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

>>8966411
OH HELL NO. PROJECT ORION IS FORBIDDEN BY MULTIPLE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty

BESIDES, ORBITAL RINGS WITH SMALL NUMBERS OF SKYHOOKS, IE THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY BUILD, HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN TO BE STABLE FOR LARGE PERTURBATIONS

NOT HAPPENING KIDDO.

Liberals will go apeshit of rtgs and will probably suicide bomb themselves on launch pads if you mention NERVA and you are talking about motherfucking nuclear pulse propulsion?

File: 1481818160909.jpg (92KB, 800x999px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x999px

>>8966430
if we can build one skyhook, what stops us from building a second skyhook? or a third? or however many we need to keep it stable

this isn't a video game, where you are arbitrarily restricted to a specific number until we complete a quest or some shit

why do you shit up every thread screeching how things are impossible, when the solution is so fucking simple that a 10 year old could figure it out

A orbital ring is pointless for transportations sake. The ring would have to be at geostationary orbit and it would take ages, even for a highspeed train to get to the other side. i suggest going by plane. What else are you going to use it for?

>>8966510
http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-II.pdf
untrue, you can put a ring anywhere, 300km, and additional at higher

File: Clipboard01.png (48KB, 578x258px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 578x258px

>>8966510

>> The ring would have to be at geostationary orbit
not geostationary orbit -> only 300 km above earth (LEO) and its moving 8 km/sec

>> What else are you going to use it for?
going to moon

>>8966496
>>if we can build one skyhook, what stops us from building a second skyhook?
THE INSTABILITY OF THE FIRST SKYHOOK. HOW DO YOU ADD THE SECOND SKYHOOK WITHOUT THE RING FALLING APART?

THIS ALSO ASSUMES THAT WE CAN BUILD ONE SKYHOOK. NO METHOD IS OUTLINED FOR BUILDING ONE IN THE PAPERS YOU WILL LINK.

>>when the solution is so fucking simple that a 10 year old could figure it out
WELL IF ITS SO FUCKING SIMPLE MAYBE YOU COULD SHOW US SOME MATH THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY THE CASE

going to the moon sounds like a space catapult, are the speeds needed to make a moon transfer not to great for the structural integrety? And is the cost not greater than the amount of moontrips you make? Do we even need more research on the moon?

>WELL IF ITS SO FUCKING SIMPLE MAYBE YOU COULD SHOW US SOME MATH THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY THE CASE

Read the fucking article mate. It has calculations:
http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-II.pdf

>>8966559
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.

File: Clipboard01.png (34KB, 738x319px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 738x319px

>>8966554

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

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

>>8966571

You weren't specific enough...

>>8966578

But what will be the function of our moon trips?

>>8966554
>https://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 )

>>8966544
Thrusters...On the skyhooks end to end *troll face*

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

>>8966617
Sub base for the mars and other shoot.

>>8966618

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

>>8966622

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

>>8966625
I want to put the cosmos on my ring finger and wear it.

>>8966623
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.

>>8966621
THAT'S NOT EVEN AN ARGUMENT. THAT'S JUST SHITPOSTING.

>>8966634

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.

>>8966636
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!

>>8966657

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

>>8966667
Which can be taken advantage of...

>>8966676

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

>>8966676

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

>>8966680
Which would be fucked if we didn't know how to vary speeds using fuel mixtures.

>>8966681
Space Lelevators...
Also possible lauch station.

>>8966684

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

>>8966688

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.

>>8966635

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

https://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

>>8966411
The better question is, can we build Project Orion?

>>8966697

Thanks for the clarification.

How about waste disposal?
And other infrastructure.

>>8966706

No, because of the law.

>>8966657
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?

>>8966713

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

File: virus_movie.gif (1MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x480px

>>8966689
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....

>>8966706
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.

File: lunar-module-and-bacteriophage.jpg (91KB, 780x491px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 780x491px

>>8966719
>mfw

>>8966713
Sectionally. With reasonable timing in group launches at key locations

>>8966719

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

>>8966721

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

>>8966730
*hugs*

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

>>8966734
One of the "obvious reasons."

Though at east it would help combat global warming.

>>8966739

I'm a wot?
(Stale memes aside)

>>8966734
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...

>>8966727
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.

>>8966742

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...

>>8966745
Fucking auto correct.
Launch**
Albeit**

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

>>8966745
Yes, throw a ring in equitorial orbit through Antartica...
Great plan...

File: 089fa7c7b8d4304d1603e9938911e9b6.gif (125KB, 548x543px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 548x543px

>>8966746
The answer is in dis...

>>8966752
>Yfw thats why you need a permit to get to Antarctica

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

>>8966758

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

>>8966768
Everyone NEEDS a lunatic for that one percent time he us extrordinarily right about something.

>>8966763

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.

>>8966771
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?

>>8966758
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.
>>8966768
I WILL NOT FUCK OFF.

>>8966779
Hehehe Go get them tiger...

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

>>8966750
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.

>>8966745
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.

>>8966780

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 (https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10840.html). Instead of launching polar, in which case the earth doesn't give a boost.

>>8966786
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...

>>8966786

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.

>>8966792
>>8966797
HOW THE FUCK DO YOU DEPLOY AND JOIN RING SECTIONS TOGETHER?

>>8966797
?!?!?!?
We?!

>>8966799
Same way we build bridges that meet in the middle...
T-T

>>8966799

>*cracks nucles*

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

>>8966807
C-can I too go to the shouting cave?...

;-;

>>8966811

Whenever you like.

>>8966804
UHHHHH.... OK AND HOW DO YOU DO THAT IN ORBIT?
>>8966807
HOW DO YOU DOCK FLEXIBLE STRUCTURES HUNDREDS OF KILOMETERS LONG?

File: 1496602068051.png (145KB, 500x522px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 500x522px

>>8966411
>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.

File: MAGNETS.png (236KB, 610x384px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 610x384px

>>8966815

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

>>8966822
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.

>>8966816
Still, exploring the theoreticla physics is fun!

>>8966860

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.

>>8966868
but it's theoretical engineering, not physics.

>>8966894
It also isn't even theoretical since it can't happen at all.

>>8966877
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

>>8966816
>REE GIVE UP WE DEBUNKED YOU
>doesn't post the debunking facts
>just caps lock shitposts
get a trip so I can filter you

>>8966940

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

>>8966786
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

>>8966975
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."

>>8967016
The ring needs to be flexible, the skyhooks have to be able to deflect it to support their weight.

File: BenisFR-1.jpg (369KB, 1473x5875px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1473x5875px

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.

>>8967096
>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

>>8967100
For hundreds of billions of dollars
10,000 nukes is enough for what, 50 launches?

>>8967107
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.

>>8967113
Too bad the US and Russia's infrastructure for producing plutonium is rotting. Oh and the fact that Orion is forbidden by international treaties.

>>8967113
>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

>>8967126
And what would be the point of that? Without the skyhooks you can't send stuff to space and it becomes unstable.

>>8967124
>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

>>8967145
Citation needed

>>8967145
>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

>>8967147
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

>>8967156
>Civilian nuclear power plants produce PU239 as a byproduct
...and it's next to impossible to extract this plutonium from spent fuel rods

>>8967178
???
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

>>8967156
That's not a citation. A number of treaties forbid the production of weapons grade plutonium.
>>8967178
There are viable processes for doing it PUREX is one of them

>>8967185
>A number of treaties forbid the production of weapons grade plutonium.
Thats not true at all

>>8967191

https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/ac/rls/or/42126.htm

>>8967184
>This is how you produce PU239
No, it isn't.
You cannot just pull spent fuel rods out of storage from civilian nuclear power plants and get any reasonable amount of plutonium for them for any reasonable cost. When we do actually make plutonium, it's in a dedicated facility with a dedicated process that has no relation to the civilian nuclear power industry.

>>8967199
If they were not intentionally designed to prevent that, then yea you could


>>8967197
>The United States supports the negotiation by the Conference on Disarmament of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices.

Doesn't ban anything, there is no ban on production of fissile material

>>8966758
I remember using this technique to make curved ramps in Line Rider 2 as a kid.

Time flies.

>>8967206
Russia and the USA have stopped producing weapons grade plutonium and aren't likely to restart because of compliance with the Non-proliferation treaty. Article VI basically says each party must take good faith efforts to disarm nuclearly so we can eventually get rid of all nukes. There's no ban on producing fissile material, but producing weapons grade plutonium would violate that good faith effort.

It's unlikely to happen. If either party starts producing weapons grade plutonium again, countries will start bitching.

>>8967226
globalists and liberals don't want it, that wouldn't stop Trump from producing fissile material for peaceful reasons

File: Bosh.svg.png (65KB, 1178x1024px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1178x1024px

>>8967212
Fucking hell, I remembered the exact same thing

>>8967243
Hahahahaha, no. Even Russia would get pretty pissed if the US started producing new nukes 'for peaceful reasons.'

>>8966411
not possible as the earth is flat and none of you have even tried to guess how high in the atmosphere you have to go til you reach the vacuum of space.

don't give it a (You)

File: 1496755504027.jpg (320KB, 1210x1096px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1210x1096px

>>8966411
>Orbital ring

>>>/x/

File: NORTH-KOREA-NUCLEAR-672x372.jpg (36KB, 672x372px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 672x372px

>>8967226
North Korea is still doing nuclear tests, so there's still hope

>>8966432
Nuclear pulse propulsion, single stage to orbit.

>>8967016
It's not going to be stable for any length of time,it will need constant adjustment.

File: boom1.jpg (23KB, 640x438px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x438px

>>8967022
>Nuclear launches in the past were very dirty ground bursts too

Were there any such launches? I've seen video of test launches with small charges of conventional explosives.

>Project orion nukes that would be detonated in the atmosphere would be designed around limited radiation/pollution

So do you launch by conventional rocket, then the nukes kick in once you are flying?

>They would largely be negligible

But the political problems (and PR problems) would likely be insurmountable. Look at the problems nuclear energy ois having on those fronts, and nuclear plants are not designed to produce multiple ATOMIC BOMB EXPLOSIONS!!!!!

>>8968401
by launches I meant blasts

It's not green hippies stopping nuclear energy, its every other power industry lobbying to end it.

The NRC was created by Nixon in the 70's to stop production of nuclear power plants, and it succeeded.

>So do you launch by conventional rocket, then the nukes kick in once you are flying?

What you do is heavily wrap the nuclear bomb in material that will absorb the ionizing radiation without turning radioactive, this doubles for enhancing the blast & transfering energy to the vessel better.

Could also have a conventional bomb for the first big "kick"

Orbital rings cannot be built. Because they're rigid, its not actually in orbit. Gravity pulling down on the east half of the ring will be pushing up on the west half, and visa versa. This means that the ring is not actually in orbit, and is instead under compression. The stresses would be insane, there's no way we could ever design something strong enough to handle it.

>>8968384

not stable orbit
stable to perturbations, more rigid but it still need to flex to support skyhooks

http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/mathematics/2008/Ultra-long.pdf

File: 1492883183588.jpg (23KB, 380x267px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 380x267px

>all these people screaming impossible
>not a single one of them has actually looked at the numbers regarding the matter
/sci/ in a nutshell

>>8968757
The burden of proof is on OP to show it's actually possible. OP just links papers he doens't actually understand.

>>8968772
http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-II.pdf
does that work friend

>>8968421
Take a plane/jet moving at orbital speed. Release a string of metal or some shit. Do this simultaneously around the globe with multiple planes which catch up to the other planes string to make a connection. Repeat forever. You now have a ring orbiting the earth. Put some sort of mechanism in place to save the ring if it gets wrekt by an asteroid where ropes are flown off to quickly attach. If it starts losing momentum it could be 'wound up' by flying a string which is already wound around the ring and released at different segments of the ring a certain angle away from the base while the base is winding the string up. Or just with rockets. At first the ring will only be meters wide or whatever but after a few centuries the whole ring will be at least like a kilometer wide and could always be widened.

>>8968805
hahahaha no, did you even read the thing? That paper's largely on the economics of orbital rings, it's fucking worthless.

>>8968816

http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-I.pdf

http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-III.pdf

>>8968866
Oh boy more parroting. Did you even read the damn things? Especially the part about how "great deal of work needs to be done working out the exact behaviour of a particular systems and in defining the limits of stability."(pg 494) That's a pretty big goddamn issue that needs to be addressed before we can even consider building these things.

Oh and in none of these papers is a method presented for how to actually build orbital rings.

>>8968814
If you are going to orbital speeds why would you need a ring

the point of this sorta meme stuff is NOT being at orbital speeds

>>8968814
A pane/jet moving at orbital speeds is going to have some issues.

>>8966411
an orion spacecraft would only be suitable for interplanetary travel, and would have to be carried at least outside of the earth's magnetosphere under conventional thrust. I mean, are you fucking crazy? Imagine the environmental impact of launching even one nuclear bomb pogo stick in to space from the surface. That would be dozens of detonations, from ground level all the way up through the atmosphere and in to LEO. The fallout from upper atmosphere detonations would spread world, and the orbital detonations would obliterate global communications with the EMP, to say nothing of the fact that whatever you launch from will not only be completely demolished but also rendered uninhabitable for years.

>>8971250
spread worldwide*

>>8967120
Not him but thats besides the point

The point was if we were allowed to use orion, how well would it operate

>>8971266

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion#Project_Orion

Efficient directional explosives maximized the momentum transfer, leading to specific impulses in the range of 6,000 seconds, or about thirteen times that of the Space Shuttle Main Engine. With refinements a theoretical maximum of 100,000 seconds (1 MN·s/kg) might be possible. Thrusts were in the millions of tons, allowing spacecraft larger than 8 × 10^6 tons to be built with 1958 materials.

>>8971891
>>8971266

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l2QopJbDBs

>>8971266
But we aren't allowed to operate orion so it's pointless.

>>8971266

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToeGbhJDiU4&list=PLVV0r6CmEsFzDA6mtmKQEgWfcIu49J4nN&index=117


>>8971925
fuck government(jews)

>>8966411
What a stupid waste of time and resources

>>8966411
I really don't see a worthy purpose in building that if it weren't around a gas giant. Even then it's just too impractical. A spaceship in basic orbit is so much easier

>>8968814
I was going to say that this is utterly ridiculous because there aren't enough planes in the world to do this, that planes would have to be way too far apart ofr this to work. But when you do the math, it turns out the distance between planes could be anywhere from 2-0.8 km, depending on how many planes we have which could be anywhere from 20000 to 48000. I mean it's still pretty ridiculous, but it's not blatantly impossible.

I mean it's unlikely that all the planes in the world would be able to overcome air resistance of the ring.

>> airplanes at orbital speeds
No. Also ring has to rotating at faster than orbital speed to support the skyhooks.

>>8972713
>>8968814

and it turns out this won't work.

So if our planes are flying at 12 km at 260 km/s which is at the high end of cruising speed for a jet liner.
frequency of rotation about the earth's center is:
f=260 m/s /(2*pi*6390 km)~6.457e-6/s
so if we want our ring to eventually be at 980 km, the speed we can get with our jets going the aforementioned speed is:
v=2*pi*f*7358 km=299 m/s
that's almost certainly not orbital.

Using planes to get the ring up can't work. No, you can't get planes to go at orbital speed.

how did jupiter build its own orbital ring

>>8966544
No matter how sound an argument you might make your all caps is an automatic disqualification and forced resignation of any debate.

You win the "stupid cunt" prize.