This week I'm very pleased to host our very first guest post!
Stuart is a twenty-something chap in Nottingham, originally from Essex, who grew up with the likes if Indiana Jones and trashy sci-fi and later found that real history and science is far weirder than whatever hollywood and pulp authors could come up with.
His blog, 'The Collect Call of Cthulhu' is a mix of personal musings and occasional enthusiastic nerding.
If you'd like to feature in a guest post, feel free to get in contact.
Without further a due: Stuart, what exactly is Project Orion?
Stuart is a twenty-something chap in Nottingham, originally from Essex, who grew up with the likes if Indiana Jones and trashy sci-fi and later found that real history and science is far weirder than whatever hollywood and pulp authors could come up with.
His blog, 'The Collect Call of Cthulhu' is a mix of personal musings and occasional enthusiastic nerding.
If you'd like to feature in a guest post, feel free to get in contact.
Without further a due: Stuart, what exactly is Project Orion?
Project Orion was an odd duck.
It combined the heady
post-Second World War fascination of the atom with the spirit of exploration
and competition that spurred the Space Race, resulting in something that could
have very well changed the course of human history. For example, if you’re a
terrible cynic, it could have ended it. But for the optimists amongst us, it
could have been our ticket to the stars.
Artist rendering of a potential Project Orion craft, care of Adrian Mann |
The logic behind Project Orion is simple enough to follow.
A
controlled nuclear explosion produces a huge amount of energy, much like
setting off a controlled chemical explosion. The difference is that to get the
equivalent energy, you need a lot less nuclear material, although there are
drawbacks to launching yourself into space via a series of controlled nuclear
explosions, such as all the nuclear fallout drifting down, and upsetting
various nations who’d rather you didn’t set off all the atomic devices in case
one turns out to be aimed at them. This is the theory behind the nuclear pulse
engine, where a series of controlled, directional nuclear explosions are
applied against a pusher plate, providing the thrust. Apparently, part of the
highly controversial Operation Plumbbob was to put the theory into practice,
using a 300t yield device and a 900 kilogram steel plate. The idea was that
perhaps the explosion would shoot the plate into the air at six times escape
velocity. What actually happened is a mystery, because no one ever found the
plate, or even saw what happened to it. The best guess was the air friction
vaporised it. So yes, Orion could very well have worked, but instead of working
to shave off every possible gram of weight when building a rocket, you’d need
to build skyscraper-sized starships just so the explosions don’t evaporate the thing
or liquefy everyone on board with the force of thrust. They’d be less like
Shuttles, and more like Star Destroyers.
But who was behind this?
The idea of nuclear pulse
propulsion was proposed by Stanislaw Ulam,which is believed to be the same guiding blueprint all modern nuclear weapons
adhere to (and I say believe believed because
the specifics of nuclear weapons are top secret) and developing the Monte Carlo
Method, amongst oh-so many other things. But Project Orion itself was led by
Ted Taylor of General Atomics, and the team included Freeman Dyson, a man who
really does not need an introduction. Freeman Dyson is absolutely nothing to do
with bagless vacuum cleaners, and everything to do with scientific topics that
include theoretical physics, nuclear engineering and astronomy. Ever heard of a
Dyson Sphere? That’d be him, although his concept wasn’t a solid shell but
closer to an asteroid swarm. Some of the finest minds of the atomic age were
attached to Project Orion, so it’s no wonder the results could have changed the
course of history.
Freeman Dyson, what a guy |
Let’s go over that again.
They knew how to go about building a working nuclear pulse engine and worked out how to go about building a ship to bolt onto it, with technology of the 1950s. If you’re of a certain age, you may have once owned a classic Nintendo Gameboy, or perhaps a Nokia 3210 mobile telephone. These are orders of magnitude more advanced than the technology that could have sent us hurtling through space at a tenth of the speed of light. The most amazing part of all this is we could have easily built spacecraft that could travel to Mars and back within a month, with technology that is now over fifty years old. We could have visited Saturn’s moons inside a year. Instead, we’ve never really gone back to the Moon and we’re uhhming and aaahing about finally going to Mars, in a one-way trip that would take at least six months.
So why do we still use rocket fuel?
Why do we still try to
launch people into space in portacabins mounted on the front of what are, to
the untrained eye, bloody great missiles? Why aren’t we reaching to the stars
in city-sized megaships that travel at 5 to 10% of the speed of light,
harnessing the power of the atom to claim our birthright?
Well, the first is a
pretty obvious flaw, and one that nuclear everything
seems to suffer from. Setting off nuclear bombs is usually a pretty bad idea,
what with the radiation and the fallout. Setting off dozens, one after the
other, high above the world, would have been a very bad thing, expanding the
phenomena of “Downwinders” to potentially the entire world, with a conservative
estimate putting between one and ten deaths directly attributable to each
launch from the Earth into space by a nuclear pulse engine. And that is ignoring
any problem you might have from accidents. Imagine the tragic events of the Space
Shuttle Challenger in 1986, or the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, and add the
danger of nuclear fallout and atomic explosives to the mix, as well as the fact
that these ships would be the size of the Shard or possibly the Empire State
Building, and travelling far faster meaning the debris would be travelling
further and faster as well. When you look at it like that, purely from a
practical point, nuclear pulse engines launching from the Earth are suddenly a lot
less appealing.
Then you have to look at the context of the time.
This was
at the height of the Cold War, with East and West just waiting for an excuse to
lay into each other. The Cuban Missile Crisis was still fresh in the minds of
the world when the project was ultimately shelved, and President Kennedy
himself is said to have been appalled by the project when he was introduced to
it. Project Orion proper was set up in 1958 (although the thinking behind it
dates back to 1946, and arguably even further, if you consider the idea of
using controlled chemical explosions as rocket propulsion part of the same
chain of thinking. In which case it goes back to 1881 with that particular idea
coined by Russian explosives expert Nikolai Kibalchich) and the project was
shelved in 1963 with the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which forbade
the testing of nuclear weapons underwater, in the atmosphere or in outer space,
which rather pulls the rug out from under Orion. Understandably, the Russians
were concerned with a rocket powered by nuclear bombs capable of moving at, at
a reasonable estimate, 5% the speed of light, and justifiably so when the US
military took interest in it.
They were interested, for example, in how you’d mount naval weapons on a Project Orion craft, and it turns out firing artillery shells at targets when you’re moving at even 1% of the speed of light is a bit of a waste, as the kinetic energy outstrips any sort of chemical explosive by an order of magnitude. So the thinking went on to all those atomic bomblets you’d be using to get into space in the first place, and would it be possible to use a few spares as nuclear artillery? You’d be dropping them faster than anyone could track, vaporising anything it touched, happily taking “Mutually” out of “Mutually Assured Destruction”. If you only intended to silence any opposition to you, you’d only need one and you’d be able to stop anyone ever building another simply with the threat of hypersonic nuclear artillery strikes turning the offending nation into a smouldering crater. It could have brought a rather rapid end to the Cold War, as the Americans could have annihilated Moscow without so much as a two-minute warning. So understandably, with the Cold War being the way it was, and Kennedy trying to bring an end to it peacefully rather than dragging it to the stars, the project was officially shelved.
Of course, that’s not the end of it, as scientists try to
find ways to at least approach light speed, to say nothing of the mad dream of
faster than light travel, although public opinion of nuclear power has turned
away from seeing it as a panacea to something that is barely understood, barely
tolerated and many would rather never have been discovered. The British Project
Daedalus was to take the concept as an unmanned mission to Barnard’s Star,
using the same technology, albeit launched from space. And the
unfortunately-named Project Icarus (he who flew too close to the sun and
crashed to Earth, for those who didn’t have a happy childhood reading Greek myths)
is picking up where that left off.
As a final thought, the late, great Carl Sagan put it best:
that there’s few better uses for the world’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons than
fuel for voyages of scientific discovery.
Further Reading
Nuclear Everything! – Dark Roasted Blend’s article offers up a lovely selection of period imagery of nuclear planes, trains and automobiles, amongst others.
Project Pluto, the Flying Crowbar – Gregg Herken’s article from Air & Space Magazine tells you everything you need to know about a hypothetical American superweapon that seems to be ripped straight from Dr. Strangelove.
Project Orion – The obligatory Wikipedia page, which goes a little more in-depth into the nuts and bolts of the project.
The story of Project Orion – George Dyson, son of Freeman, gives a brief talk on Project Orion.
Nuclear Pulse Propulsion – Further explanation of the concept, including other potential uses of the method, including the not-at-all-sinister-sounding Medusa.
Stanislaw Ulam – Stanislaw Ulam’s Wikipedia page, with a good summary of his life and work, including links to more in-depth articles on things like the Monte Carlo Method and the Teller-Ulam design.
Freeman Dyson – Freeman Dyson’s Wikipedia page, with a summary of his life, work and various interesting nuggets of information.
Nuclear testing and the Downwinders – A brief history of the “Downwinders” of Utah, those unlucky enough to have been exposed to nuclear fallout from US government testing, in part because they were downwind of the test sites.
0 comments: