundamental reason
that current and proposed electric propulsion
systems of high Isp tend to be low thrust is due to their limits on available power.
Their thrust is actually inversely proportional to Isp if power going into exhaust is constant or at its limit from heat dissipation needs or other engineering constraints).
The Orion concept detonates nuclear explosions externally at a rate of power release which is beyond what nuclear reactors could survive internally with known materials and design.
Since weight is no limitation, an Orion craft can be extremely robust. An unmanned craft could tolerate very large accelerations, perhaps 100 g
. A human-crewed Orion, however, must use some sort of damping system behind the pusher plate to smooth the instantaneous acceleration to a level that humans can comfortably withstand – typically about 2 to 4 g.
The high performance depends on the high exhaust velocity, in order to maximize the rocket’s force for a given mass of propellant. The velocity of the plasma debris is proportional to the square root of the change in the temperature (Tc) of the nuclear fireball. Since fireballs routinely achieve ten million degrees Celsius or more in less than a millisecond, they create very high velocities. However, a practical design must also limit the destructive radius of the fireball. The diameter of the nuclear fireball is proportional to the square root of the bomb’s explosive yield.
The shape of the bomb’s reaction mass is critical to efficiency. The original project designed bombs with a reaction mass made of tungsten
. The bomb’s geometry and materials focused theX-rays
and plasma from the core of nuclear explosive to hit the reaction mass. In effect each bomb would be a nuclear shaped charge
A bomb with a cylinder of reaction mass expands into a flat, disk-shaped wave of plasma when it explodes. A bomb with a disk-shaped reaction mass expands into a far more efficient cigar-shaped wave of plasma debris. The cigar shape focuses much of the plasma to impinge onto the pusher-plate.
The maximum effective specific impulse, Isp, of an Orion nuclear pulse drive generally is equal to:
where C0 is the collimation factor (what fraction of the explosion plasma debris will actually hit the impulse absorber plate when a pulse unit explodes), Ve is the nuclear pulse unit plasma debris velocity, and gn is the standard acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2; this factor is not necessary if Isp is measured in N·s/kg or m/s). A collimation factor of nearly 0.5 can be achieved by matching the diameter of the pusher plate to the diameter of the nuclear fireball created by the explosion of a nuclear pulse unit.
The smaller the bomb, the smaller each impulse will be, so the higher the rate of impulses and more than will be needed to achieve orbit. Smaller impulses also mean less g shock on the pusher plate and less need for damping to smooth out the acceleration.
The optimal Orion drive bomblet yield (for the human crewed 4,000 ton reference design) was calculated to be in the region of 0.15 kt, with approx 800 bombs needed to orbit and a bomb rate of approx 1 per second.[citation needed
Sizes of Orion vehicles[edit
The following can be found in George Dyson
pg. 55 published in 2002. The figures for the comparison with Saturn V are taken from this section
and converted from metric (kg) to US short tons
(abbreviated “t” here).
Image of the smallest Orion vehicle extensively studied, which could have had a payload of around 100 tonnes in an 8 crew round trip to Mars.
On the left, the 10 meter diameter Saturn V
“Boost-to-orbit” variant, requiring in-orbit assembly before the Orion vehicle would be capable of moving under its own propulsion system. On the far right, the fully assembled “lofting” configuration, in which the spacecraft would be lifted high into the atmosphere before pulse propulsion began. As depicted in the 1964 NASA
document “Nuclear Pulse Space Vehicle Study Vol III – Conceptual Vehicle Designs and Operational Systems.”
Advanced interplanetary Saturn V
Ship mass 880 t 4,000 t 10,000 t 3,350 t
Ship diameter 25 m 40 m 56 m 10 m
Ship height 36 m 60 m 85 m 110 m
(sea level) 0.03 kt 0.14 kt 0.35 kt n/a
(to 300 mi LEO) 300 t 1,600 t 6,100 t 130 t
(to Moon soft landing) 170 t 1,200 t 5,700 t 2 t
(Mars orbit return) 80 t 800 t 5,300 t –
(3yr Saturn return) – – 1,300 t –
In late 1958 to early 1959, it was realized that the smallest practical vehicle would be determined by the smallest achievable bomb yield. The use of 0.03 kt (sea-level yield) bombs would give vehicle mass of 880 tons. However, this was regarded as too small for anything other than an orbital test vehicle and the team soon focused on a 4,000 ton “base design”.
1,080 NUCLEAR BOMBS NEEDED TO LAUNCH ONE ROCKET INTO ORBIT
At that time, the details of small bomb designs were shrouded in secrecy. Many Orion design reports had all details of bombs removed before release. Contrast the above details with the 1959 report by General Atomics,
which explored the parameters of three different sizes of hypothetical
Ship diameter 17–20 m 40 m 400 m
Ship mass 300 t 1000–2000 t 8,000,000 t
Number of bombs 540 1,080 1,080
Individual bomb mass 0.22 t 0.37–0.75 t 3000 t
The biggest design above is the “super” Orion design; at 8 million tonnes, it could easily be a city.
In interviews, the designers contemplated the large ship as a possible interstellar ark
. This extreme design could be built with materials and techniques that could be obtained in 1958 or were anticipated to be available shortly after. The practical upper limit is likely to be higher with modern materials.
Most of the three thousand tonnes of each of the “super” Orion’s propulsion units would be inert material such as polyethylene
, or boron
salts, used to transmit the force of the propulsion units detonation to the Orion’s pusher plate, and absorb neutrons to minimize fallout. One design proposed by Freeman Dyson for the “Super Orion” called for the pusher plate to be composed primarily of uranium or a transuranic element
so that upon reaching a nearby star system the plate could be converted to nuclear fuel.
The Orion nuclear pulse rocket design has extremely high performance. Orion nuclear pulse rockets using nuclear fission type pulse units were originally intended for use on interplanetary space flights.
Missions that were designed for an Orion vehicle in the original project included single stage (i.e., directly from Earth’s surface) to Mars and back, and a trip to one of the moons of Saturn.
One possible modern mission for this near-term technology would be to deflect an asteroid that could collide with Earth. The extremely high performance would permit even a late launch to succeed, and the vehicle could effectively transfer a large amount of kinetic energy to the asteroid by simple impact. Also, such an unmanned mission would eliminate the need for shock absorbers, the most problematic issue of the design.
Nuclear fission pulse unit powered Orions could provide fast and economical interplanetary transportation with useful human crewed payloads of several thousand tonnes.
Freeman Dyson performed the first analysis of what kinds of Orion missions were possible to reach Alpha Centauri
, the nearest star system to the Sun
His 1968 paper “Interstellar Transport”
(Physics Today, October 1968, p. 41–45) retained the concept of large nuclear explosions but Dyson moved away from the use of fission bombs and considered the use of one megaton deuterium
fusion explosions instead. His conclusions were simple: the debris velocity of fusion explosions was probably in the 3000–30,000 km/s range and the reflecting geometry of Orion’s hemispherical pusher plate would reduce that range to 750–15,000 km/s.
To estimate the upper and lower limits of what could be done using contemporary technology (in 1968), Dyson considered two starship designs. The more conservative energy limited pusher plate design simply had to absorb all the thermal energy of each impinging explosion (4×1015joules, half of which would be absorbed by the pusher plate) without melting.
Dyson estimated that if the exposed surface consisted of copper with a thickness of 1 mm, then the diameter and mass of the hemispherical pusher plate would have to be 20 kilometers and 5 million metric tons, respectively. 100 seconds would be required to allow the copper to radiatively cool before the next explosion. It would then take on the order of 1000 years for the energy-limited heat sink Orion design to reach Alpha Centauri.
In order to improve on this performance while reducing size and cost, Dyson also considered an alternative momentum limited pusher plate design where an ablation coating of the exposed surface is substituted to get rid of the excess heat. The limitation is then set by the capacity of shock absorbers to transfer momentum from the impulsively accelerated pusher plate to the smoothly accelerated vehicle. Dyson calculated that the properties of available materials limited the velocity transferred by each explosion to ~30 meters per second independent of the size and nature of the explosion. If the vehicle is to be accelerated at 1 Earth gravity (9.81 m/s2) with this velocity transfer, then the pulse rate is one explosion every three seconds.
The dimensions and performance of Dyson’s vehicles are given in the table below
30,000,000 NUCLEAR BOMBS REQUIRED FOR ONE SPACE FLIGHT
Ship diameter (meters) 20,000 m 100 m
Mass of empty ship (metric tons) 10,000,000 t (incl.5,000,000 t copper hemisphere) 100,000 t (incl. 50,000 t structure+payload)
+Number of bombs = total bomb mass (each 1 Mt bomb weighs 1 metric ton) 30,000,000 300,000
=Departure mass (metric tons) 40,000,000 t 400,000 t
Maximum velocity (kilometers per second) 1000 km/s (=0.33% of the speed of light) 10,000 km/s (=3.3% of the speed of light)
Mean acceleration (Earth gravities) 0.00003 g (accelerate for 100 years) 1 g (accelerate for 10 days)
Time to Alpha Centauri (one way, no slow down) 1330 years 133 years
Estimated cost 1 year of U.S. GNP
(1968), $3.67 Trillion 0.1 year of U.S. GNP $0.367 Trillion
In each case saving fuel for slowing down halves the max. speed. The concept of using a magnetic sail
to decelerate the spacecraft as it approaches its destination has been discussed as an alternative to using propellant, this would allow the ship to travel near the maximum theoretical velocity.
At 0.1c, Orion thermonuclear starships would require a flight time of at least 44 years to reach Alpha Centauri, not counting time needed to reach that speed (about 36 days at constant acceleration of 1g or 9.8 m/s2). At 0.1c, an Orion starship would require 100 years to travel 10 light years. The astronomer Carl Sagan
suggested that this would be an excellent use for current stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
A concept similar to Orion was designed by the British Interplanetary Society
(B.I.S.) in the years 1973–1974. Project Daedalus
was to be a robotic interstellar probe to Barnard’s Star
that would travel at 12% of the speed of light. In 1989, a similar concept was studied by the U.S. Navy and NASA in Project Longshot
. Both of these concepts require significant advances in fusion technology, and therefore cannot be built at present, unlike Orion.
The expense of the fissionable materials required was thought high, until the physicist Ted Taylor showed that with the right designs for explosives, the amount of fissionables used on launch was close to constant for every size of Orion from 2,000 tons to 8,000,000 tons. The larger bombs used more explosives to super-compress the fissionables, increasing efficiency. The extra debris from the explosives also serves as additional propulsion mass.
The bulk of costs for historical nuclear defense programs have been for delivery and support systems, rather than for production cost of the bombs directly (with warheads being 7% of the U.S. 1946-1996 expense total according to one study).
After initial infrastructure development and investment, the marginal cost each of additional nuclear bombs in mass production can be relatively low. In the 1980s, some U.S. thermonuclear warheads had $1.1 million estimated cost each ($630 million for 560).
For the perhaps simpler fission pulse units to be used by one Orion design, a 1964 source estimated a cost of $40,000 or less each in mass production, which would be up to approximately $0.3 million each in modern-day dollars adjusted for inflation.
PROJECT DAEDALUS – FUSION EXPLOSIVES ROCKET ENGINE
Project Daedalus later proposed fusion explosives (deuterium
or tritium pellets) detonated by electron beam inertial confinement. This is the same principle behind inertial confinement fusion
. However, theoretically, it might be scaled down to far smaller explosions, and require small shock absorbers.
A design for the Orion propulsion module
From 1957 until 1964 this information was used to design a spacecraft propulsion system called “Orion”, in which nuclear explosives would be thrown behind a pusher-plate mounted on the bottom of a spacecraft and exploded. The shock wave and radiation from the detonation would impact against the underside of the pusher plate, giving it a powerful “kick”. The pusher plate would be mounted on large two-stage shock absorbers
that would smoothly transmit acceleration to the rest of the spacecraft.
During take-off, there were concerns of danger from fluidic shrapnel being reflected from the ground. One proposed solution was to use a flat plate of conventional explosives spread over the pusher plate, and detonate this to lift the ship from the ground before going nuclear. This would lift the ship far enough into the air that the first focused nuclear blast would not create debris capable of harming the ship.
A design for a pulse unit.
A preliminary design for a nuclear pulse unit was produced. It proposed the use of a shaped-charge fusion-boosted fission explosive. The explosive was wrapped in a beryllium oxide
“channel filler”, which was surrounded by a uranium
radiation mirror. The mirror and channel filler were open ended, and in this open end a flat plate of tungsten
propellant was placed. The whole thing was built into a can with a diameter no larger than 6 inches (15 cm) and weighed just over 300 pounds (140 kg) so it could be handled by machinery scaled-up from a soft-drink vending machine (indeed, Coca-Cola was consulted on the design).
At 1 microsecond after ignition, the gamma bomb plasma and neutrons would heat the channel filler, and be somewhat contained by the uranium shell. At 2–3 microseconds, the channel filler would transmit some of the energy to the propellant, which vaporized. The flat plate of propellant formed a cigar-shaped explosion aimed at the pusher plate.
The plasma would cool to 14,000 °C, as it traversed the 25 m distance to the pusher plate, and then reheat to 67,000 °C, as (at about 300 microseconds) it hit the pusher plate and recompressed. This temperature emits ultraviolet, which is poorly transmitted through most plasmas. This helps keep the pusher plate cool. The cigar shaped distribution profile and low density of the plasma reduces the instantaneous shock to the pusher plate.
The pusher plate’s thickness would decrease by about a factor of 6 from the center to the edge, so that the net velocity of the inner and outer parts of the plate are the same, even though the momentum transferred by the plasma increases from the center outwards.
At low altitudes where the surrounding air is dense, gamma scattering could potentially harm the crew and a radiation refuge would be necessary
anyway on long missions to survive solar flares
. Radiation shielding effectiveness increases exponentially with shield thickness (see gamma ray
for a discussion of shielding), so on ships with mass greater than a thousand tons, the structural bulk of the ship, its stores, and the mass of the bombs and propellant would provide more than adequate shielding for the crew.
Stability was initially thought to be a problem due to inaccuracies in the placement of the bombs, but it was later shown that the effects would tend to cancel out.
Numerous model flight tests (using conventional explosives) were conducted at Point Loma, San Diego
in 1959. On November 14, the one-meter model, called “Hot Rod” (or “putt-putt”), first flew using RDX
(chemical explosives) in a controlled flight for 23 seconds to a height of 56 meters. Film of the tests has been transcribed to video
shown on the BBC TV program “To Mars by A-Bomb” in 2003 with comments by Freeman Dyson and Arthur C. Clarke
. The model landed by parachute undamaged and is in the collection of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.
The first proposed shock absorber was merely a ring-shaped airbag. However, it was soon realized that, should an explosion fail, the 500 to 1000 ton pusher plate would tear away the airbag on the rebound. So a two-stage, detuned spring/piston shock absorber design was developed. On the reference design, the first stage mechanical absorber was tuned 4.5 times the pulse frequency whilst the second stage gas piston was tuned to 1/2 times the pulse frequency. This permitted timing tolerances of 10 ms in each explosion.
The final design coped with bomb failure by overshooting and rebounding into a ‘center’ position. Thus, following a failure (and on initial ground launch) it would be necessary to start (or restart) the sequence with a lower yield device. In the 1950s methods of adjusting bomb yield
were in their infancy and considerable thought was given to providing a means of ‘swapping out’ a standard yield bomb for a smaller yield one in a 2 or 3 second time frame (or to provide an alternative means of firing low yield bombs). Modern variable yield devices would allow a single standardized explosive to be ‘tuned down’ (configured to a lower yield) automatically.
The bombs had to be launched behind the pusher plate fast enough to explode 20 to 30 m beyond it every 1.1 seconds or so. Numerous proposals were investigated, from multiple guns poking over the edge of the pusher plate to rocket propelled bombs launched from ‘roller coaster’ tracks, however the final reference design used a simple gas gun to shoot the devices through a hole in the center of the pusher plate.
Exposure to repeated nuclear blasts raises the problem of ablation (erosion) of the pusher plate. However, calculations and experiments indicate that a steel pusher plate would ablate less than 1 mm if unprotected. If sprayed with an oil, it need not ablate at all (this was discovered by accident; a test plate had oily fingerprints on it, and the fingerprints suffered no ablation). The absorption spectra of carbon
minimize heating. The design temperature of the shockwave, 67,000 °C, emits ultraviolet
. Most materials and elements are opaque to ultraviolet, especially at the 340 MPa pressures the plate experiences. This prevents the plate from melting or ablating.
One issue that remained unresolved at the conclusion of the project was whether or not the turbulence created by the combination of the propellant and ablated pusher plate would dramatically increase the total ablation of the pusher plate. According to Freeman Dyson, during the 1960s they would have had to actually perform a test with a real nuclear explosive to determine this; with modern simulation technology, this could be determined fairly accurately without such empirical investigation.
Another potential problem with the pusher plate is that of spalling
—shards of metal—potentially flying off the top of the plate. The shockwave from the impacting plasma on the bottom of the plate passes through the plate and reaches the top surface. At that point spalling may occur, damaging the pusher plate. For that reason, alternative substances (e.g., plywood and fiberglass) were investigated for the surface layer of the pusher plate, and thought to be acceptable.
If the conventional explosives in the nuclear bomb detonate, but a nuclear explosion does not ignite (a dud), shrapnel could strike and potentially critically damage the pusher plate.
True engineering tests of the vehicle systems were said to be impossible because several thousand nuclear explosions could not be performed in any one place. However, experiments were designed to test pusher plates in nuclear fireballs. Long-term tests of pusher plates could occur in space. Several of these tests almost flew. The shock-absorber designs could be tested at full-scale on Earth using chemical explosives.
But the main unsolved problem for a launch from the surface of the Earth was thought to be nuclear fallout. Any explosions within the magnetosphere would carry fissionables back to earth unless the spaceship were launched from a polar region such as a barge in the higher regions of the Arctic, with the initial launching explosion to be a large mass of conventional high explosive only to significantly reduce fallout; subsequent detonations would be in the air and therefore much cleaner. Antarctica is not viable, as this would require enormous legal changes as the continent is presently an international wildlife preserve.
Freeman Dyson, group leader on the project, estimated back in the 1960s that with conventional nuclear weapons (a large fraction of yield from fission), each launch would cause statistically on average between 0.1 and 1 fatal cancers from the fallout. That estimate is based on no threshold model assumptions, a method often used in estimates of statistical deaths from other major industrial activities, such as how modern-day U.S. regulatory agencies frequently implement regulations on more conventional pollution if one life or more is predicted saved per $6 million to $8 million of economic costs incurred
Each few million dollars of efficiency indirectly gained or lost in the world economy may statistically average lives saved or lost, in terms of opportunity gains versus costs.
Indirect effects could matter for whether the overall influence of an Orion-based space program on future human global mortality would be a net increase or a net decrease, including if change in launch costs and capabilities affected space exploration
, space colonization
, the odds of long-term human species survival
, space-based solar power
, or other hypotheticals.
Danger to human life was not a reason given for shelving the project – those included lack of mission requirement (no-one in the US Government could think of any reason to put thousands of tons of payload into orbit), the decision to focus on rockets (for the Moon mission) and, ultimately, the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty
in 1963. The danger to electronic systems on the ground (from electromagnetic pulse
) was not considered to be significant from the sub-kiloton blasts proposed since solid-state integrated circuits were not in general use at the time.
Orion-style nuclear pulse rockets can be launched from above the magnetosphere
so that charged ions of fallout in its exhaust plasma are not trapped by the Earth’s magnetic field and are not returned to Earth.
From many smaller detonations combined, the fallout for the entire launch of a 6,000 short ton
(5,500 metric ton
) Orion is equal to the detonation of a typical 10 megaton
) nuclear weapon as an airburst
, and therefore most of its fallout would be the comparatively dilute delayed fallout
, if pessimistically assuming the use of nuclear explosives with a high portion of total yield from fission, it would produce a combined fallout total similar to the surface burst
yield of the Mike shot
of Operation Ivy
(10.4 Megaton) in 1952, although the comparison is not quite perfect, as due to its surface burst location, Ivy Mike created a large amount of early fallout
Historical above-ground nuclear weapon tests included 189 megatons
of fission yield and caused average global radiation exposure per person peaking at 0.11 mSv/a in 1963, with a 0.007 mSv/a residual in modern times
(superimposed upon other sources of exposure, primarily natural background radiation
which averages 2.4 mSv/a globally but varies greatly, such as 6 mSv/a in some high-altitude cities).
Any comparison would be influenced by how population dosage is affected by detonation locations, with very remote sites preferred.
With special designs of the nuclear explosive, Ted Taylor estimated that fission product fallout could be reduced tenfold, or even to zero if a pure fusion explosive
could be constructed instead. A 100% pure fusion explosive has yet to be successfully developed according to declassified US government documents, although relatively clean PNEs (Peaceful nuclear explosions
) were tested for canal excavation by the Soviet Union in the 1970s with 98% fusion yield in the Taigatest’s 15 kiloton
devices (only 0.3 kilotons
which excavated part of the proposed Pechora–Kama Canal
The vehicle and its test program would violate the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 as currently written, which prohibited all nuclear detonations except those conducted underground, both as an attempt to slow the arms race and to limit the amount of radiation in the atmosphere caused by nuclear detonations. There was an effort by the US government to put an exception into the 1963 treaty to allow for the use of nuclear propulsion for spaceflight, but Soviet fears about military applications kept the exception out of the treaty.
This limitation would affect only the US, Russia, and the United Kingdom. It would also violate the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
which has been signed by the United States and China, as well as the de facto moratorium on nuclear testing that the declared nuclear powers have imposed since the 1990s. Project Orion however would not violate the Outer Space Treaty which bans nuclear weapons in space, but not peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.
It has been suggested that the restrictions of the Treaty would not apply to the Project Daedalus fusion microexplosion rocket. Daedalus class systems use pellets of one gram or less ignited by particle or laser beams to produce very small fusion explosions with a maximum explosive yield of only 10–20 tons of TNT equivalent.
This problem might be solved by launching from very remote areas, because the EMP footprint would be only a few hundred miles wide. The Earth is well shielded by the Van Allen belts. In addition, a few relatively small space-based electrodynamic tethers
could be deployed to quickly eject the energetic particles from the capture angles of the Van Allen belts.
An Orion spacecraft could be boosted by non-nuclear means to a safer distance, only activating its drive well away from Earth and its attendant satellites. The Lofstrom launch loop
or a space elevator
hypothetically provide excellent solutions, although in the case of the space elevator existing carbon nanotubes
composites do not yet have sufficient tensile strength
. All chemical rocket designs are extremely inefficient (and expensive) when launching mass into orbit, but could be employed if the result were viewed as worth the cost.
Edward Giller, USAF Liaison
Donald Prickett, USAF Liaison
A test similar to the test of a pusher plate occurred as an accidental side effect of a nuclear containment test called “Pascal-B
” conducted on 27 August 1957.
The test’s experimental designer Dr. Brownlee performed a highly approximate calculation that suggested that the low-yield nuclear explosive would accelerate the massive (900 kg) steel capping plate to six times escape velocity
The plate was never found, but Dr. Brownlee believes that the plate never left the atmosphere (for example it could have been vaporized by compression heating of the atmosphere due to its high speed). The calculated velocity was sufficiently interesting that the crew trained a high-speed camera on the plate, which unfortunately only appeared in one frame, but this nevertheless gave a very high lower bound for the speed.”
OPEN FISSION REACTOR BURNING RADIOACTIVE HYDROGEN GAS WITH NO CONTAINMENT, NO FILTERS
NERVA, Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application
Wikipedia; At one point in 1965, during a test at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, the liquid hydrogen storage at Test Cell #2 was accidentally allowed to run dry; the core overheated and ejected on to the floor of the Nevada desert.
NERVA engine test
NUCLEAR REACTOR MELTED DOWN AND OUT
Test Site personnel waited 3 weeks and then walked out and collected the pieces without mishap. The nuclear waste from the damaged core was spread across the desert and was collected by an Army group as a decontamination exercise.
Click to watch video about Project NERVA
Project NERVA was an acronym for Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application, a joint program of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and NASA managed by the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (SNPO) at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station in Jackass Flats, Nevada U.S.A.Between 1959 and 1972, the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office oversaw 23 reactor tests, both the program and the office ended at the end of 1972.
RADIOACTIVE HYDROGEN GAS STREAMED INTO AIR WITH NO LIMITS, NO ONE WAS WARNED DOWNWIND
What none of the videos and descriptions above talk about is that a nuclear core melted down on at least one occasion, releasing massive amounts of radiation, just like any other nuclear reactor melting down. No one was warned, and no one was given KI tablets or anything else.
To perform these tests, an open fission reactor with no radiation safety systems or shielding was put out in the open and hydrogen gas was heated up inside of the reactor and then burned out in the open air. At the point where it left the reactor, it became radioactive hydrogen gas, due to neutron activation, which all of the accounts above fail to mention somehow. Massive quantities of poisonous, radioactive gas were shot up into the air on numerous ocassions, but again, no one was warned or notified downwind.
They claim no one was injured or died from the melt down of a nuclear reactor. According to them, the release of massive quantities of radioactive hydrogen had no effect on anyone or anything. All of these descriptions make for good pro nuclear propaganda, but none of it is true.
Launching a nuclear reactor into the air is worse than launching a nuclear bomb on top of a rocket. Why? A nuclear bomb contains possibly 10 pounds of uranium. A nuclear reactor can contain up to 100 TONS of uranium and/or plutonium. Plutonium is orders of magnitude worse in terms of killing power and cancer causing potential than uranium. What happens if one or more of these nuclear reactors on a rocket fails on the launchpad? What happens if it fails on the way up or in orbit?
1962 – 1964 – RTG’s; Multiple Plutonium Containing Satellites Melt Down And Burn Up On Reentry; via @AGreenRoad
These satellites containing a couple of pounds of plutonium are bad enough. But imagine TONS of uranium and/or plutonium melting and turning into gas and hot particles in the atmosphere or on the launch pad as a huge fireball and explosion of hydrogen gas consumes everything? Of course, if something goes wrong, the moderators will probably fail as well, meaning that the reactor will melt down in space, in the air or on the ground launchpad, as we already have one example of above. Without any containment, and out in the open air, a melting down reactor is a mega nuclear disaster, worse than Chernobyl and TMI. To find out more about what happens after a nuclear reactor melts down, click on the link below…
Nuclear Power Plant Threats, Accidents, Recycling Nuclear Fuel, Movie Reviews, Next Generation Nuclear Plants, Terrorists
Nuclear Powered Rocket Programs; Pluto, Peewee, Phoebus, Kiwi Nerva, Prometheus, Thermal Rockets, Nuclear Propulsionhttp://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/11/nuclear-powered-rocket-programs-pluto.html
First Strike Policy, Nuclear Bombs, Down Winders, Acute Radiation Sickness, Nuclear War, Dirty Bombs, Bomb Shelters
This death toll will only get worse in the future, the more that this type of ‘Atoms For Peace’ pro nuclear propaganda is allowed to continue being aired on TV, Internet, radio and newspapers. The genetic damage is permanent, and goes on for infinite future generations.
Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations, CIA, Journalism And The 1%, Whistleblowers, Voting, Elections And Solutions
Humanity must put away the nuclear toys and get the boys doing this to create a nuclear free, chemical free and carbon free future for humanity. It can be done, but so far the will and motivations are lacking due to the carbon and nuclear fuel monopolies.