Where could we launch Orion? Hypothetical launch sites for Nuclear Pulse Propulsion Spacecraft.

chimeric oncogene

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
23 May 2019
Messages
295
Reaction score
285
While most proposals for Orion ground launches have included chemical first stages of some from, the most efficient way to launch an Orion appears to be from the ground. This is obviously impracticable under current political climates and cost-effectiveness calculi, but a man can dream...

A brief overview of the internet gives the suggestion that ground launches of Orion were envisaged to occur at the Nevada Test Site, possibly with a graphite-lined pad of some sort. Other options might have been the mid-Pacific: Johnston Island, where a permanent high-yield test site was planned (and where the Starfish Prime shots were launched) or Bikini Atoll/Eniwetok (high-yield nuclear test sites) Had the Soviets built Project Orion, one could envisage them launching from a new pad at the Cosmodrome, somewhere in Kazakhstan, or from Novaya Zemlya (the weather will screw with launch schedules).

The most obvious selection criteria for a launch site include low population, proximity to the ocean (maybe), high latitude (maybe), and good, predictable weather.

Little needs to be said about low population density along the launch track, except that Castle Bravo’s 15-megaton fallout plume was 500km long, and that Las Vegas is 100km from the Nevada Test Site (where low yield weapons similar to those used by Orion were tested). The exclusion zone should be similar in scale to Nevada, and the dispersion of fallout in the upper atmosphere and use of pad coatings should minimize fallout. Launch over unpopulated territory is still desirable to minimize eye injuries and minimize the hazards resulting from a launch failure (ditching a thousand pulse units into deep ocean for recovery is relatively simple, ditching into Arizona or detonating in-flight over Texas is more complex).

Given that Orion construction was envisaged as similar to shipbuilding (I'll believe it when I see it) and given the modern tendency to site large factories in populated areas, an oceanic or coastal launch site appears to have some advantages. At any rate, shipping a 5,000-to-50,000-tonne spacecraft (100-meter pusher plate) from Norfolk (or Korea, or Japan) to the launch site by some sort of ship lifter might be easier than moving the blasted thing cross-country by rail (or assembling it at the launch site). Johnston Atoll may be easier to get to from Norfolk than central Nevada.

Atomic Rockets claims that high-latitude high-inclination launches to avoid injecting material into the Earth's radiation belts are a good idea; while individual 0.5-30kt pulse units will certainly be smaller than the megaton-yield Starfish Prime shots, Orion envisaged using hundreds of pulse units to reach orbit. The total kilotonnage is comparable. HiVOLT and other electromagnetic tether systems have been suggested to clear the Van Allen belts, but I know not whether they would readily solve the problem.

Good weather and predictable winds are desirable for space launches, nuclear tests, and easy ground operations. The Aleutian Islands and Antarctic coasts may be a high-latitude launch site, but both have terrible weather (and the Aleutians are not outside the “will charge the Van Allens” zone, for some reason).

Some other suggestions on my part include:
  • The Auckland Islands off the southern coast of New Zealand (weather and ease of access)
  • The Falklands/South Georgia (weather)
  • Hudson Bay (weather)
  • the coast of Alaska (weather)
 
Last edited:
General Atomic consider the "Jackass Flats" as Launch site for a ground Start Orion
Ironic later AEC tested there NERVA engines here.
Also consider General Atomic Orion launch from swimming platforms

For most Lofter proposal (USAF) and Orbital assembly Orion (NASA)
consider existing launch site like Cape Kennedy or Vandenberg
 
The system is defined these days as "External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion, EPPP" (EP3 from now on) since "Orion" has been stolen :) And yes due to the numerous issues of detonating multiple nuclear explosives low in the atmosphere/magnitosphere it is disirable to have an alternative means of getting such a vehicle into low Earth orbit, there is the conundrum due to it being actually vastly cheaper and easier to build such a vehicle on Earth and then launching it into orbit. And it's not like people have forgotten about the idea either :)

Work has continued since Orion with projects such as Medusa and Gabriel, (the latter in the context of an EP3 propelled asteroid defense system) which generated the following study:

Which discuss' the "Earth-to-Orbit Challenge" in terms of getting an EP3 vehicle into orbit without resorting to nuclear pulse charges. Oddly enough it discuss' the idea of "beamed propellant" in the form of charges shot into the plate from a ground based system. While one might assume this would mean firing nuclear pulse charges from the ground in fact the suggestion is alternative pulse charges such as super/ultra-chemical-explosives among others. While 'normal' explosives such as TNT would be pretty unsuited for such charges it turns out that some other compounds which are not used as 'normal' explosives for various reasons, (long-term stability problems for example) can in fact be considered for use. There is also, if one accepts that the crew and vehicle can and maybe should be delivered by seperate means, the idea of the "Nuclear Verne Gun" option (http://www.kschroeder.com/weblog/the-verne-gun) which would 'shoot' an EP3 into oribt fully loaded where the crew would rendezvous with it later. (This option has been heavily considered for the Gabrial defense system since it would allow a rather 'rapid' response for such uses among other reasons) On the other hand it was pointed out to me at one time that while the idea of the NVG being used at sea (https://www.geek.com/geek-cetera/un...nch-the-first-lunar-city-on-the-moon-1299279/) that if one actually had a tube going deep enough in the ocean simply uncorking the bottom and letting the pressure equalize could, (in theory) get you to orbital velocity without using a nuke.

Actually launching an Orion-drive from the surface of the Earth has been pretty solidly addressed by artist William Black, (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artgallery.php#WilliamBlack) for requirements and effects. It's not "easy" nor likely to be 'cheap' but if you absolutly need a LOT of payload in space in a short time...

Randy
 
Hazegrayart is a gifted CGI genius and he did that little wonder, two years ago. Note the Saturn S-IC stage.


As for me, I downloaded it (for my personal use only) and put AC/DC Thunderstruck as background music. Crazy music for a terrific concept, the two just fit together.
 
If you wanted to ground-launch an Orion, probably the best approach would be to launch from water. The Orion would be supported a few dozen meters above the waters surface by a number (minimum three, likely six) of pylons that support the outer rim of the pusher plate. A small nuclear device would be set off from just above the surface of the water, centered between the pylons. Milliseconds before detonation, extremely high water flow would be pumped through the pylons and emitted from them at many points, turning each into a "water bird." The water would shield the pylons from the worst of the flash.

If need be, the pylons might be slathered over with some sort of ablative between each launch.

The water could be anywhere from a few dozen meters deep to kilometers deep. It would of course be easier to build the strucutre firmly if it was located just offshore in shallow water; but another approach might be to have the whole structure be a massive barge designed to largely submerge just before launch. After sheddign the weight of the Orion, it would easily bob back up to the surface.
 
Hazegrayart is a gifted CGI genius and he did that little wonder, two years ago. Note the Saturn S-IC stage.

Nice :)

As for me, I downloaded it (for my personal use only) and put AC/DC Thunderstruck as background music. Crazy music for a terrific concept, the two just fit together.

That sounds awsome, or sounds like it would sound awsome, or some combination of "sound" and "awsome" :)

Randy
 
I need to put these videos online, but not on Youtube, to respect Hazegrayart and only to link them to some forums like here.

My 5-years old kid is a die-hard fan of the video and AC/DC altogether. Thunderstruck drives him crazy, LMAO.


By some astounding coincidence, in my video the start of the S-IC happens exactly as the same time as the first THUN-DER at 0:29 in the above video. What's more, listen to the battery at 1:54 bam, bam, bam, bam, bam : at this very point in the video, it matches the nuclear pulses at 1:47.
AC/DC and nuclear pulse just get married. Geez.

EDIT: this little conversation gave me the motivation to create a video account, not on Youtube but on Vimeo. I'll soon start dowloading all the videos I've done. Done is not the proper word, I just like marrying a video I like with some Pop music I like. It is pretty fun to match the two.
 
Last edited:
At some point circa1964-65 and a bit like planets, the three propulsion systems
- Apollo, chemical
- NERVA, nuclear-thermal
- Orion, nuclear-pulse
lined up.

Supporters of the three had plans to use the same booster: Saturn S-IC.

-Apollo added four chemical stages above the S-IC (S-II, S-IVB, Apollo SM, LM-descent stage) and landed 2 metric tons on the Moon.

-NERVA RIFT (Reactor In-Flight Test) would add a NTR on top of S-IC + S-II and - on paper at least - such vehicle could land some dozens tons of payload to the lunar surface.

-And finally - Orion, compressed and castrated to fit on a 10-meters S-IC (no S-II needed !) would start in suborbital flight, as per the Hazegrayart video... and it could land hundreds of tons of payload, to the lunar surface.

So all three propulsion systems lined up on the same S-IC but at the end of the trip, payload delivered was... cruel for chemical propulsion...

What might have been, imagine... 1970:

Pad 39A: A S-IC with an Apollo mission.

Pad 39B: NERVA-RIFT on top of an "INT-21", the lower two stages of Saturn V, so another S-IC. Early flight test for future piloted Mars missions.

Pad 39C: 10-meter Orion. Straight atop a S-IC; the first unmanned probe to Saturn, as planned by Freeman Dyson (Saturn by 1970 !)
 
Last edited:
Anywhere where an Orion launched was planned would have people screaming "Not in My Back Yard" in a multi-thousand kilometer radius.
 
You have no idea...
Ground ? HELL NO
Suborbital ? NO, radiations plus it would fry electric grids.
Low Earth orbit ? NO WAY. The exhaust would be trapped in the van Allen belts.
GEO ? nope, it would fry comsats.
Only EML-2 would be acceptable...
 
You have no idea...
Ground ? HELL NO
Suborbital ? NO, radiations plus it would fry electric grids.
Low Earth orbit ? NO WAY. The exhaust would be trapped in the van Allen belts.
GEO ? nope, it would fry comsats.
Only EML-2 would be acceptable...

If you're launching from EML, you might as well make it a Medusa. Lower mass in theory, ability to use higher yield warheads, and higher ISP.

Still not viable anywhere below GEO. It would just fry everything and force you to put armor on every satellite in the sky. That and HiVolt tethers to discharge the Van Allens.

Large-scale solar electric or nuclear-electric is generally a better option.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT4ZdPRADEw&ab_channel=NickStevens
 
Medusa is amazing indeed. I often wonder if its sail could also be used as a solar-sail and also to brake when coming from interstellar space...
 
Medusa is amazing indeed. I often wonder if its sail could also be used as a solar-sail and also to brake when coming from interstellar space...
1616232299612.png

1616232446412.png

With a magnetic field used as part of the assembly, you might be able to make it a particle-beam rider (M2P2/magbeam-style) or use the solar wind. But the solar wind is barely 750km/s, and hard to harness (definitely inadequate for interstellar work, as bad a solar sail). Might be good enough for braking under some circumstances.

Medusa (and fusion, honestly) isn't fast enough for interstellar work. You need antimatter for that - and you can build an antimatter Medusa, I guess. But what's the difference between an antimatter Medusa and a Valkyrie, anyway?

 
In his novel Voyage Stephen Baxter has the Saturn N go wrongly badly....

Yes, by badly mangling the actual operation and author fiat... It literally can't go 'bad' like he describes it and yes he is VERY AWARE of that fact and tired of hearing it. VERY tired :)

Can't 'blame' him all that much he needed a reason why they wouldn't go nuclear and that was the route he chose, unfortunately it they'd gotten that far there's really no way they'd back down even with such a failure.

Randy
 
Medusa is amazing indeed. I often wonder if its sail could also be used as a solar-sail and also to brake when coming from interstellar space...
View attachment 653110

View attachment 653111

With a magnetic field used as part of the assembly, you might be able to make it a particle-beam rider (M2P2/magbeam-style) or use the solar wind. But the solar wind is barely 750km/s, and hard to harness (definitely inadequate for interstellar work, as bad a solar sail). Might be good enough for braking under some circumstances.

Medusa (and fusion, honestly) isn't fast enough for interstellar work. You need antimatter for that - and you can build an antimatter Medusa, I guess. But what's the difference between an antimatter Medusa and a Valkyrie, anyway?


No 'boom' (today, there's always a boom tomorrow... sorry B5 reference :) ) as Valkyrie is a steady reaction thruster rather than a "Externally Pulsed Plasma Propulsion" (actual technical name for the Orion "boom-boom" drive btw) system. A "EP3" (fusion IIRC not fission) pulse drive can get you up to a small fraction of SpeOL but not as fast as a steady-state fusion (or AM as in AM catalyzed for example) drive can.

Randy
 
Ground launch site?

While I had considered that chunk of Australia where the UK tested their nukes, if we're talking about a 5000ton craft I think we're looking at a sea-based location. South Pacific, South Atlantic.

If the NIMBY brigade gets out of hand and insists on no nukes in atmo, then we're still talking about a launch from out in the ocean, just probably closer to shore since we're lighting off a couple dozen Shuttle SRBs.
 
I think the Moon is the only place you could get away with ground launch.

No protesters there
 
There were several proposal

One was the "Jackass Flats" as Launch site for a ground Start Orion.
Other was to launch from platform in middle of Pacific.
Later they switch to lofter concept were Rocket stage carry the Orion 80 km hight were the engine start up.
Here Kennedy Space Center and Vandenberg AFB were consider as Launch site for this
In the end they planned to launch parts with Saturn V into low orbit and assemble it into Orion.
 
Beyond Saturn S-IC, I think the most logical "ladder" to start Orion away from Earth surface; would be a bunch of Aerojet 260-inch solids. One such solid has 3000 tons of thrust, ten of them would be 30 000 tons. Plenty enough to lift a mammoth Orion away from Earth solid ground. More or less what Hazegrayart shows here.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIMrn9BE_bU&t=66s


I like to play that vid' with Interstellar "no time for caution" - it is just pure madness.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3zvVGJrTP8


"Cooper, what are you doing ?
"Nuking
"An Orion weights ten thousands tons. It's not possible.
"No. It's necessary.
 
I have this vision of a Mars-based Orion…looking pretty much like the US Capitol dome…with low inflatables to either side.

The Orion has a reactor…waste in the two other buildings.
 
Air supply for caves…maybe nitrogen only to reduce fires (oxygen only via masks).

If one were willing to sacrifice a lunar cave…air pressure could be raised…a nuke fired…and Orion gets a good initial shove out a blowhole of sorts.
 
There is still the EMP issue... also fallout trapped in the Van Allen belts.
I did once come across a suggestion that the magnetic poles would be good Orion launch sites, since the magnetic field there is near perpendicular to the Earth's surface so fewer charged particles would get strapped.

A few practical issues, of course, even if the theory works out.
 
I did once come across a suggestion that the magnetic poles would be good Orion launch sites, since the magnetic field there is near perpendicular to the Earth's surface so fewer charged particles would get strapped.

A few practical issues, of course, even if the theory works out.
Yeah, the Magnetic Poles are kinda in the ass end of nowhere, but holy orbital inclination, Batman!

That said, an Orion has enough delta-V to get to a more reasonable orbit.
 
yes, but have it thrust, needed for take off ?
No. Additionally, such a system would almost certainly not work in the atmosphere.
1) The lasers getting through potentially a meter or two of air for the first shot while retaining precision and power is dubious.
2) How do you get the tiny pellet to the precise location in space and time *through* the air for the first shot?

These things tend to run at many pulses per second. Which means the second shot is a split second after the first which means:
3) Second pellet needs to be fired not just through the air, but superheated turbulent hypersonic air
4) Lasers have to get through that too
5) Lasers might have to punch not only through turbulent air, but *incandescent* air. Which means optically opaque.
6) In any event, you can't *see* the pellet, which means you can;t adjust laser aim
 
Erm, use mirrors on the ship to focus the externally-provided beam on target.
that is not problem
the problem is that Laser beam has literal cut true turbulent hypersonic air,
wenn beam reach the traget pellet. it is weaken by the air
if the pellet is on target and not deviate do turbulent hypersonic air
 
Ground launch site?

While I had considered that chunk of Australia where the UK tested their nukes, if we're talking about a 5000ton craft I think we're looking at a sea-based location. South Pacific, South Atlantic.

If the NIMBY brigade gets out of hand and insists on no nukes in atmo, then we're still talking about a launch from out in the ocean, just probably closer to shore since we're lighting off a couple dozen Shuttle SRBs.
Considering atmospheric nuke testing significantly raised global background radiation levels (see, for example, https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-fallout-nuclear-weapons-testing) it would be in everybody's backyard.
 
Last edited:
Considering atmospheric nuke testing significantly raised global background radiation levels (see, for example, https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-fallout-nuclear-weapons-testing) it would be in everybody's backyard.
Properly designed nukes have minimal fallout due to completely consuming their nuclear fuel.

And yes, I am stating that any nuke that does not completely consume the nuclear fuel is improperly designed!

But yes, any nuclear blast at the surface or close enough to the surface to pick up dust will slightly increase the global background count. It's why I think we're really looking at some level of SRBs to get the Orion off the surface, then put-putting up from where the SRBs burn out.

That said, the global background radiation level is 200-500mREM/year, depending on where you live. Live in a place with radon issues, like coal country? 500mREM/year. Live in a place without radon issues? 200. Live at higher altitude? higher background. Best way to freak out your RadCon officer is to wear a dosimeter on an airplane (without sending it through an XRay machine. Sending it through an XRay machine is just bonus pain). Lower altitude, lower background. On a submarine? even lower background.
 
Properly designed nukes have minimal fallout due to completely consuming their nuclear fuel.

And yes, I am stating that any nuke that does not completely consume the nuclear fuel is improperly designed!
Depends on the role of the nuke. Davy Crockett was designed in part to leave a place filthy, and it did so by incomplete fission. And Davy Crockett formed the basis of the 10-M Orion pulse unit.
 
Back
Top Bottom