Orion Space Craft
- Thread starter Tripler
- Start date
I dont understand why they called THIS spacecraft Orion. The Orion project involves using nuclear explosions to drive a spacecraft equipped with a shielded plate.
Tripler
Well Known GateFan
I'm thinking that the future power source will be nuclear to propel the Orion Space Craft to farther distances other than the moon and mars and that is just a guess on my part . I'll do some searching and see what I find .
Tripler
Well Known GateFan
Jim of WVa
Well Known GateFan
Nice web site.
heisenberg
Earl Grey
Can't deny the name orion sounds cool
Tripler
Well Known GateFan
I keep pronouncing it two ways though . OH Rye An ,,, Ore re on ,,, almost like Oreo cookies ;;;
Tripler
Well Known GateFan
Some interesting points on Nuclear power in space .
http://enformable.com/2014/11/recent-issues-demonstrate-risks-nuclear-power-space/
Will be power for Mars Missions
http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-colonies-powered-by-mini-nuclear-reactors-110830.htm
Some old info from back in 2000
http://www.space4peace.org/mars/nukestomars.htm
Last edited:
Tripler
Well Known GateFan
Yep, it does. But Orion technology was conceived way back in the 1960s and it has described a very specific type of spacecraft since then. Naming this new craft Orion is odd to me. I have been following developments of this technology for quite some time. They have tried everything from tritium pellets to full on warheads detonated behind a huge push plate. They have explored controlled fission explosions contained by magnetic fields, fission by lasers, and they have theoretical concepts for using fusion in the same way, although fusion does not exist. So, to call this craft Orion makes no sense to me, even if it is cool.
Rac80
The Belle of the Ball
I grew up when men walked on the moon and firmly expected they would be on Mars before I hit my 40's. UH HUH! too much money spent on boondoggles and not enough on space exploration.
I have a friend who used to work for NASA (he's retired now) and he says part of the problem was there were two schools of thought at NASA after we landed on the moon. Some wanted to go the robotic exploration route and others were all for sending humanity to the stars. The problem was the USA could not afford both and would get something partially built (and funded) then the "other side" would get in charge and stop projects they disagreed with dead to start money on "their" projects. So we have man partially built (and researched) projects. (FYI the mars Rovers were initially made out of spare parts from other projects that never got off the ground)
so we screwed ourselves.
I have a friend who used to work for NASA (he's retired now) and he says part of the problem was there were two schools of thought at NASA after we landed on the moon. Some wanted to go the robotic exploration route and others were all for sending humanity to the stars. The problem was the USA could not afford both and would get something partially built (and funded) then the "other side" would get in charge and stop projects they disagreed with dead to start money on "their" projects. So we have man partially built (and researched) projects. (FYI the mars Rovers were initially made out of spare parts from other projects that never got off the ground)
so we screwed ourselves.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
The problem was the USA could not afford both and would get something partially built (and funded) then the "other side" would get in charge and stop projects they disagreed with dead to start money on "their" projects. So we have man partially built (and researched) projects. (FYI the mars Rovers were initially made out of spare parts from other projects that never got off the ground)
Sure, because all the money goes to defense to buy useless and unnecessary weaponry. We outspend every country combined by several orders of magnitude. We have enough weaponry to start an interstellar war with an alien race all by ourselves but, somehow, have no money for meaningless things like healthcare, education, or worthwhile ventures like space exploration.
NASA's entire budget is equivalent to what we spend running the IRS and about double what we spend to run prisons filled with mostly offenders of victimless crimes (i.e. narcotics possession), about $12B. Yeah, money well spent.
Jim of WVa
Well Known GateFan
Every empire protects its shipping lanes.
Perhaps, but the US is still trying to create new ones and take over those of others as well.
Rac80
The Belle of the Ball
The government does what most families do and spend it's money on what it consders priorities...not just defense & military but also many bondoogles. (see http://cagw.org/ ) politicians are more interested in bringing pork projects back "home" (ever driven through West Virginia? I swear half the state is named for pork-barrel Robert Byrd or his wife! he was the king of pork if you wanted a bill passed you had to have something for WV in it!) too many pols are short-sghted about the long term benefits of space exploration!
Bolded: EXACTLY.
We dont need Orion, we need a proper reusable lift vehicle like a spaceplane. It benefits EARTH air travel as well as space travel. It gives a proper segue into air-to-space and space-to ground transport like we see in Star Trek. Imagine a VTOL spaceplane, and you have it. Orion and command modules and wings of solar panels costing billions in total...to go where and do what? What did landing on the moon do for people on earth? GETTING THERE did yield digital displays of the first simple LEDs, Tang (OMG), freeze dried foods and beverages, and hours upon hours of live television with the highest global viewership ratings in television history. But actually landing a man on the Moon? Not seeing the benefit there. We are not ready to spread out. Too much broken at home. Lets do it when we are ready. When somebody lands on the moon, they need to be representing Earth as a united whole, not the United States or Russia or China. Nobody is ready yet.