Talk:Nuclear pulse propulsion

gamma scattering
what is "gamma scattering"? is it the same as compton scattering? &#9992; James C. 09:05, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Given that there are many forms of nuclear pulse propulsion and only one Orion, I am going to split the article Maury 11:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistency with Project Orion article
This article states (emphasis mine): It was first developed as Project Orion by ARPA, after a suggestion by Stanislaw Ulam in 1957 However, on Project Orion: Project Orion was the first engineering design study of spacecraft powered by nuclear pulse propulsion, an idea first proposed by Stanislaw Ulam in 1947.

Which year is correct, 1947 or 1957? -Banned 09:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Project Orion began in 1957, however, Ulam first proposed the concept earlier. I'm not sure if 1947 is the correct date though, I have George Dyson's book at home I'll check the precise date for you this evening :) Quarkstorm 09:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, so it might be accurate, just phrased ambiguously. Banned 14:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Apollo reference
I noticed this passage:

''Some authorities say that President Kennedy initiated the Apollo program to buy off the technical enthusiasts backing the Orion program. The recent book by George Dyson says that one design proposal presented to Kennedy was a space-going nuclear battleship, which so offended him that he decided to end the program.''

While I can easily believe the part about Kennedy not liking the "battleship", I find it extremely difficult to pay any heed to the former claim. Does anyone have a strong reference for this, other than George?

Maury 01:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethical issues?
''There were also ethical issues with launching such a vehicle within the Earth's magnetosphere. Calculations showed that the fallout from each takeoff would kill between 1 and 10 people.''

This is not as satisfactory as the version found in the Project Orion article which reads: Freeman Dyson, group leader on the project, estimated back in the '60s that with conventional nuclear weapons, each launch would cause fatal cancers in ten human beings from the fallout (note that this estimate is disputed- see radiation hormesis).

But both versions fail to mention the Von Braun solution to atmospheric fallout danger was the simple expedient of putting Orion into orbit atop multiple Saturn V launch vehicles. Multiple launch vehicle procedure could have separated shielded fissile material from detonators so as to reduce danger from booster failure. Trilobitealive 06:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

- It occurs to me that it isn't too expensive to save 10 lives, for example by providing 1,000 people with vaccinations in a region where 1 in 100 die from a certain disease, and would otherwise lead a healthy life. So if the project offered to vaccinate 10,000 people (saving 100 lives) it could be argued that it would be unethical to oppose it! They would of course also need an exemption to be added to the treaty by the signatories. 103.1.70.35 (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

--The system appeared to be entirely workable when the project was shut down in 1965 I know that '50s were populated by nuclear nerds, but, the magnitude of this project is simply out of reality. Can you image a REAL ship that will go in the space with thousand of nukes? And then stars to explode them behind? It's a high-tech folly, so ask instead, why nobody was even close today (2018)to that incredible project halted in 1965. Just image what kind of detail problems would give when even Apollo or Space Shuttle were prone to faults! Really, what kind of assumpion was the 'workability' of this project? In wikipedia should be asked citation needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Simplification
Can somebody make this article easier to read to the casual reader? I realize this was written by people that are familiar with the subject but you can't really expect everyone to understand the meaning of "kN·s/kg" wouldn't it be better to add the speed of the spaceship in common miles/kilometer format? that way its easier to compare the spaceship's maximum velocity when compared to the speed of light. For once wich vehicle is able to travel faster the Medusa or the Longshot? - 24.138.199.139 (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Medusa
It seems a good while ago, someone added a bunch of stuff into the article on Medusa about how it would dangerously drag the passengers through a field of radioactive debris. No links were provided. Whoever wrote this is almost certainly in error. Nuclear blasts in space don't leave "a field of radioactive debris"; the overwhelming majority of the mass of the bomb is accelerated at relativistic speeds in all directions. They also claim that radiation is not considered, which is not true. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nuclear pulse 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/20110725061127/http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/Papers/FrenchAcadsFinal07_04_05.pdf to http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/Papers/FrenchAcadsFinal07_04_05.pdf

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) 06:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Pulsed Fission-Fusion Propulsion
Would a subsection about PuFF propulsion fit in here or is it a topic big enough for its own article? NixonFan1962 (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We have sections on the researched but speculative antimatter-catalyzed microfission and microfission/fusion systems; I don't see why PuFF is out of place here. There isn't a lot from that prior PuFF research for a whole article, but a small (proportional to the antimatter sections etc) section here seems fine.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Aldebaran
. 2603:8000:8900:3EB2:290C:6005:693E:3C31 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)