Rating: 
Summary: The exciting story about an atomic spaceship
Review: In the late 1950's a group of scientists had the idea to travel to mars by 1965, and then later Saturn by 1970.At parts I thought the book had too much detail and others I got into the story line. Many of the terms talked about in the book were too complex for me to understand and other parts were simple and interesting topics. If you are interested in science topics or NASA failures this book should keep you interested. I recommend this book for the young scientists or the average reader. I also recommend that you skim read many chapters because much of the detail is unnecessary.
Rating: 
Summary: Point Summary of Proposed Theoretical Adjustments to Orion
Review: 1. It is not a pusher-plate but a type of cannon that should contain the blast. The cannon could be described as a pusher-plate with walls on it, obviously to focus the energy released by the blast. Failing to focus the blast would also destroy many more satellites than is necessary (EPP) and is also very wasteful of the energy release. The number of explosions required to give propulsion would thus be much less.
2. The cannon is an ancient device but invented in a remarkable piece of history where the Chinese failed to develop its effective application. Unfortunately the English language does not have an alternative and less warlike term for a hollow tube with one end sealed by a pusher plate. America, the inventor of a new super "gun-powder", the atomic bomb, thus is repeating history by accidentally side-stepping the challenge of physical containment. The pusher-plate concept seeks to avoid the challenge of physical containment, a mistake. It is to be suggested "the inventor of new and overwhelming explosion will fail to develop its most significant application because of an over-whelmed sense of what the challenge of physical containment will involve".
3. Orion should never take off from the ground, but would be built in space. It would test the efficiency of our ability to push payload into space, but would limit all tests to outer space orbits and beyond where solar radiation is an existing malignant factor. As such it could be said to be a "green technology" in that malignant radiation releases in space are already a natural occurrence. The test apparatus being non-tether able in such an orbit would require from the very beginning a pilot and massive counter-thrust chemical engines to return the test for inspection.
4. deleted to fit word count.
5. It should not be assumed that the human being suffers the same intolerance to G force in space in exactly the same proportions as it is experienced on earth until real time data can be gathered. Acceleration is measured as a factor of time squared. Clearly relativity in space may work in our favour and allow travel under more G than is possible than on earth, something required if we were to reach the stars within an economic time period.
6. Our world without Project Orion is in danger of dispensing with the only natural theory of the non use of nuclear weapons. If we miss the point that such explosions have an economic potential for use in space, perhaps because we proceeded initially with an alternative theory of non-use so-called "MAD", then we are left at an evolutionary disadvantage. That a weapon is "horrible" is not an adequate theory of non-use, as many wars have inadvertently proved with other new technologies. That its use in war would mean a loss of its economic opportunity and value in space, is a significant deterrent. The Orion Project book by Dyson mentions NASA commenting it would be a useful way to dispose of or to consume fissile material. More than that it is an essential theory of non use of such materials and would hopefully when demand consumption in space increased to a certain level, call upon the dismantling of thermonuclear weapons to free up the atomic cores for use in the profitable area of space propulsion.
7. Project Orion once constructed in space, like the first cannons made in many pieces, would have the potential to actually lift or pull heavy objects into space. The bizarre "free energy" idea of the "sky hook" thus has a new and powerful application. If the cannon in orbit were to weigh 500 tonnes it would we might hope be able to lift 20 times its own weight, the dangling sky cables being supported by high altitude weather balloons. The environmental costs of currently pushing payload into space would thus be super ceded forever by a new capability to pull (as in a building site crane or harbour tug) 10,000 tonnes into orbit in one go by firing atomic explosions harmlessly away from earth at an angle to it.
8. The number of explosions estimated as needed for interplanetary travel by Orion is far too high. The frictionless, weightlessness of space means that following Newton's F=MA the acceleration would strictly not diminish over any amount of time. However again relativity would likely introduce some gradual diminishment of acceleration over the time period. The expectation of the requirement of one explosion a day in space would not be unreasonable until proven otherwise to maintain acceleration and hence gravity levels. This of course assumes that the pusher-plate has been given some containing walls and is not discharging energy willy-nilly across the heavens.
9. Occam's razor theorem highlights the essence of simplicity in invention. By determining to use a cannon/tube/canister rather than a pusher-plate with complicated hydraulics and ejection procedures, we can draw from a near millennium's wealth of experience in the development of the cannon to musket, then rifle. The use of cartridges and their subsequent ejection is likely to provide engineers with more insight on how an interplanetary craft can be efficiently powered, than the noble but essentially misguided attempt by Orioneers to re-write centuries of physical containment into riding shock waves. When it comes to the challenge of physical containment in space, it maybe like testing a light bulb in orbit, but we must face up to the challenge of physical containment in space. This route has seen many hundreds of years of development tests and failures since the dawn of the original gunpowder age. As such it is much more likely to result in ultimate success, rather than by re-inventing the wheel as "square" as the original Project Orion concept has with a "pusher-plate" sought to do.
Rating: 
Summary: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship
Review: Dyson, son of the distinguished British-born physicist Freeman Dyson, unveils a wealth of formerly classified information covering the attempt of a group of US scientists, beginning in 1957, to develop and launch a space vehicle powered solely by serial explosions of nuclear devices. The elder Dyson, who lends extensive personal perspectives here, was involved with the effort (sponsored by the Defense Department's hush-hush Advanced Research Projects Agency) from its inception; the list of its proponents reads like a roster of Nobel candidates, including one winner-the world-renowned atomic scientist Edward Teller. So it's made immediately clear that, as hard as it may be to accept, detonating nuclear bombs right behind a huge, bullet-shaped spaceship was, and still is, by some, considered not only a practical avenue of technical pursuit but one offering far more promise for extending man's horizon into the Solar System than those wimpy "chemical" rockets-the Atlases, Titans, etc.-that Wernher von Braun was simultaneously developing. (Briefed on Orion several years into the project, in fact, von Braun readily endorsed the concept.) Dyson's myriad interviews nicely capture the sweep of a grandiose technical scheme, but also the rapturous initial state of Orion scientists whose coup, as they see it, has them turning nuclear weapons into plowshares under the auspices-not to mention watchful eyes-of the same generals who want to back down the Soviet Union at any cost. However, political obstacles would become even more daunting than the considerable technical challenges, as small, fission-based devices (like those intended to boost Orion) came to be viewed in some circles as even more dangerous than megaton-yielding H-bombs (since military commanders might actually be tempted to use one). Ultimately, creeping realization that the potential effects of radioactive fallout had been dangerously understated for years undermined what support remained, and so Orion's budget was axed in 1964. An intimate look at an amazing concept some still believe offers the best hope for fending off-literally-an errant asteroid or comet that could wipe humankind from Earth.
Rating:
Summary: They were planning to tour the Solar System
Review: For those of us who dream of visiting the outer planets, seeing Saturn's rings up close without intermediation of telescopes or charge-coupled devices, well, we pretty much *have* to read "Project Orion." In 1958, some of the world's smartest people, including famous physicist Freeman Dyson (the author's father), expected to visit the outer planets in "Orion," a nuclear-bomb propelled ship big enough and powerful enough to seat its passengers in lazy-boy recliners. They expected to start their grand tour by 1970. This was not pie-in-the-sky optimism; they had strong technical reasons for believing they could do it.To pull this book together, George Dyson did an astonishing amount of research into this still largely classified project. And, maybe because he's connected to Orion through his father, the author captures the strong emotion of the project and the team. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Real-Life Science Fiction
Review: George's father Freeman was one of the scientists on the Orion project (first publicized in Freeman's 1979 "Disturbing The Universe"), so you know his information is pretty good. The project itself sounds pretty wacky, using atomic bombs dropped out the bottom of a spaceship to propel it, but these were the days right after Sputnik (1957-1959) and the U.S. was desperate to get in the space race any way we could. To everyone's amazement, the assembled team of young, talented Manhattan Project scientists worked out a feasible design, and if it hadn't been for certain political considerations, it might have been built. But the military didn't want their bombs used for space travel, and a Test Ban Treaty was signed, and anyway people got kinda nervous about exploding lots of A-bombs in the atmosphere. What's interesting about the design is the size of the ship. Whereas conventional chemical rockets require 1000 tons of propellant for every ton of payload, the Orion was just the opposite. The bombs would be very compact, and because the nuclear explosions would ablate (wear away) the pusher plate and the ship had to absorb the impacts within livable limits, the ship had to be huge. A crew of a thousand in a ship the size of an office building was envisioned. How different our space program would have been if exploring the outer planets were easier than visiting the moon! As with his previous book "Darwin Among The Machines," George Dyson writes fluidly, making highly-technical concepts seem almost within grasp (a trait he inherited). We'll never know, I guess, how close Orion came to being built since most of the work on it is still classified under the Stategic Defense Initiative directed-energy weapons research.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting account of a little-known program
Review: If you're like me (and if you're reading this, there's a good chance you are), you are a sucker for space history, particularly the history of odd and obscure programs, and of classified or "black" projects. This book puts together a great deal of information about the Orion program, its goals, and chances for success. Most of this information had previously been unavailable, or scattered, or bandied about on bizarre X-Files-ish web sites. But this is the real deal, the definitive history of the program that was once shrouded in mystery and aerospace legend. While a bit clunky and awkward in places, "Project Orion" held my attention, and generally maintained a cohesive narrative. There are quite a few drawings and photos in this book, which really help to the sense of adventure and excitement of Orion. Several reviewers mention that many of the details remain classified. That's certainly true. But having said that, I am amazed at the things we learn in this book that actually were declassified (e.g., the survivability of materials in close proximity to a nuclear explosion). I have a degree in engineering, and this book got technical enough to satisfy my technical curiosity, but not so technical as to bore me.
I started reading this book thinking that I would chuckle at the naivete of scientists who thought they could blow up a few nukes to drive a spacecraft. I finished it thinking that it might actually work. Who knows--perhaps we'll all get a chance for a Grand Tour of the solar system before we die.
Rating:
Summary: The Limits Of The Possible
Review: Imagine a nuclear bomb powered spaceship, envisioned in the late 1950's, able to reach the Planet Mars in a few weeks travel time, or Saturn in a year or so, carrying perhaps a thousand ton payload. A detailed engineering design was produced in the 50's and 60's of a ship capable of just that! George Dyson, in this volume, takes readers back in time to that exciting era where the sky was literally the limit. Many physicists are depicted, some unknown and some famous, as are the associated politics, and many technical details also. Project Orion, as it was named, was to be powered by small fission bombs ejected out the back of the spaceship and exploded some distance away, the explosion wave front would collide with a working medium which in turn would hit a pusher plate on the spaceship at high velocity thereby imparting thrust. In fact, this concept is the only method, I believe, that combines high specific impulse with high thrust, using existing technology....it could open up the solar system to colonization. Many thousands of small fission bombs would be required on most missions. The authors father, Freeman Dyson, actually worked on this project for a time, and George Dyson presents here a fascinating account, hard to put down at times. The Orion project was eventually shelved, largely due to it's use of nuclear bombs, but also partly due to NASA's reliance on chemical powered rockets, but it seems clear that with appropriate safeguards, nuclear powered spaceships, advanced descendants of Orion, will someday ply the spaceways between the stars.
Rating:
Summary: Khorosho!
Review: Loved it. Very detailed and always sober recollections. Lots of helpful photos, diagrams and schematics. A thriller for any (especially aerospace) engineer.
Rating:
Summary: Visions of atomic powered rockets
Review: Nuclear powered spaceships might sound like a fantasy out of the 50's but it almost came to pass. Freeson Dyson was involved in helping to develop a prototype spaceship called Orion powered by atmom explosions. While all of this might sound like it's from the science fiction movie The Conquest of Space or 2001: A Space Odyssey, Orion would have worked if not for a number of minor glitches. The atomic explosions would have propelled the 10 story rocketship into the atmosphere thereby releasing radiation and nuclear fall out into the environment. A scale model was launched using conventional chemical rockets and proved that it could be done. Orion's days were numbered because of the nuclear test ban treaty signed by Kennedy and politics. The fantasy didn't quite end with the discovery of the potential environmental impact of Orion and the nuclear test ban treaty. Dyson and others discussed using conventional rockets to get the Orion into orbit and then using the atomic "engine" once out of Earth's atmosphere. Unfortunately, Orion became the victim of politics and a changing world. The original plan was to have Orion arrive at Saturn by 1970 (just a year after the Moon landing with conventional rockets). We'd live in quite a different world if Orion had succeeded in moving from the drawing board to reality. We'd probably have toured the solar system by now . On the other hand we'd also live in a world damaged by nuclear fallout and an increase in background radiation. Dyson's breezy writing style makes this book accessible to both history buffs and casual readers as well. He has a good grasp of the subject matter due to his father's involvement. Dyson interviewed scientist involved in the creation of Orion and did research into the project via declassified papers. An interesting and compelling read that of the road not taken in space travel (for good and bad), Orion was a pipe dream that almost progressed to reality. An interesting note is the fact that Arthur Clarke and Stanley Kubrick proposed using nuclear bombs to power the Discovery in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Clarke was clearly inspired by the research done on Orion and this influenced the design of the Discovery for the film. Fiction almost mirrored reality and it's fascinating (and frightening ) to consider what might have been There is some technical info in here but it's well explained and pretty straight forward.
Rating:
Summary: Great Idea, bad book
Review: The idea of Project Orion will appeal to everyone. It is one of those great ideas that open new chapters in human achievement. There are serious risks involved with the technology that would have to be managed carefully if it is ever revisited, but it could be done. With a year's warning, we could deflect the sort of asteroid/comet that ended the dinosaurs. We could build a city on the Moon or survey Mars. We could send manned expeditions around the solar system 10 years after we decide to do it, starting any time. The idea Project Orion studied back in the 50's is wonderful. This book is not. You can get all of the story contained in this book by reading the first 9 chapters and studying all the illustrations carefully. All of the project's technical details of interest are classified and not included. The book suffers from a lack of any sort of useful timeline as to the events of Project Orion. The reader is left to piece together the story from a sprinkling of semi-random vignettes and personal reminiscences. Most of this book is filler, with the details left to the reader's own mind to fill in. And yet, the idea is so Grand that I found myself staring off into space every so often as I ground my way through the turgid prose and confusing organization, imagining where we might be now if hopes had been realized 40 years ago. Here are some tips that will help the reader get the most out of this book: 1) Ignore all mentions of Tungsten propellant that are sprinkled confusingly here and there. They belong to suboptimised designs, though this fact is hidden toward the back of the book. 2) Skim the personnel intros. They don't pay off. 3) Study the table toward the end of Chapter 6 for the best understanding of what Orion can do. Compare this to similar NASA Mars mission studies and you will find yourself grinding your teeth. 4) The politics of Orion are simple in outline but complicated in detail. NASA killed this program because it's own NERVA program was in competition with Orion. The book makes this point over 100 pages. If you look into what happened to NERVA you'll start grinding your teeth again. 5) There is a lot of teeth gnashing about atomic scientists feeling guilty about the bombs after they had made them. They acknowledge that Orion was a constructive use of that effort, but in their old age many of the scientists interviewed for this book are a little hypocritical in their disavowals. More grinding. 6) The mention of Tungsten in Chapter "Fallout" is another red herring. It was easy to detect in an unrelated bomb test. Orion designs did not use Tungsten propellent.
|
