New here, asteroids prefered

brooksn wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> , "the_gunfighter_45acp"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> , "brooksn" wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Stan Ulam
> > > > > correctly deduced that a fast fission device- a bomb-
> > > > > would be the most effective propulsion system for
> > > > > spacecraft. That was in 1945 shortly after the first
> > > > > one was lit off. It is still the only system that does
> > > > > not waste almost the entire amount of energy being
> > > > > produced. ISP for a Nuclear Pulse Propulsion system
> > > > > would be in the thousands and most probably in the tens
> > > > > of thousands.
> > >
> > > This idea is a political non starter, no one is going to allow the
> setting of nuclear bombs in the atmosphere for a launch vehicle or
> allow the launch of vehicle with its fuel tank filled with nuclear
> weapons to (hopefully) go off in space.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > I am very familiar with this theory, and it has nothing to do with
> atmospheric launch, BUT instead deep space use, ie like Mars missions.
> conventional launch systems would still be used to get craft, and
> equipment to space, and only after said space craft is beyond the moon
> would such a propulsion be used...
>
> Um, looking here,
> http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html and here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) it was
> proposed as an atmospheric launch. If you are proposing only outside
> the atmosphere, that is fine.
>
> > Second note, given that nuclear bombs have proven themselves very
> reliable, and that we launch them into space on ICBMs with no issues
> the risk is very low, but the public does act like a bunch of scared
> little kids assuming the worst possible out come whenever the word
> nuclear is used, no matter how improbably low the risk is. This
> irrational thinking would first have to be put at ease before such a
> system would be allowed.
>
> How many ICBMs have we launched into space? How improbable is the risk
> of launching a space craft with several dozen nuclear bombs in the
> payload having a catastrophic accident? This isn't a nuclear powered
> spacecraft with some contamination being the risk, these are dozens of
> nuclear bombs designed to explode. I will put 1000 dollars down and
> give you 10 to 1 odds, the public will never be put at ease, including
> myself, to allow such a system to be allowed.
>
> Brooks
>

This would be the idea of Orion, as in the Niven/Pournelle book,
/Footfall/? Only constructed and launched outside of terrestrial
atmosphere? [My copy is put away because I read my first edition to the
point of spine damage (its, not mine).]

If anyone knows the research behind that concept, I would appreciate the
links.

ERandall