nuke_diver
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2014
- Messages
- 406
Exciting stuff. The video was great thanks Freebird
That was amazing. I was late for work this morning due to watching the launch. Was startled when the boosters separated and I saw all those flames. Someone at work said they think it's some kind of explosive charge that disconnects the booster rockets. Anyone know why all the flames?
They are most likely explosive bolts. I have worked on NASA programs both on ground systems and on board computer systems. Lots of fun and the launches are always exciting.
Nice to see America back in the heavy lift business.
Through a Glass, Darkly: Reflections on EFT-1 and Shadows of Apollo (Part 1) « AmericaSpaceNASA has a long way to go before it can hope to replicate the kind of deep-space piloted missions that it staged over a four-year period between Apollo 8 in December 1968 and Apollo 17 in December 1972.
Here's an interesting history of the Apollo missions. As the author notes, yesterday's Orion mission was a replay of some of the things done during Apollo, but with much more powerful boosters than today's Delta IV heavy. And with less fancy technology.
Through a Glass, Darkly: Reflections on EFT-1 and Shadows of Apollo (Part 1) « AmericaSpace
Also of interest is the fact that Apollo 8 mission to circumnavigate the moon was a relatively late decision caused in part by the death of the three Apollo 1 astronauts on the launch pad.
The achievements of that era were astounding and sometimes leave me feeling a bit saddened when reflecting on what we have done since.
Also amazing is the timescale used. One significant milestone after another, often with mere months between major launches or upgrades. In my work, we sometimes plan months for a user interface update or a color change on a website. Shocking to consider the advances the Apollo engineers were making and how quickly they were doing it.
Also amazing is the timescale used. One significant milestone after another, often with mere months between major launches or upgrades.
FYI, the next Orion launch is scheduled for 2018. The first manned launch is scheduled for the early 2020's.
In the 60's we went from never having put a human into space to the first man on the moon in a little less than nine years.
The rest of the article makes good points.
If the new space race was like the movies, this week would be The Empire Strikes Back...
And of course there’s that other curse haunting Orion: It won’t carry actual people until around 2022.
And that’s if the budgets hold out. The incoming Congress may not shut down a program like Orion, but they can starve it of fuel until it enters a netherworld of delays, life-support funding and lethargy. When it flies on missions, it will be outdated. Orion is particularly vulnerable since, you know, Nasa has not set a destination for it to go. If the first manned test flight is in 2021, when will the actual mission to Mars be funded and staged? It takes a very optimistic person to think the funding and tech will be ready by 2022 – or even 2025.
The Orion launch has been be a triumph of engineering, hiccups and delays aside. But the Empire may not love the sequel. SpaceX is planning a historic launch of its own next year – the rocket is called the Falcon Heavy. Yes, Musk named his rocket after the Millennium Falcon of Star Wars, and he promises it will take twice as much payload into space as the one Nasa launched on Friday, and at one-third the cost. So far his claims about SpaceX have come true, and soon he’ll be fighting, with the lobbyists and the politicians who play favorites, for satellite contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
Combine that kind of force with Elon Musk’s capsule full of actual people returning to space – under a Nasa contract to deliver astronauts to the International Space Station – and you have a private startup that can beat Nasa or any other government agency back to the moon, if it so chooses.
Return of the Jedi, indeed.
If we had gone with the original Project Orion, we would have had a manned mission to Mars in 1965, and the first manned mission to Saturn by 1970.
The spacecraft proposed ranged in size from a modest 6,000 tons to the Saturn mission at 8,000,000 tons.
Alas, the project was cancelled.
That's some really cool stuff. I've heard about the nuclear powered spaceship before, but never really seen much in the way of detail.
Obviously Dyson is a genius physicist, but brilliant scientist aren't the most practical engineers. So since you are my resident nuclear engineering expert, would it have worked?
FYI, the next Orion launch is scheduled for 2018. The first manned launch is scheduled for the early 2020's.
In the 60's we went from never having put a human into space to the first man on the moon in a little less than nine years.
The physics are absurdly simple. There is a massive pusher plate, a humongous shock absorber, and the payload. Small atomic bombs are set off below the pusher plate. The impulse from detonation acts on the pusher plate just like the combustion in a rocket acts on the combustion chamber. The shock absorber and pusher plate mass act to smooth out the acceleration seen by the payload.
Of course, you don't want to be near the launch pad...
Some early variations ground launched using specially engineered, very 'clean' nuclear explosives. Without the requirements of weapons systems, materials could be selected to minimize induced radioactivity and fallout from the first several blasts to get clear of the atmosphere. Other variations launched from orbit, removing this problem.
Note that 'atomic blasts in spaaaace!' aren't much of a radiation hazard compared to the radiation from the 100,000,000,000 one megaton H bombs per second going off in the center of the solar system. Good thing our little planet comes with radiation shielding, huh?
But the 1960's was all about beating the Russians , not smart use of resources.
Very interesting. But how do you build a pusher plate that can survive being on the close proximity of scores or hundred of small atomic bombs. If read some the documentation correctly they were looking at small A bombs have the equivalent explosive power of hundreds tons of TNT.
Our largest conventional bombs have been 10 tons and they can cause damage to bunkers, dams and other harden targets.