Warship

[Anonymous No.3953407]

For some reason, we're reviving the Orion Warship project.

We want a warship capable of moving relatively quickly between the planets with both high thrust and delta-V.

We want it to meet or exceed the original's specs.

What improvements/additions do you make to the original design?

>Original Design:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/realdesigns.php#id--Project_Orion_Battleship
>Interesting tidbit about its armament:
Scott Lowther has done some research into a 1960's design for an Orion-drive battleship. It was to be armed with naval gun turrets, minuteman missiles with city-killing 20 megatons warheads, and Casaba-Howitzer. It appears that the Casaba-Howitzer charges would be from subkiloton to several kilotons in yield, be launched on pancake booster rockets until they were far enough from the battleship to prevent damage (several hundred yards), whereupon they would explode and skewer the hapless target with a spear of nuclear flame.

taken from same website.

[Anonymous No.3953416]

>>3953407
More from the site about the Casaba-Howitzer

>The nuclear device is encased in a radiation case of x-ray opaque material (uranium) with a hole in the top. This forces the x-rays to to exit from the hole. Where they run full tilt into a large mass of beryllium oxide (channel filler). The beryllium transforms the nuclear fury of x-rays into a nuclear fury of heat. Perched on top of the beryllium is the propellant: a thick plate of tungsten. The blast of heat turns the tungsten plate into a star-core-hot spindle-shaped-plume of ionized tungsten plasma. The x-ray opaque material and the beryllium oxide also vaporize a few microseconds later, but that's OK, their job is done. The tungsten plasma jet hits square on the Orion drive pusher plate. With the reference design of nuclear pulse unit, the plume is confined to a cone of about 22.5 degrees. About 85% of the nuclear devices's energy is directed into the desired direction, which I think you'd agree is a vast improvement over 10%.

>About this time the representatatives of the military (who were funding this project) noticed that if you could make the plume a little faster and with a narrower cone, it would no longer be a propulsion system component. It would be a directed energy weapon. Thus was born project Casaba-Howitzer.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3953423]

Onboard 50MW LFTR and plasma gasification waste disposal for recycling waste into usable elements. Also rotating habitats 400 meters in diameter spinning to give Martian gravity (0.376Gs)
One of the rotating habitats should have an onboard hydroponic farm and algae biocoils for CO2 removal and oxygen production, as well as further fertilizer for the other crops.
This should enable the ship to just go and go and go without need of restocking supplies for many years.

[Anonymous No.3953462]

Why would you build that? Why does anyone need to cuase that much distruction

[Anonymous No.3953472]

>>3953423
Keep in mind that it can (theoretically) accelerate at 4g! The spinning sections wouldn't be necessary during cruise mode between destinations. During combat, it wouldn't matter much.

I'd use that LFTR to power an electromagnetic radiation shield system. Radiation not mitigated by the EM shield system will be tackled by the water storage system.
Ship's water stores are situated between the outer hull and inner compartments. Recycled water is cycled back into tanks for storage.

I'd replace the 20mm CIWS guns with megawatt range lasers. Maybe some deployable radiators from those doors to deal with the lasers' waste heat.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3953483]

>>3953462
BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING AWESOME.

>>3953472
Insane. I dislike the thought of combat warships in space though. But I still think you should include some rotating crew quarters for the periods where you stop accelerating on your week-long journey to Mars or month-long Jupiter voyage.

[Anonymous No.3953501]

>>3953462
We're not guessing as to why. All that matters is that /sci/ wants it built and we want to improve on the original design.

I'm also thinking that adding a system of countermeasures would be a good choice. Some kind of small, inflatable thing with a mylar outer shell and very thermally conductive core connected to the shell. The cores are linked to the ship's waste heat management system and ejected when a decoy is needed.

The decoys inflate and give off tons of waste heat for a limited amount of time. The decoys aren't good for forever, and the enemy will figure out they aren't maneuvering pretty quickly, but it might buy our warship some precious time.

>>3953483
Fuck that noise. C'mon! WARSHIPS!
I think a good idea would be to accelerate up to speed, deploy some kind of retractable counter-weight to a faraway distance, then start spinning. Your direction of travel won't change, but you'll still spin. It'll save weight and present you with fewer maintenance troubles.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3953504]

>>3953501
>I think a good idea would be to accelerate up to speed, deploy some kind of retractable counter-weight to a faraway distance, then start spinning.
Same plan as Mars Direct, I like it.

[Anonymous No.3953523]

Warships in space? Who is the enemy? And who will really allow enough people into space to begin with? Nobody in power, that's for fucking sure.

The same race of violent simians is proposing to build space battleships to export their aggression. FAIL.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3953533]

>>3953523
YOU AGAIN. GO AWAY

[Anonymous No.3953538]

>>3953504
I'm thinking a good means of maneuvering in a crisis would be to dump missiles. Just fire a ton of missiles from one of the ship's VLS (or silo) compartments that's facing the right direction and use that to change the ship's course in an emergency. Like if a missile is incoming, you launch a salvo of our own to literally counter-fire and help move the ship.

Another thing that will be key will be protecting the crew. Some emergency maneuvers will be intense, so I'm thinking that the crew will need serious protection during combat. Most of the problem with G-forces is that the body and the surrounding media are not the same density. If we could have some kind of fluid breathing system (fluorocarbons) on the "bridge" for combat, it'd be a good idea.

Not to mention having a dense medium like that sheltered as much as possible from radiation is just a good idea for a combat spacecraft.
>>3953523
We're building it for the Republic of /sci/.
(Notice I didn't say technocracy, because this isn't a serious thread filled with grandiose dreams, it's just a fun thought experiment about a badass machine.)
Remember that refusal to serve your mandatory term in the Republic of /sci/'s Star Forces is punishable by revocation of your right to higher education.

[Anonymous No.3953554]

alcubierre drive - yall mad

[Anonymous No.3953560]

>>3953538
Forgot pic.
>>3953554
Yes, extremely. Here we are dreaming about the very realistic possibility of building an interplanetary nuclear battleship and you start up with your sci-fi nonsense.

[H+ No.3953590]

People, people, look, It's all well and good to have a few nukes for total annihilation, but we need to think tactically as well.

Nukes are strategic weapons. For smaller targets, I propose some titanium KKVs. Include a Thor on this warship, that we might rain down precision destruction upon our enemies (whomever they may be.)

Also, we need anti-missile defence. I suggest lasers. Weight is no object and we have lots of power.

[Anonymous No.3953607]

>>3953590
Yeah, those megawatt lasers should do the trick for traditional point defense.

I think some shaped-charge nuclear warheads with tungsten to vaporize into a very dense (relatively) plasma as "anti-missile countermeasures" is also a good idea.

Since the ship has what amount to 5in naval guns on it for firing the nuclear shaped charges that become the Casaba Howitzer, we can also pack some good ol' tungsten rods as ammo. Fire those off at precisely calculated trajectories to hit ground or stationary space targets that don't need nuking.

[Anonymous No.3953613]

>>3953607
When I say stationary space targets, I mean those with highly predictable courses or minimal time or capability to maneuver out of the way.

[H+ No.3953619]

>>3953607

Don't forget, After the original impetus, Kinetic kill vehicles are totally silent, and have a VERY low radar cross-section. Nearly impossible to detect until it is far too late.

[Anonymous No.3953640]

>>3953619
Maybe a small onboard store of supercooled gas used to fire the KKV's? It'd certainly help with keeping them stealthy.

I was thinking of a stealth system for the ship composed of "ballutes" that are cooled to background levels that can be deployed to face in a given direction while heat is radiated away. The problem is that damn near everyone in the system will know where the ship is and it won't exactly be able to maneuver in a tactically meaningful way once the ballutes are deployed.

Oh well, looks like those decoys I dreamt up will have to do.

Also, the enemy is now, just for fun, Aliens. Not just normal aliens, ANCIENT ALIENS and their turncoat collaborators in the outer system.
>Pic related

[Anonymous No.3953646]

>>3953640
Rather, the whole damn system will know where it is and where it's heading once it fires off its drive.

Spacecraft are kinda easy to detect, nuclear drive or no.

[H+ No.3953656]

>>3953640
>>3953646

Course change maneuvers are expensive. A few seconds of telemetry is enough to extrapolate heading, and any course changes are going to be very bright and obvious. We're not really at the stage where the SHIP can be stealthy.

The advantage of the rods is, we fire them from out of visual range, they don't show up on radar. Over a planet you can fire them so they are in a decaying orbit, to induce a time delay, so there is no way to trace back to your original position.

I love KKVs.

[Anonymous No.3953693]

>>3953656
Yup, I admitted as much. Such a shame this thread is so... slow.

The main page is filled with philosophy, career prospects, and life extension crap. Shame, really.

I like it. Our warship could stealthily launch KKV's against stations or "ground" targets from great distance and pretty stealthily.

Weapon system idea:
Keep a goodly store of less stealthy KKV's on hand for rapid and cheap bombardment of ground targets.

[Anonymous No.3953712]

Dropping nukes from space is the next logical step in total war technology, unfortunately the cold war ended before we got to that point.

Thanks a lot Reagan.

[Anonymous No.3953717]

>>3953533
> YOU AGAIN. GO AWAY

Oh no, turdface. My question stands: WHO IS THE FUCKING ENEMY? Who is going to turn weapons on themselves? Not the controllers of everything, who are on the Earth with everyone else.

[Anonymous No.3953726]

>>3953712
Thanks a lot Kennedy.

If only we had escalated the Space Race to include nuclear spacecraft like the Orion. The added military nature would have made development a massive priority.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1477-tam-2011-panel-our-future-in-space.html

This is a fantastic panel discussion. The participants (Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, and Pamela Gay) all but lament the end of the Cold War and its effect on science.
>>3953717
Read above, I specified the enemy.

[H+ No.3953752]

>>3953717

Oh it's this guy again.

Why do you hate fun?

[Anonymous No.3953760]

>>3953752
Not just traditional fun, either.

Nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed, can reasonably get men to Jupiter, and capable of wiping out a couple continents fun!

Shame.

[H+ No.3953776]

>>3953760

Yes, the explosions are Awesome but Impractical and mainly just for fun, wheras the huge boost to science and space travel that would be gained from this type of vehicle being commonplace are Awesome but Practical. This is a short trip to Mars, and would fuel space expansion and exploration.

[Anonymous No.3953778]

>>3953752
> Why do you hate fun?

Fun depends on cheap and practical energy sources which are depleting at huge rates. So I don't hate fun; I hate YOU STUPID FUCKERS instead.

[Anonymous No.3953781]

>>3953726
We'll just have to settle for a global capitalist hegomony I guess. I'm pretty sure the top 0.01% would be interested in applying biological immortality and transhumanism to themselves if not starships.

[H+ No.3953808]

>>3953778

If you mean oil, it's never been very practical. And we're in no danger of running out of Thorium, light, water, or air so I'm not seeing how any actual practical sources are depleting.

People ARE dumb though, and I think that's the real problem.

[Anonymous No.3953822]

Don't forget various types of drone craft, a shuttle or two, and maybe an electromagnetic catapult for quick-launching.

Is this warship meant to be stand-alone, part of a class, part of a fleet, or what? Anybody giving a thought to support ships or infrastructure?

Would it be a good idea to include modularity in the design so components can be easily exchanged?

[Anonymous No.3953840]

>>3953822
The original design carries 6 shuttles.

Pre-cooled hybrid scramjets with LOX, designed to be capable of SSTO.

Since I started this damn tread, I'll go out and say it's supposed to be part of a fleet. We're building several.

What kind of modules/mission specific layouts would you propose for our mighty fleet?

[Anonymous No.3953865]

Why...don't we have a fleet of a cargo version of these on the way to mars right now?

[H+ No.3953879]

>>3953865

>>People ARE dumb though, and I think that's the real problem.

[Anonymous No.3953880]

>>3953840
Combat modules should be dedicated either to anti-surface warfare or anti-space warfare. Munitions are already multi-purpose, but they aren't equally effective against different targets.

Non-combat modules, such as crew sections, should be suited to different ship roles. A ship meant to operate without support for a long period of time would benefit from extra gravity sections and provisions, for example. A vessel doubling as a supply tender for a fleet could use extra shuttles and cargo space.

Besides this, a modular design makes it easier to upgrade when new components become available.

Will there be space-based yards for these ships?

[H+ No.3953910]

>>3953880

Nuclear weapons are less effective in space remember, no overpressure.

[Anonymous No.3953922]

>>3953880
Yes. I'm envisioning the main yards in LEO and Lunar orbit.

We've over artificial gravity for combat missions, but exploration missions with extended orbits of outer planets might just need rotating sections, good thinking.

>>3953910
Yup.

[Anonymous No.3953934]

>>3953922
Which bodies in the solar system is the Republic of /sci/ supposed to hold dominion over?

[H+ No.3953946]

>>3953934

Mars. We can turn Phobos into a spacedock/factory. It's basically just a big asteroid.

[Anonymous No.3953948]

>>3953934
All of em' but Earth. Earth is a preserve for mankind.

We beam down power to Earth so they don't absolutely wreck the biosphere. We also recruit citizens from Earth's brighter inhabitants.

[Anonymous No.3953955]

>>3953523
>>Warships in space? Who is the enemy? And who will really allow enough people into space to begin with? Nobody in power, that's for fucking sure.


You expect /tg/ to think about stuff like intended mission, logistics, and other fundamental issues when designing a space ship? What are you, crazy?

Design something first, THEN decide when, where, and how to use it! Then ignore those consequences.

[Anonymous No.3953962]

>>3953955
This is /sci/, not /tg/.

[Anonymous No.3953967]

>>3953955
Exactly.

>Do science.
>Do engineering.
>Fuck consequences.
>Be awesome.

good mantra.

[Anonymous No.3954022]

>>3953808
> If you mean oil, it's never been very practical.

LOLWUT? We obtained oil by drilling into the earth, which we had experience for with drilling for water. Pressure from below generally brought the liquid up to the wellhead (though not always). When pressure failed, it was easy enough to pump it out. And then it was a useful liquid at air temp and pressure, and could be trucked, trained and pipelined as needed. Refinement soon proved necessary, that that tech is mature. We just heat it up and draw off the distillates from a metal tower. Easy peasey. And then it can be shipped again with the same utility, again at air temp and pressure (with some modification for tar, which generally must be heated at point-of-use), to users. The shipping and storage procedures aren't arcane, and it can be safely dispensed in all instances without any training or with a tiny bit of training. And it can be stored for years (although some of the distillates don't fare as well in storage).

If that isn't practical, guy, then WHAT THE FUCK do you call "practical"?!?! Chopping wood? Slicing peat? Collecting cow patties? The ultra-technical and fairly dangerous process of refining nuclear fuel?

[Anonymous No.3954042]

>>3953781
> I'm pretty sure the top 0.01% would be interested in applying biological immortality and transhumanism to themselves if not starships.

You used a lot of words just to say "DERP DERP DERP". Why are billionaires dying now? They aren't investing their fortunes in longevity and intelligence amplification and starships NOW. What's happening NOW totally obliterates your assertion.

[Anonymous No.3954074]

Name one billionaire who has died of natural causes in the last 5 years.

[Anonymous No.3954081]

>>3954074
Steve Jobs.

[Anonymous No.3954116]

>>3954074
Steve Jobs

[Anonymous No.3954203]

>>3954074
> Name one billionaire who has died of natural causes in the last 5 years.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2011/03/17/billionaire-obituaries-2011/

"The ranks of the world’s richest in 2011 would have been even larger than the record-breaking 1,210 people we found, but for the deaths of 10 billionaires over the past year. Six of those who died were Americans, two were Germans, one was Swiss and one was from Saudi Arabia. All were age 77 or older; most were in their 80s or 90s. The oldest to pass away, Saleh Al Rajhi of Saudi Arabia, was 99."

"Nearly all of these tycoons died in 2010, after Forbes published our previous billionaires list in March 2010."

May 13, 2011: G. Wallace F. McCain, pancreatic cancer, age 81, est. net worth US$2.3B.

[Anonymous No.3954240]

>>3954074

Should I keep going, you stupid fuck?

13 Feb 2011: Sheikh Saleh Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Rajhi, heart attack, age 99, est. net worth US$7.7B (Forbes).

Get that? A guy with nearly EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS in wealth got taken down by a fucking HEART ATTACK, and he didn't even exceed a century in age.

So what fucking chance do YOU have, nutbiter? You're probably gonna make it to age 70 like most people do, and then die. Just like your children will. And like their children will. And their own. And then theirs again. And so on and on down through time.

IF BILLIONAIRES ARE DYING FROM OLD AGE, THEN OBVIOUSLY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF WEALTH CAN'T CONQUER AGING.

Of course, there is a strong cultural component here, in that those same billionaires are STILL violent simians when all is said and done, and so they don't devote their wealth to conquering aging, like so many of those stupid fucking scifi stories say they will. No, billionaires spend their time TRYING TO MAKE MORE MONEY, which we must note that THEY CAN'T FUCKING TAKE WITH THEM WHEN THEY DIE.

It's because we're essentially violent simians. We largely spend our time throwing shit at each other. We're going to DESERVE our extinction in the Deep Time after the Last War knocks us back to the Pastoral Age.

[Anonymous No.3954916]

>>3954240
>Deep Time

wow, cool phrase, Angry Ape

but yas, some of us less violent simians will have a long time to simmer in bitterness and sunlance burning hatred against the rest of the dumb fucks in this thread and has a sad cause all the amphibians gone

/s/
Cute frog lover

[Anonymous No.3954921]

>>3954240
you realize that all those billionaires are mostly just jumped-up used car salesmen, right?

Got no foresight, them

[Anonymous No.3954935]

>>3954240
I'm just going to pretend that last line didn't happen.

Yeah, obviously throwing money at aging isn't going to solve the issues, but time combined with money will do the trick, it's why a billionaire who can afford current medical technology lives to 99 while a billionaire two hundred years ago died when he was 70 because the best medical technology money could buy was a bucket of leeches and some laudanum. I'm not saying some super insane growth is likely and plenty of people will still be dying in their 70s but it's completely reasonable that the average lifespan will keep creeping up over the years and I don't think living to 125 in the 2100s will be such an uncommon thing. I mean, yeah, you'll be a senile bundle of bones but once we get to the point where we can treat the immediate problems of cancer and terminal illnesses we can basically keep people around until they have a heart attack more than ten minutes away from a hospital.

[Anonymous No.3954937]

>>3953781
here
>>3954074
>>3954081
>>3954203
>>3954240
This illustrates my point, billionaires are dropping like flies, they would gladly fork out millions to prolong their lives. It's a way to get our foot in the door.

[Anonymous No.3955013]

Nuclear salt water rocket vs. Fission fragment rocket vs. nucler pulse propulsion (Orion, Medusa)

winner?