Banned
Bad Astronomer,
Doesn't surprise me at all. Educated people are on the whole far more willing to contemplate the pro's and con's of Orion. Unfortunately such people are a minority. As for the nuclear treaties, they are only paper.You may be surprised that I think Orion is an interesting concept for a spaceship, ever since I first read about it in "Footfall". In its current stage, it'll never happen due to the nuclear treaties, but it's still worth looking into.
Established Member
So is the US constitution, right? But that "piece of paper" represents something that can't just be ignored whenever someone feels like it.Originally Posted by Project Orion
Treaties represent trust. They are promises and can not be ignored just because they are in your way. If the US decides to ignore the treaties they have signed what reason would the rest of the world have to trust them anymore? If they want to back out of a treaty they should enter into negotiations with the other countries that signed it.
Established Member
I don't think the people who drafted these treaties had the foresight to consider that outerspace nuclear explosions could have peaceful applications in spacecraft propulsion. Perhaps if they could be amended in such a fashion as to allow this application of nuclear explosions we'd be back in business.
Established Member
You mean governments (of any country) NEVER break a treaty?So is the US constitution, right? But that "piece of paper" represents something that can't just be ignored whenever someone feels like it.
Established Member
Sure they do, but that doesn't make it ok. Ignoring treaties is not the kind of thing repectable countries do easily... especially where nuclear devices are concerned. Countries like Iran and North Korea might ignore nuclear treaties, but the US? I expect more from them.
Orion is an interesting design and I'm not against it's use in space (where radiation is already abundant). All I'm saying is treaties are more than "just paper". They mean something.
Banned
Hello LunarOrbit,
Sure they can.Treaties represent trust. They are promises and can not be ignored just because they are in your way.
U.S. quits ABM treaty.
December 14, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLI.../rec.bush.abm/
Nobody trusts anybody in this complex modern era. ASIO, the CIA and MI5 are watching one another just as carefully as they are watching terrorist groups. Alliances are transitory and based on mutual need. You obviously haven't been watching world events very carefully if you think the world trusts America.If the US decides to ignore the treaties they have signed what reason would the rest of the world have to trust them anymore?
Andrew,
The antiquated treaties relevant to nuclear testing aren't even based on sound logic. The outer space treaty actually refers to irradiating outer space as a serious issue. Never mind that its an infinite ocean of deadly radiation already. As you rightly said, treaties can be ammended. Not only that but parties to a treaty can withdraw quite legally. All laws are supposed to reflect public attitudes but ofcourse laws are often slower to change than public opinions. A resurgence of interest in manned spaceflight could overturn these archaic nonsensical treaties.I don't think the people who drafted these treaties had the foresight to consider that outerspace nuclear explosions could have peaceful applications in spacecraft propulsion.
LunarOrbit,
I don't know what universe you are living in but....Ignoring treaties is not the kind of thing repectable countries do easily... especially where nuclear devices are concerned. Countries like Iran and North Korea might ignore nuclear treaties, but the US? I expect more from them.
North Korea withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty. They had previously given 3 months notice as is stipulated for abrogating that worthless scroll. I remember when your friend Yales the anti-nuclear spokesman predicted that no country would ever defy that piece of paper. He said that anyone who did would be bombed to oblivion by the USA. He went on endlessly about the 'impossibility' of anyone even thinking about violating it. Said it would never happen in a thousand years. In between his lengthy postings I always offered rebuttals but it fell on deaf ears. Until a few months later when N.Korea sunk his argument.December 14, 2001 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday the United States has notified Russia that it intends to pull out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, starting a six-month timetable for withdrawal and opening the way for the creation of an anti-missile defense system.
"Today I am giving formal notice to Russia that the United States of America is withdrawing from this almost 30-year-old treaty," Bush said in the White House Rose Garden. "I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks."
The announcement came after months of talks in which U.S. officials hoped to persuade Russia to set the treaty aside and negotiate a new strategic agreement. But a breakthrough did not materialize, and Bush decided to go ahead with a unilateral withdrawal.
I disagree. Treaties are not sacred parchments. Over regulation is in fact a curse on society. I don't even consider the treaties an obstacle to Orion. The main obstacle is informing the masses of Orion technology and what it could mean to them. If enough public support is gathered then ammending some old pieces of paper will just be a formality.All I'm saying is treaties are more than "just paper".
Established Member
Yeah, and the decision to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was really popular worldwide, wasn't it? I guess one's word means nothing to some people these days.
Banned
So it is your opinion that archaic manuscripts are immune to the ever changing cultures and environments which spawned them?
They are nothing more than paper. Ultimately, might is right. A treaty that cannot be enforced is worthless and up for renegotiation. Just look at Iraq. They didn't have any nukes but the US charged in anyway. Personally I think its a good thing they did but by your logic it defied many bits of paper.
Established Member
Do you believe that all of our laws can be ignored just as easily? I mean, what is stopping people from commiting murder other than a simple piece of paper that says it's illegal?
If you don't honour your treaties then other countries will eventually decide they don't want to deal with you anymore because you can't be trusted. It's one thing to back out of a treaty after discussing it with the other countries that signed it, but to just suddenly pull out without any warning is just plain wrong. It could even be interpreted as a hostile act under certain circumstances.
Treaties can be changed to suit the times, but only through diplomacy.
Order of Kilopi
I'm not going to get into an argument about the merits of missile defense, but: The treaty was not ignored. It had a provision for withdrawal, which was in there exactly for the reason it was used: It was foreseen that changing technology could change the strategic equation. The withdrawal provision was used, as is mentioned in that article.
As for the Orion drive - I like the concept technically, and I am in favor of nuclear power, but I am still a bit ... uncomfortable with the concept. In this day and age you just aren't going to find many that would find it acceptable. Forget treaties: It just isn't going to happen any time soon, unless there is some kind of "world hanging in the balance" emergency.
Banned
LunarOrbit,
Ofcourse. But it is all dependant upon which party takes the initiative. America can do pretty much whatever it likes. It is not the paper but the possible reaction from other parties which influences America's decision makers.Do you believe that all of our laws can be ignored just as easily?
The prospect of getting caught, being convicted and receiving punishment. God knows, I've considered throttling the life out of a certain individual but the immediate satisfaction of removing a piece of human garbage from the gene pool is outweighed by the risk of arrest. This law is largely supported by the masses who find killing disagreeable. If the public were to be in favour of murder then the law would be ammended or discarded. This is the case with nuclear reactions. The public is not against peaceful applications of nuclear energy. The swing away from nuclearphobia has been underway for decades now. Treaties only have as much power as the public chooses to invest in them. Without the backing of public opinion they are obsolete. Just paper.I mean, what is stopping people from commiting murder other than a simple piece of paper that says it's illegal?
I don't deny the historical importance of certain old scrolls. At the time that they were written many of their signatories had the very best of intentions in mind. Unfortunately, every law created to try and protect freedom instead takes away some of our freedom. The very act of regulating freedom only further entrenches the class system and widens the gap between rich and poor. Just for starters.
Let's talk about the greatest catastrophe in all of recorded history. The second world war. That was full of treaties.
Treaties produce a wide field of interpretation which can be abused by clever politicians. Back in the 1930's Germany was a Democracy just like the U.S is today. It had its own constitution which was seen as sacrosanct by the German people. Just as you believe your own constitution to be ever so holy today. There was a clause in the German constitution which decreed that the Chancellor could assume temporary dictatorial powers during a national emergency. This was how Hitler took control and conquered most of Europe in the largest war the Earth had ever seen. Over 40 million people dead. Because of a democratic constitution.
But let's not linger on constitutions. Just because one of them caused the second world war is no reason for us to assume the rest of them are flawed and or imperfect. Is it?
What about the Russo Nazi pact. An agreement between Hitler and Stalin whereby Stalin gave Hitler all the resources he required to crush Europe and Germany gave Russia access to its state of the art military science. Aren't you glad Hitler violated that treaty? If he hadn't broken the deal by invading Russia then the world would be a very different place now. We'd be conversing in German for a start.
That treaty had a secret clause. In the event of Poland coming into conflict with Germany and losing, Russia would get half of it. After the second world war was over and Hitlers ashes were still hidden in a rolled up carpet, as the Russian flag was planted on the Chancellery in Berlin, after all friendship between the two countries was a memory, when all other treaties had been broken, Russia expected the allies to respect the secret clause in that Russo Nazi treaty. Stalin wanted to keep the half of Poland he had been given by Hitler. Churchill went to war because Poland had been invaded. In light of this fact do you think it would have been right for Churchill to respect that secret clause?
Well, he did. That half of Poland remained under the control of the communists for a very long time. It became hell on earth for the citizens. Many of them were sent to gulags and never returned. But hey, just because an honoured treaty caused the unnecessary imprisonment and death of tens of thousands of people doesn't mean all treaties are bad, right? You just have to keep the flip side in mind and remember they are only paper proclamations.
I think treaties are trash. Ofcourse, not everyone agree's with that view. Hitler loved treaties. He made them all the time. Found them to be a great way of buying himself time to build up arsenals. When the time came for war he wasn't going to fret about a few pieces of paper. Hell, if it wasn't for the discontent created by the "treaty" of Versaille he would never have even reached office.
The nuclear treaties are pushing research underground. A very dangerous place for it to be. We have to stop being afraid of our own shadows and allow freedom of scientific knowledge. Burying our heads in the sand is not the answer to nuclear terrorism. At best it stalls the inevitable and like sticking a plug in a volcano only causes a bigger disaster. We will live in fear until we embrace nuclear technology. We must expand our research and explore new applications. We must master and adapt to overcome its destructive power.
A terrorist could throw arsenic into a reservoir, set fire to a hospital or throw a power line into a swimming pool. There was a time when whole cities were consumed by fire. Today we have largely mastered that particular threat. Occasionally farm houses or villages are threatened but we know enough about fire to take precautions. The same must be done for nuclear terrorism. It won't go away until we rise above it. By that I mean learn how to protect ourselves. The cure is within the nuclear genie itself. Only by studying it can we find that cure. Heavy elements are dense radioactive metals. Possibly the easiest elements in the world to detect if we are prepared to invest the money. It might mean sensory systems around every possible target but thats better than closing our eyes to the problem and hoping everyone will respect a treaty.
Orion opens up whole new worlds to us. Places we've only ever seen. We would have the resources of the entire solar system in our hands. If the public wants it then no piece of paper will deny them of the opportunity to climb mountains on Mars.
Maybe its understandable that some people are afraid of this. The whole notion of taking humanity to the next rung in the ladder of progress. The wealthier nations have certainly lost interest in new frontiers and who else could afford to invest in the most powerful engine ever designed? China for one. Even struggling nations can accomplish wonders. A sizable nation like China can achieve anything it tasks itself with.
If we don't want Orion (and right now most westerners don't even know what it is), then thats no guarantee that others won't grab the opportunity we missed. Money is no obstacle to the determined. They can always make "treaties" with other aggressive up and coming nations who are equally hungry for power.
We are now diving headlong into the future no matter how we choose to face it. Treaties serve no useful purpose other than the illusion of security. The loss of freedom is certainly not worth it. Particularly when so many nations are using the nuclear treaties as a blanket to cover their secret weapons programs.
I've been preaching about nations secretly building nukes for years. Since long before India ever tested a bomb. Everyone with half a brain knows its happening. The non-proliferation treaty promises that those with the bomb will disarm (hah!). It also gives those without the bomb access to nuclear reactors. How naive to expect that everyone without a bomb wouldn't use their reactors to try and build one.
Banned
Van Rijn,
Just as North korea withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty.I'm not going to get into an argument about the merits of missile defense, but: The treaty was not ignored. It had a provision for withdrawal, which was in there exactly for the reason it was used: It was foreseen that changing technology could change the strategic equation. The withdrawal provision was used, as is mentioned in that article.
Understandably so.As for the Orion drive - I like the concept technically, and I am in favor of nuclear power, but I am still a bit ... uncomfortable with the concept.
Possibly. On the other hand, nobody has ever given the community a chance to air their views. Until then it is impossible guage public sentiment.In this day and age you just aren't going to find many that would find it acceptable. Forget treaties: It just isn't going to happen any time soon, unless there is some kind of "world hanging in the balance" emergency.
Established Member
I don't see any reason to not distinguish between peaceful applications of nuclear energy and aggressive uses of it. That's just short-sighted. I doubt the U.S will abandon the treaty, certainly not just so we can get probes to Titan faster. But I do think that in light of these theoretical applications of the technology the treaty should be reevaluated by the concerning nations.
Order of Kilopi
In general, I suspect most people don't commit murder because they think it's morally wrong to kill, and not because of risk of arrest.
Either way, this thread has taken on a tone that may make discourse difficult. I strongly urge people here to keep it on topic and have a care about what they write. Discussions of treaties and their impact on scientific research and advancement is fine (and in fact I encourage it), but please try to keep things civil. Just a reminder.
Established Member
Personally I feel Project Orion is well dated. Fusion could be enacted to give the thrust, use a strong magnetic field to keep the hot plasma from touching the ship. This would also make it a lot more efficient.
Also new research into Fusion production could well make it hundreds of times more efficient. I even remember reading a prediction of if the new technologies pan out we could have a fusion reactor capable of being placed on a table. (Granted it would be so heavy it crushed the table but then it would still somewhat be on it.)
I think the new attempts are using super conductive magnets rotating at high RPM's around the reactor to imitate the effects of a solid magnetic confinement at much lower costs.
Banned
Bad Astro,
In general, human beings are rather tolerant of one anothers idiosyncracies. Road rage, spouse abuse and other common forms of violence rarely cause intentional murder but everyone is capable of it. Soldiers and hitmen are paid to do it. It is because of the commandment "thou shalt not kill" that the laws against manslaughter and murder were created so its difficult to draw a line between the two. If morality alone confined peoples actions then there would be no need for a justice system. I think most people have at some stage contemplated it.In general, I suspect most people don't commit murder because they think it's morally wrong to kill, and not because of risk of arrest.
Tone of the text? Law and order is a contentious issue but I haven't noticed any flaming.this thread has taken on a tone that may make discourse difficult.
It's a wide topic.I strongly urge people here to keep it on topic and have a care about what they write.
I thought we were.please try to keep things civil.
Established Member
Well coudln't you also just throw the pulse units behind a M2P2 powered craft? I think it would work.
Banned
Kebsis,
I disagree. The most shortsighted action humanity can take is to do nothing when a new technology presents itself. All technology is a two edged sword. There is no excuse for suppressing progress. Those guilty of such ignorant acts inevitably pay a heavy price. You have to take the good with the bad. Cars kill over a million people every year. They are devastating inertia weapons. Anybody here want to ban automobiles?I don't see any reason to not distinguish between peaceful applications of nuclear energy and aggressive uses of it. That's just short-sighted.
I don't like probes. Never send a tin can to do a mans job. That's my philosophy. A human being on Mars could accomplish thousands of times more than a robotic Tonker Toy. Unfortunately, until we release the full potential of nuclear energy, we'll be stuck with taking a back seat.I doubt the U.S will abandon the treaty, certainly not just so we can get probes to Titan faster.
It is I think. Orion is the only conceivable way of sending people to distant Mars and achieving more than a flag ceremony. Unless we go with Zubrins Mars direct and all of us will be long dead before that accomplishes anything miraculous.But I do think that in light of these theoretical applications of the technology the treaty should be reevaluated by the concerning nations.
electromagneticpulse,
Thermonuclear fusion yes. Magnetic confinement may prove to be a dead duck. I would be ecstatically dumbfounded if they pulled it off but quite frankly it looks a pipedream. Our Grandparents were having this same conversation half a century ago. Even if it can be done, development of the technology to the stage where its applicable to spaceflight could take many decades. Optimistically its a century away at best. With the astronomical Isp available from a thermonuclear Orion the low efficiency of a pusher plate design is hardly a showstopper. It blows flimsy chemical rockets out of the water despite their high nozzle efficiency.Personally I feel Project Orion is well dated. Fusion could be enacted to give the thrust, use a strong magnetic field to keep the hot plasma from touching the ship. This would also make it a lot more efficient.
Honored Member
Project Orion wrote:
That's a near-quote from Bethman-Hollweg, Chancellor of Germany. In 1914. Expressing shock that anyone would take the Four Powers Treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium in perpetuity seriously. After all, military necessity dictated the use of Belgium for the Schlieffen Plan swing into northern France. Unfortunately (for Germany), Britain took it seriously.They are nothing more than paper. Ultimately, might is right.
And despite the snappy alliteration, might isn't right. Might is power, nothing else.
Reading all your posts, Orion, I get the message that you are completely sure you are right in all particulars, and those disagreeing are, shall we say, misguided at best.
At least remember the quote from Cromwell: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Banned
I would have been surprised if it was original. I've heard it many times.That's a near-quote from Bethman-Hollweg, Chancellor of Germany.
The military Generals wanted to use the same plan in WW2. Unfortunately for France and Britain the Fuhrer said "such a plan will not work twice" and overruled them.In 1914. Expressing shock that anyone would take the Four Powers Treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium in perpetuity seriously. After all, military necessity dictated the use of Belgium for the Schlieffen Plan swing into northern France. Unfortunately (for Germany), Britain took it seriously.
I disagree. Might is right. Everything else is perspective.And despite the snappy alliteration, might isn't right.
Might is power. Power is everything. Do you think it a coincidence that Iraq was invaded and N.Korea wasn't? Or Israel for that matter. They do have over 400 illegal nuclear weapons.Might is power, nothing else.
Whats your point?Reading all your posts, Orion, I get the message that you are completely sure you are right in all particulars, and those disagreeing are, shall we say, misguided at best.
Order of Kilopi
Uh, right. North Korea immediately dropped out of a treaty without the warning stipulated by treaty to build nuclear bombs. The U.S. had been working seriously for more than twenty years on missile defense, which realistically couldn't be implemented under the ABM treaty. We gave the 6 month notice of withdrawal - to a country that didn't actually exist anymore. It wasn't exactly a sudden decision. This to allow implementation of something that has the potential to save millions of lives. Somehow I don't see the comparison.
Funny, I thought a sense of right and wrong had something to do with it too. Note: Not always what YOU think is right and wrong or even I, but there is a bit more influencing our decisions than just possible reactions.Ofcourse. But it is all dependant upon which party takes the initiative. America can do pretty much whatever it likes. It is not the paper but the possible reaction from other parties which influences America's decision makers.
Banned
Not quite correct. Years earlier they withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty but reversed their decision after diplomatic talks and horse trading. As they had already given 3 months notice in the previous withdrawal there was no need to wait 3 months this time around.Uh, right. North Korea immediately dropped out of a treaty without the warning stipulated by treaty to build nuclear bombs.
I do. Try and imagine America is the impoverished broken up country and Russia has withdrawn from the ABM treaty. Scary isn't it. North Korea feels the same way about uncle Sam. Who can blame them when Bush labels them part of an axis of evil and thern invades Iraq. Right now every nation with a sense of survival has a clandestine nuclear weapons program. The smarter ones just don't brag about it. Who is next for invasion do you think? Iran might have been a bit sloppy but they have support from Russia. Syria is probably hoping Iran continues to deflect some attention away from their own bomb project. Saudi Arabia probably has them already. Israel was probably helped by America in obtaining their 400 odd nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan never signed any treaty prohibiting weapons production so they can't be invaded. I wonder if Japan will slip up and give away a clue. Unlikely. Too smart. Still, plenty of other countries to choose from. Lets just hope they don't get tired of the nuclear bully and form a nuclear club of their own.The U.S. had been working seriously for more than twenty years on missile defense, which realistically couldn't be implemented under the ABM treaty. We gave the 6 month notice of withdrawal - to a country that didn't actually exist anymore. It wasn't exactly a sudden decision. This to allow implementation of something that has the potential to save millions of lives. Somehow I don't see the comparison.
I thought we were talking about politicians. Right and wrong don't come into the equation.Funny, I thought a sense of right and wrong had something to do with it too. Note: Not always what YOU think is right and wrong or even I, but there is a bit more influencing our decisions than just possible reactions.
Order of Kilopi
Kebsis can explain what he meant exactly with his post, but from the way I interpret his post and your reaction, you DO agree, ProjectOrion.I disagree. The most shortsighted action humanity can take is to do nothing when a new technology presents itself. All technology is a two edged sword. There is no excuse for suppressing progress. Those guilty of such ignorant acts inevitably pay a heavy price. You have to take the good with the bad. Cars kill over a million people every year. They are devastating inertia weapons. Anybody here want to ban automobiles?Quote:
I don't see any reason to not distinguish between peaceful applications of nuclear energy and aggressive uses of it. That's just short-sighted.
Established Member
It would need to be an extemely strong magnetic field, but i think it could work. I was thinking of two super conducting well helicopter blades both rotating in opposite directions to avoid causing spin in the ship and plasma cloud. This could then be extended by a magsail to funnel it more.Well coudln't you also just throw the pulse units behind a M2P2 powered craft? I think it would work.
While thinking of the above i thought of another idea. Basically a magnetic bottle with one end open, explode a solid core of He3 IIRC like in the Omega test. The initial pressure of the fusion gas would force out the nozle of the bottle and the rest could be squeezed out by increasing the strength of the magnetic field. If used right it could force the fusion gasses out at a higher speed.
I feel exploding a nuclear warhead behind a vehicle that only uses a pusher plate is foolish. It makes more sense to use a radiation free method, which in fact gives more energy so more thrust. Why irradiate your ship or damage it when you can prevent it with technology we're already using.
Established Member
Yes, I was saying that I do think it is a good idea to distinguish between military and peaceful uses of nuclear technology (any technology for that matter). It's just a case of more nu-cle-yar hysteria imo. Should we ban the civilian use of lead because it can be made into a bullet?
Order of Kilopi
Do not discuss politics here, unless it is directly related to the topic.
My warning earlier was not directed at anyone, it was simply a heads-up due to the potentially volatile nature of this subject. But my many years of experience running this board gives me good instinct on when a thread can go sour, and this one has that potential. I just want people to have a care here.
Banned
Sorry Kebsis, my brain was tired and I obviously misinterpreted your comment.
I agree totally. I don't have a great deal of time for the internet so I tend to scan postings too quickly.I don't see any reason to not distinguish between peaceful applications of nuclear energy and aggressive uses of it. That's just short-sighted.
electromagneticpulse,
Great if it can be done. I'm a great supporter of utilising existing technology. I've been investigating the possibility of using a magsail as a break. Rather than waste half an Orion's pulse units on deceleration a magbreak powered by onboard reactors could likely do the job just as well. Thereby doubling the performance of the ship. Such a system could be applied to both interplanetary and indeed interstellar missions.I feel exploding a nuclear warhead behind a vehicle that only uses a pusher plate is foolish. It makes more sense to use a radiation free method, which in fact gives more energy so more thrust. Why irradiate your ship or damage it when you can prevent it with technology we're already using.
I am fully aware that a modern Orion would likely incorporate many new technologies and perhaps even be unrecognisable from the old fission designs of the 60's. Just as the first steam engine gives little hint of the Ferrari to come. The first Orion will be a proof of concept but later models will doubtless solve technical hurdles to questions we haven't even contemplated yet. Progress is the result of hands on engineering. Nothing really advances far on a drawing board alone.
Established Member
He says he'll be back
http://www.******************
http://projectorion.proboards28.com/...ead=1125798698
what a trouble maker, he also posts vulgar stuff on space dot com and caused a heap of trouble
I wonder how long he'll last 2nd time round
Established Member
cough*** been and gone***cough
Projectorion banned
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote