Why did our retarded government have to cancel project Orion? We could have been exploring the solarsystem by now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
/sp/ - Football
Yea, for the Denver Broncos are Football Now and Forever
Archived thread
File (): 0C70618158F91B4887FBBF0EDA1C8778-173477.jpg (169.4 KB, 1536x721, orion-40kt.jpg)
Good luck testing a prototype that uses nuclear bombs. Also, what if one is entering orbit and a bomb fails to detonate and falls back to earth?
Seems like a very efficient means of propulsion, though. I should weld a blast plate to my rear bumper and throw dynamite behind me as I drive. I would save thousands in gas money!
Seems like a very efficient means of propulsion, though. I should weld a blast plate to my rear bumper and throw dynamite behind me as I drive. I would save thousands in gas money!
>>5615
Hey, something I can speak knowledgeably about.
The main problem is how they proposed the idea. They didn't propose a bomb powered star cruiser that just reloaded in orbit and never landed. They proposed traditional rockets, so they would have blown a lot of nukes into the atmosphere. Plus tense political relations during the cold war led to no nukes in space.
Was it a good idea? Yeah, they just needed some changes and a different political climate.
>>5616
>Fall to Earth
Okay, 2 things
1: Unless the original ship was gonna hit Earth, the bomb wouldn't hit Earth because how orbits work.
2: the nukes would burn up on re-entry, never hitting the surface.
Hey, something I can speak knowledgeably about.
The main problem is how they proposed the idea. They didn't propose a bomb powered star cruiser that just reloaded in orbit and never landed. They proposed traditional rockets, so they would have blown a lot of nukes into the atmosphere. Plus tense political relations during the cold war led to no nukes in space.
Was it a good idea? Yeah, they just needed some changes and a different political climate.
>>5616
>Fall to Earth
Okay, 2 things
1: Unless the original ship was gonna hit Earth, the bomb wouldn't hit Earth because how orbits work.
2: the nukes would burn up on re-entry, never hitting the surface.
>>5617
>They proposed traditional rockets, so they would have blown a lot of nukes into the atmosphere.
Would vacuum bombs work today? (At least until we got the Orion out of Earth's atmosphere)
>They proposed traditional rockets, so they would have blown a lot of nukes into the atmosphere.
Would vacuum bombs work today? (At least until we got the Orion out of Earth's atmosphere)
>>5620
Thanks for telling me about a new peice of technology.
From what I'm reading, I would have to say yes.
It wouldn't provide as much thrust as a nuclear warhead, so it would be less efficent, but it should work for a first stage and then it can be a nuclear second stage.
10/10 idea anon, I like the way you think.
Thanks for telling me about a new peice of technology.
From what I'm reading, I would have to say yes.
It wouldn't provide as much thrust as a nuclear warhead, so it would be less efficent, but it should work for a first stage and then it can be a nuclear second stage.
10/10 idea anon, I like the way you think.
>>5622
I don't know, cause I can find the power of a vacuum bomb, so I don't knww how efficient they would be compared to a nuclear weapon.
Then again, the option of assembly in orbit still stands.
I don't know, cause I can find the power of a vacuum bomb, so I don't knww how efficient they would be compared to a nuclear weapon.
Then again, the option of assembly in orbit still stands.
>>5623
1 MOAB = 11 tons of TNT
1 MOAB costs $170000
Davy Crocketts are between 10 and 20 tons of TNT not sure how much they cost but I am guessing they cost a lot more than 170k
The Orion was to use .03kt bombs or 30 tons of TNT.
1 MOAB = 11 tons of TNT
1 MOAB costs $170000
Davy Crocketts are between 10 and 20 tons of TNT not sure how much they cost but I am guessing they cost a lot more than 170k
The Orion was to use .03kt bombs or 30 tons of TNT.
8 replies | 1 files | 6 UUIDs | Archived