Challenge : A plausible way to recreate the universe of 2001 : A Space Odyssey ?

Besides : Why bother launching such a huge spaceship from the surface, when it's much easier to assemble it in orbit ?

It's as simple as that.
Um... because it's not simple to do such a thing. That's pretty much the whole point, and the reason you would want something with the lifting capacity of Orion... think about it. Just putting together the ISS appears to be extremely difficult for us, mainly due to the limitations of current lift capabilities (i.e. Space Shuttle can take up about 30 tons of cargo). If we were able to throw up a space station that weighed thousands of tons, in one launch, then it wouldn't need to be modular - it could be all in one block, and very capable and useful in science terms. The same goes for Mars missions - the more you can launch from the ground in one go, the easier it is to assemble a Mars mission. In fact an Orion could launch from the ground directly to Mars, with no need to stop off in Earth orbit.

Doing it chemically, even assuming something with the lift of the Saturn V, would take several launches to orbit to put together a Mars mission...

So: in short, to assemble an Orion-type ship in orbit would be a huge undertaking, because even the smaller ones imagined would have weighed thousands of tons (the biggest single proportion of that weight, as I understand it, would have been the huge pusher plate). And it's incredibly difficult to assemble something of that size in orbit, unless you have something of the lift capability of an Orion. In which case, why are you assembling it in orbit, when you can just launch from the ground in the first place?

Having said all the above... yes, I do understand the environmental arguments against (what with all the nuclear bombs going off to get the damn thing off the ground... it really does stem from a late-'50s "hooray! wonderful nukes!" mindset). I don't see why Stephen should be condemned as a "tree hugger" for being worried about that. However, as argued by others, we'd have to look at the effects of the thousands of nuclear bomb tests in OTL, and see what the effects were, if its possible to work that out (I assume someone out there has at least tried)
 
...It's as simple as that.

AND NOW !

CAN WE PROCEEDE WITH WANKING UP THE SOVIETS ?

:D

I see good potential for a Korolev/Glushko wank set in the 1960s. ;)

with pleasure

the sovjet have 2 major problems in 1960's space Program
one: Sergey Korolyov death in 1966
two: and take over of Sovjet Lunar program by to Vasili Mishin, how had serious alcoholism problems
his way of work were simple : Intrigue agains others and if he encounter problems, he get drunk into a coma !

if Sovjet reach the Moon, We must get rid Mishin
best way Vladimir Chelomei become Head of the Sovjet Lunar program
no Soyuz but Merkur spacecraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkur_(spacecraft)
as LK-1 around moon with UR-500 (Proton) Rocket http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lk1.htm

LK-700 Lunar landing http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lk700.htm
the Heavy Rocket UR-700 is build easy from UR-500 (Proton) Parts

Lunar orbital Almaz OPS supply by TKS
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/almazops.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tks.htm

Lunar surface Base in AAP style
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kleition.htm
Long term Lunarbase
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dlbrbase.htm

satisfied Petike ?

the picture show the LK-700 mock-up from 1960's

LK-700.jpg
 
Last edited:
with pleasure

the sovjet have 2 major problems in 1960's space Program
one: Sergey Korolyov death in 1966

Yeah... Difficult to delay that...

two: and take over of Sovjet Lunar program by to Vasili Mishin, how had serious alcoholism problems
his way of work were simple : Intrigue agains others and if he encounter problems, he get drunk into a coma !

Marvelous... :D :rolleyes:

satisfied Petike ?

Yes. :) I'm familiar with most of the spacecraft you showed, but a lot of things were pretty new to me. Thanks.
 
So: in short, to assemble an Orion-type ship in orbit would be a huge undertaking. Why are you assembling it in orbit, when you can just launch from the ground in the first place?

Having said all the above... yes, I do understand the environmental arguments against (what with all the nuclear bombs going off to get the damn thing off the ground... it really does stem from a late-'50s "hooray! wonderful nukes!" mindset). I don't see why Stephen should be condemned as a "tree hugger" for being worried about that. However, as argued by others, we'd have to look at the effects of the thousands of nuclear bomb tests in OTL, and see what the effects were, if its possible to work that out (I assume someone out there has at least tried)

Ehem... I rejected the whole idea with an Orion-type of spacecraft.
It would be too expensive - both economically and enviromentally...
The budget spent on just building enough nukes and the pusher/bumper plate behind the ship would ruin even the richest and most powerful of national economies.
Besides, who can guarantee, that the massive ship will lift off at all from the ground after throwing a nuke or two under it's butt ?

The Discovery One drive is more safe and reliable. Sure, you'll still have to assemble the gal in orbit, but it doesn't need to be such an absurd behemoth like the Orion.

I think we just misunderstood ourselves, or you mistakened the Orion spaceplane with the Orion deep-space starship.
 
The Discovery One drive is more safe and reliable. Sure, you'll still have to assemble the gal in orbit, but it doesn't need to be such an absurd behemoth like the Orion.

I think we just misunderstood ourselves, or you mistakened the Orion spaceplane with the Orion deep-space starship.


Discovery One use GAS CORE REACTOR Engine called "Cavradyne"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_One#Cavradyne_Engines
means fuel is pumpt not true Solid block, but true ultra hot cloud of super heat Plasma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_core_reactor_rocket
the ISP jump from 800 sec to 2400 sec ! but temprature jump from 2683 K up to 11400 K :eek:
 
IIRC, in 'Prelude to Space' Clark has the earth to orbit vehicle as a two stage horizontally launched craft fired down an electric catapult in the Australian desert.

The lower stage does use a nuclear source to heat various gasses.

Ahh, here we go, from wiki (sorry)

Prelude to Space recounts the events leading up the launch of Prometheus, the world's first spacecraft capable of reaching the Moon. Prometheus consists of two components, named Alpha and Beta. Alpha is a true spaceship, designed for travel from Earth orbit to the Moon and back. It is not capable of independent atmospheric flight. Beta is a nuclear-powered flying wing which carries Alpha into orbit. Beta uses a nuclear reactor to superheat either air (when flying in the lower, denser, part of the atmosphere) or its own internal supply of methane (in the higher reaches of the atmosphere and in space) to achieve thrust. Beta thus effectively functions as a ramjet in the lower atmosphere and thus must be launched using an electric launch track. The return journey to the Moon thus proceeds as follows: Beta carries Alpha into Orbit. Alpha separates from Beta and refuels from tanks previously carried into orbit by Beta. Alpha flies to and lands on the Moon while Beta remains in Earth orbit. Alpha returns to Earth orbit and the crew returns to Earth aboard Beta: Alpha remains in orbit to await the next flight.


Prelude was written before the Apollo missions landed men on the moon and, follows the ideal that space travel is realistic and within the grasp of the population. Clarke wrote a new preface in 1976 in which he admits that he had some propagandist goals in writing Prelude to Space[citation needed] — he was an influential member of the astronautics community when the idea of rockets leaving earth's atmosphere was scoffed at by many scientists.


Interestingly, the novel actually ends with the launching of Prometheus; the entire plot consists of scientists, engineers and administrators showing Dr. Dirk Alexson how the mission was planned and how the technology will work. Dr. Alexson is the historian assigned to prepare the official history of Moon mission. He represents the point-of-view character for the sophisticated and imaginative, but non-technical, reader.


All the technology imagined in Prelude to Space is feasible, though nuclear engines for air and space travel have never been developed, except as prototypes. In one way, Clarke anticipated the current Space Shuttle: The Beta unit of Prometheus lands "deadstick' -- i.e., without power.
 
Re: "Clean nuclear engines". The ones that were actually tested were the simplest possible designs, and yet yes they were dumping parts of the reactor out of the exhaust, inadvertently. Nuclear light bulb sound so nice on paper, but is likely unfeasible.

Nuclear is really best for in space transit. You cant beat nuclear electric at current tech level. When I see VASIMIR flying in orbit, or at least generating enough thrust and working properly in a vacuum chamber ill believe it.

For ground launch, benefit of all truly practical and feasible nuclear engines are far outweighed by the risks.

Edit. Forgot this part. For CCCP space program. Ideally you would want Kruschev in power longer than in OTL, and Korolev living longer AND learning to work with Glushko. Second to that, give space program to Glushko and not to Mishin, that was a extremely bad decission. If he kills N1 right there right now, he might have a UR-xxx or some Vulkan/Energia predecessor before USA finished Appolo. With Soviets landing on the Moon, USA cant abandon its program so completely as in OTL. Space race continues trough '70es. Best case, one of superpowers has a Mars program developed far enough that its pointless to cancel it in 1991. no matter what. Mars landing before 2000.
 
Ehem... I rejected the whole idea with an Orion-type of spacecraft.
It would be too expensive - both economically and enviromentally...
The budget spent on just building enough nukes and the pusher/bumper plate behind the ship would ruin even the richest and most powerful of national economies.
Besides, who can guarantee, that the massive ship will lift off at all from the ground after throwing a nuke or two under it's butt ?

The Discovery One drive is more safe and reliable. Sure, you'll still have to assemble the gal in orbit, but it doesn't need to be such an absurd behemoth like the Orion.

I think we just misunderstood ourselves, or you mistakened the Orion spaceplane with the Orion deep-space starship.
... what?

What Orion spaceplane? There is no such thing... as far as I know. Unless you are talking about the Shuttle replacement, which isn't a spaceplane, but an Apollo-type capsule.

And no, I was talking about the massive nuclear-pulse spaceship... which is what you, also, are talking about in the first paragraph. So no, we didn't "misunderstood ourselves" at all.

I am now, however, confused. :confused:
 
Edit. Forgot this part. For CCCP space program. Ideally you would want Kruschev in power longer than in OTL, and Korolev living longer AND learning to work with Glushko. Second to that, give space program to Glushko and not to Mishin, that was a extremely bad decission. If he kills N1 right there right now, he might have a UR-xxx or some Vulkan/Energia predecessor before USA finished Appolo. With Soviets landing on the Moon, USA cant abandon its program so completely as in OTL. Space race continues trough '70es. Best case, one of superpowers has a Mars program developed far enough that its pointless to cancel it in 1991. no matter what. Mars landing before 2000.

Yes
if USSR land on the Moon and builds a Lunar Base
the USA stay in Space Race
but N-1 is not a good rocket, Badly tested engine, structural problems.
under Mishin it had take until 1975 and 5-6 launches "to get bug out"
But program is cancelled by CP in 1974 befor the launch a improved N-1F
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm

on the Other hand the UR-500 and 700 are easy to build
because of the modular concept
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700m.htm
last one is intresting because it a Modular Lox/Kerosin
repace that central core with one with Lox/Hydrogene
and we have nice Energia bevor 1989
 
Yes
if USSR land on the Moon and builds a Lunar Base
the USA stay in Space Race
but N-1 is not a good rocket, Badly tested engine, structural problems.
under Mishin it had take until 1975 and 5-6 launches "to get bug out"
But program is cancelled by CP in 1974 befor the launch a improved N-1F
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm

on the Other hand the UR-500 and 700 are easy to build
because of the modular concept
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700m.htm
last one is intresting because it a Modular Lox/Kerosin
repace that central core with one with Lox/Hydrogene
and we have nice Energia bevor 1989
Yes! By all means kill off that ghastly, over-complicated monster the N-1! Either have it replaced with one of the UR series as you suggest, or have the Soviets develop a decent F1-class engine. Then, they don't need to cluster anything like 30 engines in one stage...

I have the impression that control systems were somewhat lagging, too - i.e. the computer controlling the N-1's engines never worked properly. What can they do about that?
 
I have the impression that control systems were somewhat lagging, too - i.e. the computer controlling the N-1's engines never worked properly. What can they do about that?

They got advanced sub quieting technology from the Japanese, I imagine the USSR could have managed a little more on that front.
 
The N-1 seemed pretty clunky to me too...

Carry on, it gets more interesting with every post. :)


... what? What Orion spaceplane? There is no such thing... as far as I know. Unless you are talking about the Shuttle replacement, which isn't a spaceplane, but an Apollo-type capsule.

My fault. I meant that early design of the space shuttle (the one mounted on the top stage of a Saturn V) from the Apollo programme era.

And no, I was talking about the massive nuclear-pulse spaceship... which is what you, also, are talking about in the first paragraph. So no, we didn't "misunderstood ourselves" at all. I am now, however, confused. :confused:

Hmmm... I still think the Nuke-powered Orion is a waste of time and effort. That bird will never fly. They made hundreds of experiments with small models over the decades and look how it ended :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQCrPNEsQaY&feature=PlayList&p=94B7DACED33C90F0&index=3 :D

If this test model would be nuke-driven, it would be a pretty big waste of material and clean enviroment. Mind you, you just can't go on a trial-and-error experiment spree with a nuclear spacecraft take-off from Earth.
 
Last edited:
The N-1 seemed pretty clunky to me too...

Carry on, it gets more interesting with every post. :)




My fault. I meant that early design of the space shuttle (the one mounted on the top stage of a Saturn V) from the Apollo programme era.

Oh... OK then.

Hmmm... I still think the Nuke-powered Orion is a waste of time and effort. That bird will never fly. They made hundreds of experiments with small models over the decades and look how it ended :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQCrPNEsQaY&feature=PlayList&p=94B7DACED33C90F0&index=3 :D
What are you trying to prove? That was a small-scale, proof-of-concept model. It wasn't supposed to get into space... and what are these "hundreds of experiments"?
If this test model would be nuke-driven, it would be a pretty big waste of material and clean enviroment. Mind you, you just can't go on a trial-and-error experiment spree with a nuclear spacecraft take-off from Earth.
Well, yeah... again, small-scale. As in, small enough to be powered by kilogram balls of TNT, rather than kiloton-range bombs.
 
What are you trying to prove? That was a small-scale, proof-of-concept model. It wasn't supposed to get into space... and what are these "hundreds of experiments"? Well, yeah... again, small-scale. As in, small enough to be powered by kilogram balls of TNT, rather than kiloton-range bombs.

Listen, I think the Orion could work fine... It's just that... what's the point ? It certainly isn't the most economic solution to space travel, isn't it ? It might be powerful and accelarate frikkin' fast, but the problems with building and operating it heavily outweigh the benefits, IMHO.
 
Listen, I think the Orion could work fine... It's just that... what's the point ? It certainly isn't the most economic solution to space travel, isn't it ? It might be powerful and accelarate frikkin' fast, but the problems with building and operating it heavily outweigh the benefits, IMHO.
The point is to get huge amounts of stuff up at the same time, rather than having to ship it up in pieces.

Yes, there are obviously big problems with it... the whole "setting off a load of nuclear bombs underneath it" thing, comes to mind.
 
Actually Orion would have been extremely economical, and the larger one you built, the better. But the consequences of detonating couple dozen nukes in atmosphere for every launch...
 
Actually Orion would have been extremely economical, and the larger one you built, the better. But the consequences of detonating couple dozen nukes in atmosphere for every launch...

Well yeah, sometimes you have to do it the hard way... It doesn't matter - we'll send a manned mission to Mars and later other planets eventually. We got all the time in the world... At least 5 billion years, that is... ;)
 
Top