Mars site may hold 'buried life'

[Serafina]

Because I would do the research before making a serious proposal. Also, because I'm not just beating my head against the wall, here; I'm learning valuable stuff from this argument, and I thank you for that.

Hint:
If you are learning critical information about something on the internet, you are not an expert on it.

In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about.

[LionElJonson]

Because I would do the research before making a serious proposal. Also, because I'm not just beating my head against the wall, here; I'm learning valuable stuff from this argument, and I thank you for that.

Hint:
If you are learning critical information about something on the internet, you are not an expert on it.

In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about.

My current plan is to do serious research after this semester, and start serious fund-raising next year.

[Serafina]

Because I would do the research before making a serious proposal. Also, because I'm not just beating my head against the wall, here; I'm learning valuable stuff from this argument, and I thank you for that.

Hint:
If you are learning critical information about something on the internet, you are not an expert on it.

In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about.

My current plan is to do serious research after this semester, and start serious fund-raising next year.

You know how that sounds? Like a childish fantasy.

First of all, to get serious knowledge about it you would need years of study, not half a year. And you are already making plans for fundraising?
Your project would, first of all, needs dozens of professional engineers - who have to be paid. And hundreds of other people as well.
And then there is the cost of the building materials. And the necessary testing.
Oh, and that tiny little fact that you would need some of the most classified materials in the whole world - small nukes and high-grade nuclear fuel.

Such a project would be an immense project for the USA, EU or comparable powers. You can not do it as a private person. You can not create a company based on it - essentially, you have to recreate the entire space program, since you are using a completely new drive system. Just think about that for a while.

[Sea Skimmer]

Really? Hmm. If that's the case, then my first impression of "It might be cheaper to just subcontract the production of nuclear fuel to a subcontractor and/or just build a breeder reactor than to buy the stuff on the open market" might well be the case.

That's like saying it might be cheaper to just build a 200,000 foot mountain as the launch pad. Sure maybe it would be, but you’ll never get approval to build what you need. Breeders make plutonium 239 BTW, not HEU. Extracting Pu-239 from the spent nuclear fuel requires its own world of highly specialized facilities, and a damn lot of reactor capacity. It also produces large quantities of low-mid level nuclear waste, and creates criticality and well as spill accident risks your company is now liable for. Do you realize how many decades it will take to license sites to do any of this work, even if you have the money and political support required to even try?

That said, I might well be able to convince Russia and the US to it, since India's already got nuclear weapons, and using them as NPP fuel is just as good as any way to dispose of the stuff peacefully.

No you won't. Russia won't give you the time of day and the US will send you a short form letter saying no. Blowing HEU fallout in the air with hundreds of atomic blasts is as good as blending the stuff down so it can never be used for nuclear arms.... do you realize how dumb that is to say?

Because I would do the research before making a serious proposal. Also, because I'm not just beating my head against the wall, here; I'm learning valuable stuff from this argument, and I thank you for that.

Happy to help, but you are delusional to think you have any chance. Don't waste your time. People far smarter then you or I who actually are nuclear and rocket engineers have tried serious proposals for Orion. They got nowhere in an era when the atom was still man's best friend. Today you face not only colossal political challenges which go to the core of international relations today, but also competition from conventional rockets which work way better then those of the 1960s.

You also simply don't have a payload. No matter how well you’re Orion worked on paper, removing all doubts for the sake of conversation, what are you going to orbit which needs a 6,000 ton Orion? Hundreds of serious proposals and extensive studies exist for large space boosters such as the Nova series I linked too. They don't get built because normal satellite orbiting missions do not require that kind of performance. If you don't have a large object to justify the booster performance, the booster never gets built, no matter how it works. No one is going to give you billions of dollars just for the costs of detailed design, let alone the additional billions each for prototype, building the launch pad, building the nuclear infrastructure or actually building the first Orion, unless you have a viable business plan. You don’t just build something like that and wait for customers to show up. Not unless you happen to have your own private 40 billion dollar fortune you feel like gambling with anyway.

An Orion could have a somewhat low cost per pound to orbit, but it orbits a damn lot of pounds at once which means it will still be hideously expensive per launch. Unless you use up every single pound, the cost per pound used goes up. What's more placing multiple spacecraft on one booster the penalty for failure rises sharply, and you have non trivial limitations on how you can deploy those spacecraft into different orbits. An Orion launched into a polar orbit for example will never be able to unload a payload into GEO. So you can’t just accept satellites from any random customer and pack them all into one launch.

This isn't even touching on the fact that the EMP from launching an Orion would devastate everything in orbit and almost certainly lead to a US military strike on the Orion before it can launch. This issue I am sure you are unaware of, because if you knew about it you would never consider Orion credible in the modern day.

Hmm. That might be a possible result of the aviation industry's caution; it's a bureaucratic nightmare trying to get anything that hasn't been extensively tested approved.

Yes it is, because risk has to be managed. You are liable for the Orion craft veering off course and crashing into a city remember. You are also liable for it blowing up on the launch pad and burning up several tons of highly toxic HEU. How many launch failures do you think investors will tolerate? How long will they bankroll R&D on unproven technology? What about the host government?

I suppose I could probably save money there by making sure my engineers design the thing out of mostly pre-approved components, though.

You could save some money doing that sure, guidance computers for example could be based directly on existing models. But Orion demands a lot of very unique hardware, and software which is own challenge. The pusher plate for example has to be sprayed in oil to prevent ablation.... but liquid does not spray in a fine mist in a near vacuum. It will come out as large drops. The fine mist may not even be possible; you will need prototypes in vacuum testing chambers to find out. If it can work, then you have to find a way to make it work while the piping is being subject to atomic weapons effects.
That is the kind of thing you would have to test extensively and it might never work. Someone has to think highly enough of your proposal that they are willing to risk money to find out. That in turn will depend heavily on your personal experience, knowledge and reputation. You’ve got nothing in any of those categories, and let me tell you, if you don’t have connections in life by now; the odds overwhelmingly say you never will.

I love Orion too, as a concept. It is very cool. It is not remotely practical for a launch from the earths surface. It would be more viable if it was launched from the dark side of the moon towards Alpha Centauri. It is obvious that you do not understand what is involved in this even in basic terms. You are failing at even convincing an amateur web forum that you know what you are talking about. What hope do you think you have in real life? The fact that you think one semester is sufficient study... I don't think I can convey how hopeless your self declared position is.

I don't need to; only the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty bans the civilian use of nuclear detonations. It's also why we aren't building prototypes; the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty bans them.

The hell? First of all the comprehensive test ban treaty has not entered into binding force; it is irrelevant at the moment, which is the only good news you’ve gotten today. The issue is the Limited Test Band Treaty alone, but it says nothing about allowing prototypes or civilian launches, in fact it says the complete opposite that even non weapons tests are banned.

The relevant text is as follows

1. Each of the Parties to this Treaty undertakes to prohibit, to prevent, and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, at any place under its jurisdiction or control:

(a) in the atmosphere; beyond its limits, including outer space; or under water, including territorial waters or high seas; or

(b) in any other environment if such explosion causes radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control such explosion is conducted. It is understood in this connection that the provisions of this subparagraph are without prejudice to the conclusion of a Treaty resulting in the permanent banning of all nuclear test explosions, including all such explosions underground, the conclusion of which, as the Parties have stated in the Preamble to this Treaty, they seek to achieve.

2. Each of the Parties to this Treaty undertakes furthermore to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in, the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, anywhere which would take place in any of the environments described, or have the effect referred to, in paragraph 1 of this Article.

An Orion launch is in violation of all of this. Only contained underground nuclear initiations are legal under the Limited Test Ban Treaty. No exemptions for civilian use. The very specific purpose of this treaty was to prevent continued buildup of nuclear fallout in the atmosphere.

Amendments can be proposed to the treaty, and you would require one. That is why I asked what the political strategy is to make that happen, which will require 1/3rd of signing members of the treaty to agree just to be allowed to discuss an amendment. To pass an amendment all original members must agree along with a majority of all signatories. That means the US and Russia, and then about 50 other countries must agree to your Indian Orion launch.

You need this approval BEFORE you start any serious work on an Orion craft, because no one is going to give you any damn money to do any work unless they know for a fact it will be possible to launch the damn ship. No national government is simply going to ignore the treaty and become subject to sanctions, which will surely include a ban on importing fissile material or feedstock, just to facilitate your wet dream project.

[Simon_Jester]

This isn't even touching on the fact that the EMP from launching an Orion would devastate everything in orbit and almost certainly lead to a US military strike on the Orion before it can launch. This issue I am sure you are unaware of, because if you knew about it you would never consider Orion credible in the modern day.

Hmm. Was Orion ever credible, given that? I mean, even back in the '60s that kind of side effect would be a good way to trigger gigantic international incidents at best and World War III at worst.

Because I would do the research before making a serious proposal. Also, because I'm not just beating my head against the wall, here; I'm learning valuable stuff from this argument, and I thank you for that.

The fact that any of us here have anything to teach you does not bode well for your chances. Bear in mind that this is a project you will have to devote your entire life to, and even then your chances of success are incredibly low unless you happen to be some kind of legendary world-historical genius... in which case you'd already have contacts in the professional world who would have told you just how difficult this was going to be.

This is not easy, by any possible definition of easy.

Plan to spend years doing your homework and studying the subject. I don't know where you'll even get the startup capital to do a design study from, unless you happen to be very, very rich. But you have far, far more to do than you realize. Best get cracking.

Hmm. That might be a possible result of the aviation industry's caution; it's a bureaucratic nightmare trying to get anything that hasn't been extensively tested approved. I suppose I could probably save money there by making sure my engineers design the thing out of mostly pre-approved components, though.

Remember the part where nothing like the pusher plate and shock absorbers for an Orion drive exists? These things would have to be built from scratch; they cannot be assembled from off the shelf hardware. No credible engineer would endorse the notion that you can somehow just simulate the whole thing and expect it to work without a prototype.

It's not a question of "bureaucratic nightmare." It's a question of these being really fucking complicated. Back before the software was invented, test-flying new aircraft designs was extremely dangerous. They crashed all the time, because of unexpected bugs in the design. Today, aircraft are more complicated. With an Orion drive spacecraft, it's not only going to be more complicated, it's going to be totally unlike anything else that's ever existed. There is no body of knowledge on how to simulate this stuff.

So no, you are not going to be able to save money by having your engineers design it using off the shelf components, because no working Orion drive can be built from off the shelf components. Nor are you going to be able to save money by not building prototypes; you'd have to invent entire categories of software from scratch to simulate this stuff, and the simulations would be completely untested themselves, giving other people no reason to trust that your software is good enough to rely on. Overall costs of the software might well exceed those of the prototype, to boot.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hmm. Was Orion ever credible, given that? I mean, even back in the '60s that kind of side effect would be a good way to trigger gigantic international incidents at best and World War III at worst.

Not really ever credible in the earth launch context. The thing is work on Orion started in 1958, and we didn’t even begin to understand EMP until the early 1960s after some of the final open air/near space nuclear tests the US and USSR conducted. The Limited Test Ban Treaty then killed all work in 1963 just as number crunching and investigation into EMP commenced full scale.

However the situation would have been better back then it is today, because no one was dependent on satellites for anything, though terrestrial equipment like power lines and troposcatter/ionoscatter communications would also be extensively affected. LionElJonson will now probably make some random statement about asking everyone on earth to turn off the power so he can do a launch from India, which is a god-awful choice of a launch pad anyway. A barge based at Tonga would be a lot closer to reality.

[PaperJack]

I don't see how a government is going to allow you a craft that is able to:
reach orbit relatively quickly
maneuver in orbit
bombard any city of the world with nuclear bombs or emp blasts

[LionElJonson]

Actually, that I can't launch an Orion from a nation has given me an idea which would likely result in a lot of cost savings: sea launch. Basically, the Orion drive vessel is basically a small freight ship (10k tons gross weight) that's had wings strapped on (with everything being properly designed by engineers, of course), its seagoing engines removed and replaced with the pulse drive, spaceproofed, and is then pulled to international waters by tugboats.

It then flies to a few thousand feet on conventional aeroplane propulsion (probably turboprops, for a combination of fuel efficiency and power, though maybe turbojets since it won't need to use them for that long anyway), before it starts the pulse unit and flies into space. Not only does this allow me to circumvent the nuclear test ban treaty, but it also removes the downsides of nuclear propulsion. Ocean currents serve to disperse nuclear fallout over a wide area; within a very short amount of time, what little fallout is produced will be rendered non-hazardous. Additionally, what little EMP is produced by the pulse units is rendered harmless by virtue of the fact that I'm launching them from the middle of the Pacific Ocean; there won't be any electronics to fry.

Also, PaperJack: The only way an Orion-drive vessel of the sort I'd be building could be used for nuclear bombardment is if you pull Space 9/11 with one. Needless to say, security would be tight enough to ensure that that's not going to happen.

Simon_Jester: I am planning on devoting my life to it. I'm still a university student; most of you guys have years if not decades of experience as engineers and whatnot. I'm not so arrogant as to assume you guys have nothing to teach me.

As for startup capital, well, a few sources. Firstly, government grants. The government's designated my hometown as a aerospace development zone or some such (I forget the exact name); I'll see what sort of assistance I can get there. Secondly, private investment. I'd basically be pitching myself as the next Microsoft or the like (and, to be honest, at the very least we'd be a multi-billion dollar company if we manage anything resembling commercial success, due to the scale Orion works on); better to get in on the ground floor while we're still small, so you'll get a good return on investment. Thirdly, bank loans. That's a source of startup capital I'd prefer to avoid if at all possible, though.

As for simulation: Finite Element Analysis. There are fluid modelling software packages as well as ones for modelling material stresses and strains; we'd definitely be using both of them extensively. I know they exist, because I used them as an undergraduate engineer.

[Channel72]

As for startup capital, well, a few sources. Firstly, government grants. The government's designated my hometown as a aerospace development zone or some such (I forget the exact name); I'll see what sort of assistance I can get there. Secondly, private investment. I'd basically be pitching myself as the next Microsoft or the like (and, to be honest, at the very least we'd be a multi-billion dollar company if we manage anything resembling commercial success, due to the scale Orion works on); better to get in on the ground floor while we're still small, so you'll get a good return on investment. Thirdly, bank loans. That's a source of startup capital I'd prefer to avoid if at all possible, though.

You certainly have a good attitude and an optimistic outlook, which I think is admirable despite what people are saying here.

But...

I don't want to piss on your dreams, but what you're proposing is... wildly optimistic to put it mildly. I started a software company about four years ago, so I speak from experience when I say that getting people to fund your business idea is HARD, especially if you don't have some kind of working prototype or source of revenue. The reality of the situation is that there are tens of thousands of wanna-be tech entreprenuers running around, trying to get funding for all sorts of technologies from quantum dot solar cells, to genetically-modified designer flora, to the latest facebook clone.

And while there are certainly lots of funding options available, (like NSA grants, angel investors, or venture capitalists), your idea is so far-fetched and hypothetical that I doubt if there's an investor on Earth who would touch it. Plus, most NSA or government grants are less than 1,000,000 USD. You're talking about a project that would require billions just to get off the ground. I've seen countless business ideas, all of them way more plausible than what you're talking about, die painfully and prematurely because nobody wanted to fund them. (And none of those ideas involved nukes or Vladamir Putin.) Really, what you're talking about will come off as pie-in-the-sky babbling to most investors (who are likely to be interested mostly in a quick and profitable exit-strategy) unless you've got some kind of working prototype. Yeah, it's a catch-22, I know, but that's the reality of the situation.

So, I wish you the best of luck. I admire your optimism, but really, there's a certain point where optimism crosses over into outright naivete; and I really think you've crossed that line.

[Sarevok]

LionElJonson:

Lemme put this nicely even though most people think you are nuts. Its ok to be a nut as long as you got a plan and stick to it. But it has to be a realistic plan that will work.

Lets say you are not trolling here and really wish to build an orion craft. If you are realistic and sincere why dont you start small ? Launching an Orion spacecraft is such an immense undertaking it is unlikely you will live long enough to see your dreams full filled. Its right up there with liberating a country and being sainted as the father of the revolution.

Why not start small to gain experience and give weight to your words ? Why not invest in SpaceX or work for an aerospace firm to familiarize yourself with the real world industry ? As others have repeated many times you require tremendous charisma, influence and respect. Pioneers started big dreams by working om small and insignificant scales. Goddard and Tsiolkovsky, god bless their eternal souls, lived very humble lives and never got to see rockets reach the moon. They never could get a Saturn V or Proton built in their lifetime. If by some miraculous stroke of fortune your orion plans work then it would be probably decades after you dead too.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, that I can't launch an Orion from a nation has given me an idea which would likely result in a lot of cost savings: sea launch. Basically, the Orion drive vessel is basically a small freight ship (10k tons gross weight) that's had wings strapped on (with everything being properly designed by engineers, of course), its seagoing engines removed and replaced with the pulse drive, spaceproofed, and is then pulled to international waters by tugboats.

Has anyone done design studies for this in the past? You're talking about an airplane twenty or thirty times heavier than anything that's ever flown, and one with utterly shitty aerodynamic properties to boot. Moreover, this does not solve the profoundly serious question of where you are going to get an enormous number of mini-nukes from, or the profoundly serious question of how you convince the world's navies not to bother you while you do this.

Or, for that matter, where you get the startup capital.

Additionally, what little EMP is produced by the pulse units is rendered harmless by virtue of the fact that I'm launching them from the middle of the Pacific Ocean; there won't be any electronics to fry.

Nitpick: there is a great deal of air and sea traffic in the Pacific, as well as many expensive satellites; launching from the middle of the Pacific does not reduce EMP effects to zero.

Also, PaperJack: The only way an Orion-drive vessel of the sort I'd be building could be used for nuclear bombardment is if you pull Space 9/11 with one. Needless to say, security would be tight enough to ensure that that's not going to happen.

How do you propose to retain control of the project while simultaneously satisfying outsiders that the project is secure? I, for one, would not trust you with a nuclear arsenal- not because I think you're a bad person, but because I disapprove of giving nuclear weapons to random strangers on genreal principles. If the US government shares my skepticism, how do you stay in control of the project, rather than having them pat you on the head and say "OK, we'll take it from here?"

Simon_Jester: I am planning on devoting my life to it. I'm still a university student; most of you guys have years if not decades of experience as engineers and whatnot. I'm not so arrogant as to assume you guys have nothing to teach me.

Actually, most of us have no more technical experience than you (there are exceptions); we're just more aware of the magnitude of the problems involved in this.

You seem to be extremely optimistic about your ability to convince others to support you in this endeavour, and to overcome really big problems of the form "no rational nation would let you do this without taking so much control over the project as to leave you on the sidelines." And you seem to be very impractical about your engineering proposals- assuming that simulations can take the place of prototypes for extremely large pieces of hardware the likes of which have never existed before, or blithely assuming that someone can build a ten thousand ton airplane that will fly and have a functioning Orion drive.

What grounds for this very high level of optimism do you have?

As for startup capital, well, a few sources. Firstly, government grants. The government's designated my hometown as a aerospace development zone or some such (I forget the exact name); I'll see what sort of assistance I can get there. Secondly, private investment. I'd basically be pitching myself as the next Microsoft or the like (and, to be honest, at the very least we'd be a multi-billion dollar company if we manage anything resembling commercial success, due to the scale Orion works on); better to get in on the ground floor while we're still small, so you'll get a good return on investment. Thirdly, bank loans. That's a source of startup capital I'd prefer to avoid if at all possible, though.

Why would people assume that you are going to succeed? I for one would not invest in you at the ground floor, because there are many steps in your plan at which I do not think you would be able to succeed.

As for simulation: Finite Element Analysis. There are fluid modelling software packages as well as ones for modelling material stresses and strains; we'd definitely be using both of them extensively. I know they exist, because I used them as an undergraduate engineer.

Do you know the computational scale of the project, for simulating a ten thousand ton object that must operate as a ship floating in water and as an airplane and as a nuclear pulse drive spacecraft? How much computing power would you need to run such a simulation in a reasonable amount of time, to the level of resolution required to catch faults in your design?

I've mentioned this issue before, so to quote:

Subject: The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty One Up
Convincing design concepts require that the designer know the physical problems they're trying to engineer around. Say that someone comes to you saying "I want to build a rocket to fly to the Moon." If you hand them money, odds are you've lost it, because there are a lot of people who think they can build a moon rocket for every one who really can. So you ask them "The rocket equation says that your rocket can't carry enough fuel to reach the Moon and come back. What do you plan to do about it?" And that's the critical point, because if they reply with a bunch of handwaving, or show ignorance of the rocket equation, it's time to see if they bounce on their way out through the door.

You give them money ONLY if they are informed enough, and have given the matter enough thought, to suggest a solution like "We can build a multistage rocket, rather than try to propel the full mass of the booster all the way to the Moon!" Then maybe you fund them. But if they say "Somehow I'll find a way around it!" without specifying how, you politely ask them to come back in a few years when they've gotten a real engineering degree.

If someone comes to you and all they have is "I want to build a submacopter!" then they do not have enough to be worth paying to design it. The Tesla death ray was like this: He made some sketches, but nothing workable, and with no sign that he actually understood the physics that was getting in the way of doing his job.

This is a major problem with far-out technological concepts that never got off the back of the envelope stage. At that stage you can't tell between what would have worked and what wouldn't. And if there's no sign that the designer even bothered to consider the physics and engineering problems that could make the design fail... odds are, the design was doomed to fail.

[Sarevok]

How can you simulate Orion propulsion when we have no models available ? Don't you need a lot of physical experimentation before you have the data and math to build a computer simulation ? I am just a EE student and this is way beyond my undergrad level of expertise. But the tools we use in circuit simulation are based on institutional knowledge of how electrical circuits behave. If no one had built circuits and derived the fundamental current, voltage relationships then there would be no such thing as PSPICE today.

Would not something as vast as Orion run into a problem like this ? For instance no one has built a structure as massive as Orion pusher. How can you "simulate" something that is full of unknowns ?

[Simon_Jester]

In theory, with sufficient (practically unlimited, I'd think) computing power, you could do it. But in practice, you'd need to combine very detailed modeling of the physical components (the plate, the bolts holding stuff together, and so on) with very detailed modeling of the effects of nuclear initiations at varying altitudes. The latter is a particularly big problem, because if such simulation codes even exist, they're probably classified property of the national governments that developed them.

And you'd need some way to make sure your simulation results match reality (like, say, prototypes), which is NOT a given; simulations often have wonky behaviors that need to be worked around in the code before they'll give accurate results.

[LionElJonson]

How can you simulate Orion propulsion when we have no models available ? Don't you need a lot of physical experimentation before you have the data and math to build a computer simulation ? I am just a EE student and this is way beyond my undergrad level of expertise. But the tools we use in circuit simulation are based on institutional knowledge of how electrical circuits behave. If no one had built circuits and derived the fundamental current, voltage relationships then there would be no such thing as PSPICE today.

Would not something as vast as Orion run into a problem like this ? For instance no one has built a structure as massive as Orion pusher. How can you "simulate" something that is full of unknowns ?

Nuclear blasts are fairly well understood. Airflow is fairly well understood. Water flow is fairly well understood. Material stresses and strains are very well understood. Also, lots of things have been built on the scale of the Orion; the design I'm proposing is actually small by the standards of freight ships, which is what we'd start off with before going on to turning it into a rocket.

Simon_Jester: I'm not sure if anyone has done design studies on it in the past; "take freighter; add wings and rocket engines" seems like the sort of thing that could be done roughly with two or three engineers (nuclear scientist, rocket scientist, aviation engineer) and some computers to get the basic numbers ($/kg of cargo, overall cost estimate, basic physical properties) as well as some pretty pictures I can then go and sell to the people who'd give me the money to actually design the thing down to the nuts and bolts and wiring. Once that's done I can then use those detailed plans to raise money to actually get it built.

Regarding EMP and the Pacific, I don't think there'd be much to fry, since we'd be launching from open ocean away from trade routes, and the EMP effect from a .3 kiloton nuclear device would be trivial compared to those of the megaton nuclear bomb the US tested its EMP effects with in Hawaii. Simply put, if a megaton gets a thousand miles, a hundred miles or so should be more than enough for a .3 kiloton device.

As for retaining control of the project, well, that's why I'd do my best to work with government officials from the start, and to follow all rules they lay out. Additionally, the facilities containing the pulse units would be heavily guarded at all times by security officers with the appropriate security clearances, as well as the best firearms and body armor I could legally purchase. Similarly, they would be transported by armed convoys, with the devices themselves stored in armored cars (the sort banks use for transferring lots and lots of money. Basically, at all times they would assume they're about to be attacked by a first world infantry force, and would be trained and on guard accordingly (because if someone's landed tanks on mainland Australia, we have bigger problems, but former infantrymen forming an armed militia is entirely possible).

Simulations taking place of prototypes was largely a neccessity borne out of not being able to test it; now that I've abandoned the land-based launch altogether in favor of a seaplane launch, tests would be possible. I wouldn't want to have to do more than one, though; each launch would cost exorbitant amounts of money. As for what grounds for optimism? I suppose I'm just an optimistic person by nature, I suppose.

Why would people assume I'm going to succeed? Because I believe I will, and because people fall for hucksters all the time. At the early stages, they also stand to make dramatically more than they do to lose, as well; compare the cost of hiring two or three engineers and a manager (me) plus the cost of computers and software to the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of profit the business would make upon completion of the project. It'd be a risk, sure, but it'd be a risk that would pay out lots if it pans out.

I don't know how much computational power I'd need, but I do know that relatively small organizations are capable of designing great big huge skyscrapers and the like, so it can't be that huge. Your point on them often behaving strangely is tell taken, however; odds are there are going to be a few strange things going on (like what the deposited salt does to the pusher plate after the first few pulses evaporate the sea-water covering half of the plate). We might be able to avoid that, though, by using some sort of disposable covering we drop off after we attain some degree of altitude.

[Sarevok]

Nuclear blasts are fairly well understood. Airflow is fairly well understood. Water flow is fairly well understood. Material stresses and strains are very well understood. Also, lots of things have been built on the scale of the Orion; the design I'm proposing is actually small by the standards of freight ships, which is what we'd start off with before going on to turning it into a rocket.

That would be true if you have a Matrix like supercomputer simulating the Orion vessel at atomic level resolution....

In reality we have no such thing. Engineering software don't work like that. What we have are templates for well known cases. Now the fact that naval vessels are large as Orion as been built is irrelevant. The Pyramid is more massive than a supertank. Being able to design the Pyramids does not give you the knowledge to create the most efficient shape for a 100000 ton ship.

To actually be able to model an Orion vessel accurately you have to do what rocket and airplane builders did. Fly a lot of Orion tests. Then you get the information you need.

Simon_Jester: I'm not sure if anyone has done design studies on it in the past; "take freighter; add wings and rocket engines" seems like the sort of thing that could be done roughly with two or three engineers (nuclear scientist, rocket scientist, aviation engineer) and some computers to get the basic numbers ($/kg of cargo, overall cost estimate, basic physical properties) as well as some pretty pictures I can then go and sell to the people who'd give me the money to actually design the thing down to the nuts and bolts and wiring. Once that's done I can then use those detailed plans to raise money to actually get it built.

What you are talking about is back of the envelop calculations. Like the ones we do in scifi debates here and at sb. We make a lot of assumptions to keep the math simple. You could say a nuke with a yield of x amount of energy could put y amount of payload into orbit.This does not equate being able to design an Orion craft. You have not done design work on a pusher plate that could absorb most of the energy and yet not shatter.

What you don't seem to realize is that we live in 21st century not some far flung future with perfect VR representation of reality. Every major naval, air and space project gets prototypes and small scale models built and tested. No one has found out a substitute for that yet. If you can create some magic software for that it alone will make you a billionaire on per with other IT moguls.

[LionElJonson]

Nuclear blasts are fairly well understood. Airflow is fairly well understood. Water flow is fairly well understood. Material stresses and strains are very well understood. Also, lots of things have been built on the scale of the Orion; the design I'm proposing is actually small by the standards of freight ships, which is what we'd start off with before going on to turning it into a rocket.

That would be true if you have a Matrix like supercomputer simulating the Orion vessel at atomic level resolution....

That's not needed. You can model things much more roughly than that and still get a workable result.

In reality we have no such thing. Engineering software don't work like that. What we have are templates for well known cases. Now the fact that naval vessels are large as Orion as been built is irrelevant. The Pyramid is more massive than a supertank. Being able to design the Pyramids does not give you the knowledge to create the most efficient shape for a 100000 ton ship.

Actually, what it does is it breaks the design into lots of little pieces, and calculates the forces, stresses, and strains going through each one of them. Heck, here is the website of one prominent FEA software producer.

You're also off on the mass of the thing by an order of magnitude.

To actually be able to model an Orion vessel accurately you have to do what rocket and airplane builders did. Fly a lot of Orion tests. Then you get the information you need.

Or you can run it through a sufficiently capable simulation that'll cover things like vibrations and the like.

Simon_Jester: I'm not sure if anyone has done design studies on it in the past; "take freighter; add wings and rocket engines" seems like the sort of thing that could be done roughly with two or three engineers (nuclear scientist, rocket scientist, aviation engineer) and some computers to get the basic numbers ($/kg of cargo, overall cost estimate, basic physical properties) as well as some pretty pictures I can then go and sell to the people who'd give me the money to actually design the thing down to the nuts and bolts and wiring. Once that's done I can then use those detailed plans to raise money to actually get it built.

What you are talking about is back of the envelop calculations. Like the ones we do in scifi debates here and at sb. We make a lot of assumptions to keep the math simple. You could say a nuke with a yield of x amount of energy could put y amount of payload into orbit.This does not equate being able to design an Orion craft. You have not done design work on a pusher plate that could absorb most of the energy and yet not shatter.

Yes and no. The initial stage is partly back-of-the-envelope stuff, and partly macroscale design; producing a basic design that won't have its wings snap off from the load, or its pusher plate shatter from the bomb blast.

What you don't seem to realize is that we live in 21st century not some far flung future with perfect VR representation of reality. Every major naval, air and space project gets prototypes and small scale models built and tested. No one has found out a substitute for that yet. If you can create some magic software for that it alone will make you a billionaire on per with other IT moguls.

It doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to be good enough. Computer software has dramatically cut the need for prototypes; this is self-evident to anyone that's had even casual contact with the things.

[Sarevok]

*sigh*

You know a single software package that will you design an Orion ship ? If such a thing existed the entire aerospace industry would change. No one would ever have to develop new aircraft technologies step by step anymore...

[Simon_Jester]

Nuclear blasts are fairly well understood.

Are they? Name one publically available software code that models a nuclear fireball well enough to be used to do calculations for an Orion drive. Just one, that's all I ask.

Also, lots of things have been built on the scale of the Orion; the design I'm proposing is actually small by the standards of freight ships, which is what we'd start off with before going on to turning it into a rocket.

Do you think you can just bolt a pair of wings onto a tramp freighter and make it fly? I thought you were studying to be an aerospace engineer.

Simon_Jester: I'm not sure if anyone has done design studies on it in the past; "take freighter; add wings and rocket engines" seems like the sort of thing that could be done roughly with two or three engineers (nuclear scientist, rocket scientist, aviation engineer)...

Ask any engineer you know- a real one- whether that would be enough for something like this.

I mean, have you approached even one professional on the subject of this idea in real life? Asked them how much manpower they think a preliminary design study would take?

Why would people assume I'm going to succeed? Because I believe I will, and because people fall for hucksters all the time. At the early stages, they also stand to make dramatically more than they do to lose, as well; compare the cost of hiring two or three engineers and a manager (me) plus the cost of computers and software to the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of profit the business would make upon completion of the project. It'd be a risk, sure, but it'd be a risk that would pay out lots if it pans out.

The up-front costs, even assuming all the software you need exists, are going to be on the order of millions. People don't invest millions without consulting real experts- you know, the kind you're ignoring?

I don't know how much computational power I'd need, but I do know that relatively small organizations are capable of designing great big huge skyscrapers and the like, so it can't be that huge.

Skyscrapers are sooo trivially simple compared to Orion-drive spacecraft. You ought to know this before you earn an engineering degree. If you get one without understanding the difference between a static building and a dynamic object that's designed to fly to orbit by having nuclear bombs lit off under it... you didn't earn that degree.