Talk:Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)

To Mars By A-Bomb (film) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 September 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Project Orion (nuclear propulsion). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Background radiation#Overview|modern times]] The anchor (#Overview) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Who funded Project Orion's tests?

Who funded orion's proof-of-concept launch tests with live explosives? Robotbeat (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about there being six tests sounds like it might be a fake edit -- no source, no mention of the tests in the body of the article that I can see, and honestly I think I would have heard of it if this had been tested even once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphyer (talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were multiple tests (with conventional explosives, not nuclear) described in Freeman Dyson's book Disturbing the Universe iirc, and probably other places as well. It wasn't that big a deal. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Project Orion (nuclear propulsion). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tons and Tonnes

Hi All, I notice in the article that "The following can be found in George Dyson's book.[7] 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)." My first thought was - Why short tons? That's an obscure regional unit, mostly used (so short ton says only in the USA. Not even in Canada. Then I read on. Other parts of the article refer to tonnes. Metric ones. Two tons is too many. Why? Number774 (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Orion quote

For balance this quote might be of interest somewhere in the article - it sometiems seems a bit over enthusiastic, as if most of the problems are solvable when it is just a paper study, as you say, there are many potential issues not really addressed and here Piacentino voices a more skeptical view than Dyson and others enthusiastic that these could be fixed, given the will and some way to do it that doesn't violate the nuclear test ban treaty. ^[1]

"Orion's potential performance was stunning, at least compared to today's chemical or even other nuclear designs. Freeman Dyson quoted that a single mission could have established a large permanent Moon base and that anOrion vehicle could reach Pluto and return to Earth in less than a year. If the potential performances are very attracting, on the contrary the difficulties of the realization are seriously discouraging. To rule and manage, not one but a long series of nuclear explosions is probably impossible even for technologies of the very distant future."

I'm not saying which of them is right. I am if anything more inclined towards the optimism of Dyson and the others who are mainly cited in this article - but for balance we should present the full range of WP:POVs on this topic. Robert Walker (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Piacentino, G.M., 2010. Prospects of nuclear propulsion for space physics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1005.0869.

Nuclear propulsion for space very vehicles

Nuclear reactors create super heated particles super heated particles could be used to move a vehicle in space Forward gradually to the speed of particles by using a nuclear reactor to super heat the particles through a jet based propulsion system keeping one end of the system closed the other end of the system opened using a style allowing you to open and close the front entry ports. Closing the front ports allows the particles to exit the rear (exhaust only) forcing forward motion continuing to move forward then opening the front ports allowing the cold in keeping the reactor from overheating and allowing exiting particles to increase the speed to that of the maximum speed of the super heated particles. Adjustments to course by using flaps from at the exhaust ports angling the heat for slower motion docking use controllable Side upper and lower controllable ports. Adjustments to speed by using a open and closing forward facing exhaust bypassing the rear facing exhaust. Weapons could use rail guns and rail gun type launchers for more powerful ordinance if necessary and lasers powered by the reactor. This seems like a pretty viable reason why we should be using nuclear reactors for space — Preceding unsigned comment added by "marvinjrs" (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUM violation Redacted II (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion of the project or Ryan rockets height

I think the rocket is around 1,400 feet.you can find on YouTube on the channel hazegreyart it includes rockets like space shuttle, a blue origin rocket, n1 f1 rocket, Saturn v,starship, sea dragon rocket.on the thumbnail it has a picture of the project Orion rocket in front of all the rockets I named. I think the space shuttle is 112 feet tall so I measured the space shuttle height so the project Orion rocket is 1,400 feet 2600:8801:1902:F00:DC6D:9E34:7C04:4B09 (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUM and WP:OR

Also, Hazegreyart, as cool as their animations are, is not a WP:RS Redacted II (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Piacentino, G.M., 2010. Prospects of nuclear propulsion for space physics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1005.0869.

[1]