Talk:Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)

message: Who funded orion's proof-of-concept launch tests with live explosives?
Robotbeat (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There were multiple tests (with conventional explosives, not nuclear) described in Freeman Dyson's book Disturbing the Universe iirc, and probably other places as well.  It wasn't that big a deal.  173.228.123.207 (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who funded Project Orion's tests? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Project Orion (nuclear propulsion). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107140516/http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/documents.html to http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/documents.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310070123/http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/figure1.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/figure1.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hi All,
I notice in the article that "The following can be found in George Dyson's book.[7] The figures for the comparison with Saturn V are taken from this section and converted from metric (kg) to US short tons (abbreviated "t" here)." My first thought was - Why short tons? That's an obscure regional unit, mostly used (so short ton says only in the USA. Not even in Canada. Then I read on. Other parts of the article refer to tonnes. Metric ones. Two tons is too many. Why? Number774 (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tons and Tonnes 

message: For balance this quote might be of interest somewhere in the article - it sometiems seems a bit over enthusiastic, as if most of the problems are solvable when it is just a paper study, as you say, there are many potential issues not really addressed and here Piacentino voices a more skeptical view than Dyson and others enthusiastic that these could be fixed, given the will and some way to do it that doesn't violate the nuclear test ban treaty. Piacentino, G.M., 2010. Prospects of nuclear propulsion for space physics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1005.0869.
I'm not saying which of them is right. I am if anything more inclined towards the optimism of Dyson and the others who are mainly cited in this article - but for balance we should present the full range of WP:POVs on this topic. Robert Walker (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Orion quote 

message: Nuclear reactors create super heated particles super heated particles could be used to move a vehicle in space Forward gradually to the speed of particles by using a nuclear reactor to super heat the particles through a jet based propulsion system keeping one end of the system closed the other end of the system opened using a style allowing you to open and close the front entry ports. Closing the front ports allows the particles to exit the rear (exhaust only) forcing forward motion continuing to move forward then opening the front ports allowing the cold in keeping the reactor from overheating and allowing exiting particles to increase the speed to that of the maximum speed of the super heated particles. Adjustments to course by using flaps from at the exhaust ports angling the heat for slower motion docking use controllable Side upper and lower controllable ports. Adjustments to speed by using a open and closing forward facing exhaust bypassing the rear facing exhaust. Weapons could use rail guns and rail gun type launchers for more powerful ordinance if necessary and lasers powered by the reactor. This seems like a pretty viable reason why we should be using nuclear reactors for space  — Preceding unsigned comment added by "marvinjrs" (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear propulsion for space very vehicles 

message: I think the rocket is around 1,400 feet.you can find on YouTube on the channel hazegreyart it includes rockets like space shuttle, a blue origin rocket, n1 f1 rocket, Saturn v,starship, sea dragon rocket.on the thumbnail it has a picture of the project Orion rocket in front of all the rockets I named. I think the space shuttle is 112 feet tall so I measured the space shuttle height so the project Orion rocket is 1,400 feet 2600:8801:1902:F00:DC6D:9E34:7C04:4B09 (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  My opinion of the project or Ryan rockets height