You mean for the launch? Or getting to asteroid? Or moving the asteroid?
Launching Project Orion from the ground would dump a ton of radioactive fallout. Unfortunately, it is expensive to launch with rockets because of the heavy plate and having to assemble it.
Launching it from orbit will knock out most of the satellite and could cause EMP over wide area. It doesn't do any good if you deflect asteroid, and one this size would only cause regional damage, if destroy civilization.
The Starship is big enough that can launch spacecraft with a few nukes and rocket to reach asteroid. Assuming that Starship is being launched regularly, then launching or building the spacecraft would be sufficient.
This whole mission of colliding with asteroid was done because it is uncertain if nukes could be used to deflect asteroid. There is a danger that nuke would blow the asteroid apart instead of deflecting it. For one this size, that probably wouldn't be a problem but turning larger one into few smaller ones would be bad.
2) the asteroid was too close and you needed it there as fast as possible
because as the original article points out, the closer it is / more deflection you need, the more firepower/energy you need. Heck as a last resort you can use the ship to simply push the asteroid.
You're going to take a bit of fallout (and there was lots of work in orion in making the "cleanest" explosions) vs an asteroid strike... you'll take a bit of fallout.
Orion is the only ship design with current tech (heck 1960s tech) that can get there fast enough with enough payload. You know, if one was ready, etc etc etc.
I'm not saying it would be feasible, just that within the "oh my god asteroid" scenario it might be the only design that could work.
It's obviously debatable, but Orion might be able to be chucked together in a short time. You don't need to optimize weight, you just need a big shield and the nukes, and a nuke firing system. (you know, just that).
We have nearly all of the extinction level asteroids detected. It is really unlikely that one on collision course would be detected. There could be dangerous comet which appear suddenly but those are even less likely. The other problem is that they are big enough that might be hard to divert.
The test one is small enough that it wouldn’t do that much damage. Worth the expense to send spacecraft to divert something that could destroy a city. Not worth wrecking civilization to protect a city. Most of asteroids we haven’t detected are the smaller size.
Finally, Orion isn’t necessary. Nukes are small, you could send up a bunch in Starship. We could also come up with better propulsion, like nuclear rocket, that would be useful. Orion would be stupid expensive for very unlikely contingency.
You are probably correct in about ... six months when Starship officially hits orbit.
The only real thing that Orion has going for it is that it is brutally effective. If we need something to launch fast, it might not be that much on civilization level effort to get a big honker going.
Launching Project Orion from the ground would dump a ton of radioactive fallout. Unfortunately, it is expensive to launch with rockets because of the heavy plate and having to assemble it.
Launching it from orbit will knock out most of the satellite and could cause EMP over wide area. It doesn't do any good if you deflect asteroid, and one this size would only cause regional damage, if destroy civilization.
The Starship is big enough that can launch spacecraft with a few nukes and rocket to reach asteroid. Assuming that Starship is being launched regularly, then launching or building the spacecraft would be sufficient.
This whole mission of colliding with asteroid was done because it is uncertain if nukes could be used to deflect asteroid. There is a danger that nuke would blow the asteroid apart instead of deflecting it. For one this size, that probably wouldn't be a problem but turning larger one into few smaller ones would be bad.