He says, "if you wish to go to Mars, then Orion will take you there more rapidly and cheaply than other vehicles", but he doesn't make a case for it, and it's an implausible claim. The smallest Orion I've seen proposed, empty, was at least half a dozen times the mass of a Saturn V payload to LEO, over twice the mass of the International Space Station, by far the largest object assembled in space four decades after Dyson wrote this article. Grossly implausible claim, comparing the final costs of a realized system to the optimistic estimates of a physicist about an entirely new, untested technology.įurthermore, he claims that it could send "eight men and 100 tons of cargo on fast trips to Mars and back", but Saturn V only lifts a little more than 100 tons. >"The vehicles were small enough to be lifted into space by Saturn chemical rocket, and the cost of the Saturn boosters turned out be more than half the estimated cost of the whole enterprise. Masses of propellant* and channel filler, which, in turn, cause a significant cost increment. Modest quantities of material were required in all but the larger pulse units, which use large
They were costed atįrom $2 to $12/kg for nonfabricated materials. >The materials used in the pulse unit, relative to the fissionable material at least, are relatively common and inexpensive. Nowadays much of what would have been expensive to test (the underground nuclear testing part), could be done by computer simulations. General atomic projected that a large orion program would only cost about the same as apollo did (spread over longer period), back in the 60's. Pulse units would be much more cheaper than fission-fusion thermonuclear weapons. Nukes cost alot because shitty design like needing to replace tritium all the time. > Each year about 20 tonnes of the element is still produced as a by-product of the nuclear power industry. Only about 2 kg of plutonium would be needed per pulse unit. So, why the fuck is NASA wasting it's money for a new Saturn V ripoff, when for the same price it could build EPPP vehicles, with first generation having easily over 3500 s specific impulse with clear path for improvement? Freeman DysonĪlso: "The vehicles were small enough to be lifted into space by Saturn chemical rocket, and the cost of the Saturn boosters turned out be more than half the estimated cost of the whole enterprise." - same dude
#KERBAL CROSSFEED ENABLER FREE#
Why should one not be content with alternative means of propulsion which are free from obvious biological and political disadvantages of nuclear explosions? The answer to this question is that on the purely technological level, an Orion vehicle has cababilities which no other system can aproach. Also, whole Orion Mars class mission could be done with crew exposure of only 100-20 Rems, which is less than with nuclear thermal. You need much energy to move mass anywhere so you're going to need energy dense stuff to propel you there. What people seem to fail to comprehend is that there is literally no inherently safe method of propulsion. The only thing people seem to see when thinking about nuclear pulse propulsion is:"Muh nukes r bad and inherently unsafe way of space travel!!!" What's with the hate against external pulsed plasma propulsion? Anonymous 18:52:47 Post No.
0 kommentar(er)
