Can we build "orbital ring" with "Project Orion" ?

THOSE ARE ON THE ECONOMICS OF ORBITAL RINGS, THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT THEIR STABILITY. THEY SHOW HOW TO MAKE A BRIDGE BETWEEN ISLANDS BUT NOT HOW TO MAKE AN ORBITAL RING.

THE OTHER PAPERS YOU WILL LINK ME ARE SEVERELY LACKING FOR STABILITY OF THE SINGLE SKYHOOK CASE.

>>moon transfer not to great for the structural integrety
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

moon transfer produce less stress than skyhook // leo => moon ∆V ~ 6km/sec

You weren't specific enough...

But what will be the function of our moon trips?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring

>> Do we even need more research on the moon?
holidays on moon ( The system's cost per kilogram to place payloads in orbit would be around $0.05 // wiki )

Thrusters...On the skyhooks end to end *troll face*

*How do you make a curve using only straight lines?*

Sub base for the mars and other shoot.

However, spacetourists would encounter seious health issues. For instance muscledegration and naussea by dissorientation.

Do you also want to put a ring on the moon?

I want to put the cosmos on my ring finger and wear it.

Not to mention the extra radiation they recieve because the moon has no atmosphere. It wouldn't be deadly, at least I think if I'm wrong correct me on this, but it can still cause damage due to ionisation of the cells.

THAT'S NOT EVEN AN ARGUMENT. THAT'S JUST SHITPOSTING.

If you love it and you want it put a ring on it!!!

Anyone who's read their Niven knows a ring will not orbit a mass stably.

Actually this has some merit...what would happen if you had individual launches timed at correct intervals at strategic locations around the glove around the desired placement of the belt?
Dare I say it you might actually make it not only affordable but with correct timing you can angle the hooks to form a ring at any angle you choose!

Yes, it could happen, were it not for the fact that the fucking thing will spin between launches.

Which can be taken advantage of...

So, one has to calculate the orbital velocity of the ring after every launch and it has to have 0 m/s spin.

It is possible, yes. But is it plausible, or even worth the effort.

Which would be fucked if we didn't know how to vary speeds using fuel mixtures.

Space Lelevators...
Also possible lauch station.

Or even using reaction wheels, I realised I made a pretty bad point. My excuses.

How about spaceplanes, would the lift of the air and using jet engines enough to use spaceplanes instead of making a giant ring in space.

>> sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063312002085
>> The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
>> For occupational exposure, the limit is 50 mSv in a single year with a maximum of 100 mSv in a consecutive five-year period

moon radiation for short time is not going to be problem

>> damage due to ionisation of the cells.
i don't know

The better question is, can we build Project Orion?

Thanks for the clarification.

How about waste disposal?
And other infrastructure.

No, because of the law.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN SAYING? THAT YOU ARE GOING TO LAUNCH ALL OF THE PIECES OF THE BELT ALL AT THE SAME TIME? HOW DO YOU DEPLOY BELT PIECES , WHICH ARE HUNDREDS OF KILOMETERS LONG, CONNECT THEM ALL TOGETHER, AND THEN SPIN IT UP SO IT'S ROTATING WITH A VELOCITY GREATER THAN ORBITAL? HOW THE FUCK DO YOU PROCEED TO ATTACH SKYHOOKS, WHICH ARE NOT IN ORBIT, TO THAT?

Please fix you're CAPS-lock key...

Oh no...by all means...It started as a troll post...but then I realised I just trashed treasure ahahahahaahah

Capitalism: When you spend your money building a giant ring base around your planet so you can launch a rocket to set up a moon base to collect helium three so you can set up a mars mission to collect uranium and plutonium and thorium so you can set up a Mars base to collect asteroids so you can then mine THEM and simultaneously set up an asteroid delivery service AND an asteroid base so you can launch a ship to jupiter and harvest its moon made of hydrocarbon so you can set up another base. etc etc etc etc

Fugg....

Here let these lil mo-fuckas explain....

We could build it -- for obvious reasons you are not going to ever use it as a launch vehicle. though as a "built in space" thing where you're not setting off a bunch of nukes in the atmosphere it might someday fly -- though there seem easier ways to fly around space.

That being the case, OP has the order wrong -- an orbital ring would maybe be useful for building an Orion, but an Orion is not much use in building a ring.

>mfw

Sectionally. With reasonable timing in group launches at key locations

You busted my point with a trollpost...
I feel so dumb...

And throw the earth into nuclear winter as wel.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

*hugs*

You are still my favourite wizard...
;-;

One of the "obvious reasons."

Though at east it would help combat global warming.

I'm a wot?
(Stale memes aside)

For the record Orions Nukes are not that big all things considered...It would hardly make a dent...All launches combined however might do it a little...so just launch them all where there a giant hole in the ozone? I dunno... we need another troll post to figure that one out... assuming there is a mechanism for timing the explosions the rocket would not look too dissimilar from a standard lunch I'll be using a much more Circular thruster pattern...

THAT DOES NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. HOW DO YOU DEPLOY THE SECTIONS, WHICH SHOULD END UP BEING HUNDREDS OF KILOMETERS LONG. HOW DO YOU CONNECT THESE SECTIONS TOGETHER? HOW DO YOU SPIN UP THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY TO SPEEDS GREATER THAN ORBITAL

HOW DO YOU PUT UP THE SKYHOOKS, WHICH AGAIN, ARE NOT IN ORBIT.

Yes, and wipe out the intire humans species.

I think saving the inviroment by killing humanity is the most effective way to save the climate, but the most idiotic as wel...

Fucking auto correct.
Launch**
Albeit**

Also the difference between a fine tuned Orion launch might actually be cleaner that a wasteful hydrocarbon one...

Yes, throw a ring in equitorial orbit through Antartica...
Great plan...

The answer is in dis...

>Yfw thats why you need a permit to get to Antarctica

memes aside...
Why is that a bad idea?

Can we please ignore the shouting lunatic.
He will fuck off after a while.
Or atleast he'll fix his CAPS-lock.

Everyone NEEDS a lunatic for that one percent time he us extrordinarily right about something.

Launching from Antartica will give you a polar orbit. Not a equitorial. And You require more delta-v to get into orbit via antartica than via the equator.

It was nice talking to you genltemen.

Would polar orbit still be useful in some way? Certainly would interfere with less satellites.... How much Delta V we talking?

Can't we angle then straighten for a lets say...Side angled ring?

UMMM.... OK. AND WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE? HOW THE FUCK IS THAT RELEVANT AT ALL TO ANY OF MY QUESTIONS. OK SO YOU CAN MAKE THINGS THAT APPEAR TO BE CURVES WITH A BUNCH OF STRAIGHT LINES OF MULTIPLE ANGLES.
I WILL NOT FUCK OFF.

Hehehe Go get them tiger...

Make it rain...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Dunno -- there have been 518 nuclear test detonations in the atmosphere (fusion and fission), 2 in the ocean, and two used as weapons.

Nuclear winter or the death of all mankind did not ensue.

I'd imagine you could launch some number of Orion devices without bringing about either effect at all.

But the legal problems would be immense.

The size of the nukes depends on how much mass you want to launch, right? OP's question posits a shit-ton of mass going up. That'll either take some sizable nukes, or a shit-ton of little ones.

I'm not sure there is any way to get that much mass up (which requires a lot of energy, without some environmental effects getting pretty dicey.

But the process to making this ring will give us Kepler syndrome...
If you launch east equitorial the rotatio of the earth wil boost you 1670 km/hour (image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10840.html). Instead of launching polar, in which case the earth doesn't give a boost.

What are you going to do make a giant space satellite with gigantic mass and then attatch a shaft to it? That would let you make it sectional... without having to launch all the pieces all at once...

We planned to launch it in little bits right...
It will stake take a shitton of nukes, but we need to delay the launches by about a month.

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU DEPLOY AND JOIN RING SECTIONS TOGETHER?

?!?!?!?
We?!

Same way we build bridges that meet in the middle...
T-T

>*cracks nucles*

IT'S CALLED DOCKING U FACKING MONGALOID. NOW FIX YOUR CAPSLOCK KEY AND FUCK OFF TO THE SHOUTING CAVE! WHERE YOU BELONG.

C-can I too go to the shouting cave?...

;-;

Whenever you like.

UHHHHH.... OK AND HOW DO YOU DO THAT IN ORBIT?
HOW DO YOU DOCK FLEXIBLE STRUCTURES HUNDREDS OF KILOMETERS LONG?

>orbital rings faggot again.

You've had this thread at least 5 times now and in every one all of that shit has been thoroughly debunked. This isn't even worth replying to anymore.

Magnets, and you make every segment slightly bendy, like a insect.

UHHHH... OK AND WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU GONNA DO WITH THOSE MAGNETS AND BENDY SECTIONS?

IF YOU ARE ADDING ACTUATION, THIS INCREASES COSTS BY A FACTOR OF A WHOLE DAMN LOT. THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL JUST CALLED FOR A THIN ALUMINUM WIRE OR A BAG OF GLASS FIBERS COATED IN STRIPS OF ALUMINUM.

Still, exploring the theoreticla physics is fun!

We Don't go by the original proposal, the bendy section will actually make the ring more stable.

>
IF YOU ARE ADDING ACTUATION, THIS INCREASES COSTS BY A FACTOR OF A WHOLE DAMN LOT.

The damn transport will still cost a fucking ton dipshit. OP wants to send a giant ring in space with nukes.

but it's theoretical engineering, not physics.

It also isn't even theoretical since it can't happen at all.

AND HOW WILL THE BENDY SECTION MAKE THE RING MORE STABLE? PERHAPS YOU HAVE DONE SOME ANALYSIS THAT DEMONSTRATES THIS IS ACTUALLY THE CASE?

YOU STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED WHAT YOUR CHANGED DESIGN IS.

SURE, IT MAY COST A FUCKTON, BUT THE ADDED COSTS MIGHT MAKE THINGS SO EXPENSIVE THAT NO NATION CAN AFFORD TO BUILD IT

>REE GIVE UP WE DEBUNKED YOU
>doesn't post the debunking facts
>just caps lock shitposts
get a trip so I can filter you

not him but:
there must be diameter(strength) of that ring that it become stable?
the question is: if we can launch into orbit?

Nuclear launches in the past were very dirty ground bursts too
Project orion nukes that would be detonated in the atmosphere would be designed around limited radiation/pollution

They would largely be negligible

I WOULDN'T SAY THAT ORBITAL RINGS ARE DEBUNKED, JUST THAT THERE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE WE CAN CONSIDER BUILDING THEM.

Ok I'm not using capslock are you fucking happy now?

A big issue is how do we construct the damn thing? Sure the ring might be stable during operation, but during construction it will not be. Second, more stability analysis remains to be done on the discrete skyhook case, ie the case we could actually build. Paul birch even admits " a great deal needs to done in working out the exact behavior of particular systems and in defining the limits of stability."

The ring needs to be flexible, the skyhooks have to be able to deflect it to support their weight.

Nukes are expensive as fuck to make. There is no reason to make orion for orbital launches when rockets like this are on the horizon.

The only reasonable application of orion is for interstellar craft.

>Nukes are expensive as fuck to make.
That is untrue they are in fact fairly easy to make
The US & Russia made tens of thousands of them each in the 60's

For hundreds of billions of dollars
10,000 nukes is enough for what, 50 launches?

the hundreds of billions was for nuke subs, bombers, silos, ICBM's, and so on
The actual incremental cost of producing 6 kg of plutonium then putting explosives around it is very small

Much cheaper per quantity of energy than oil or natural gas.

Then you take this and build your multi-million ton space craft out of steel, fill it with enough nukes for Mars & back, dump your million tons of payload + 10,000 people...

That'll be far better than any BFR SpaceX strategy.

Too bad the US and Russia's infrastructure for producing plutonium is rotting. Oh and the fact that Orion is forbidden by international treaties.

>multi-million ton space craft
not physically possible, for one, even if you had the money to build it
For reference, the Empire State building weighs less than half of 1 million tons.

>The actual incremental cost of producing 6 kg of plutonium then putting explosives around it is very small
blowing smoke
you could make 50 BFR rockets for the price of the plutonium to launch one Orion

>Much cheaper per quantity of energy than oil or natural gas.
what? natural gas is the cheapest fuel source in the world by far right now

>That'll be far better than any BFR SpaceX strategy.
actually it's worse in pretty much every conceivable way

Ditch the skyhooks, If we were to daisy chain repeated payloads at the same orbital speeds and connect them all together, The ring would be under the constant effect of centrifugal force

And what would be the point of that? Without the skyhooks you can't send stuff to space and it becomes unstable.

>For reference, the Empire State building weighs less than half of 1 million tons.

And its nowhere near the limits of the size of what a building can be

>what? natural gas is the cheapest fuel source in the world by far right now
Nuclear power is much cheaper
Each BFR is going to cost upwards of 300 million each

Citation needed

>And its nowhere near the limits of the size of what a building can be
kek

>Nuclear power is much cheaper
even the cheapest nuclear (molten salt thorium, which involves zero plutonium at all) is more expensive than natural gas m8

>Each BFR is going to cost upwards of 300 million each
...and with any luck will fly 10-100 times each

Civilian nuclear power plants produce PU239 as a byproduct, and have been intentionally deisgned to contaminate their used fuel with PU240

Literally tons of fissionable material produced every year by power plants wasted

You would only need a fraction of that to lift any size vehicle you could imagine to orbit/beyond

>Civilian nuclear power plants produce PU239 as a byproduct
...and it's next to impossible to extract this plutonium from spent fuel rods

???
This is how you produce PU239
You leave the rod in the reactor for a short period, then take it out to seperate the PU239
Civilian reactors are designed to leave the rods in for years to deliberately contaminate them

Theres no magic here, this is the normal mechanism for producing fissile material

That's not a citation. A number of treaties forbid the production of weapons grade plutonium.
There are viable processes for doing it PUREX is one of them

>A number of treaties forbid the production of weapons grade plutonium.
Thats not true at all