Nuclear Powered Spacecraft

RanulfC said:
Properly designed (and frankly there's no reason NOT to design these properly) the NTR should be fine. At this point even if it DOES crack or break nothing in it is really radioactive at this point.

Randy
Click to expand...
Of course, because it has not gone critical yet. I forgot.
 
publiusr said:
Having Proton launch just the NTR far from protests would have been nice.
Click to expand...

Toxic booster for a toxic payload? :)

Forest Green said:
RanulfC said:
Properly designed (and frankly there's no reason NOT to design these properly) the NTR should be fine. At this point even if it DOES crack or break nothing in it is really radioactive at this point.

Randy
Click to expand...
Of course, because it has not gone critical yet. I forgot.
Click to expand...

Easy to do :) I have issues trying to get that idea through some peoples heads :)

Randy
 
A couple of thoughts...

IIRC, a distant cousin in Canada was sprinkled with fall-out from fallen Russian nuclear-reactor powered spy-sat. He was not amused to have his garden 'strip-mined' and hauled to land-fill...

Beyond Earth's geo-tail, the solar wind will sweep 'stuff' out, out and away like comet tail. Complicated by sector changes, and do not want any 'stuff' fetching up at eg Mars due scant magnetic field...

FWIW, that pulsed micro-fusion has yet to 'scale' ??
 
Carlo Rubbia wanted that element for a Mars ship:

https://infinite.mit.edu/video/carlo-rubbia-new-approach-nuclear-space-propulsion”-mit-media-lab-colloquium-series-4142000

And it uses hydrogen—not methane, Elon.

To Mars in Two Weeks?

www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com

A small power plant compared to any fusion monstrosity.
 
aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org

Nuclear rocket redux

The United States has had multiple dalliances over the decades with in-space nuclear propulsion. The latest resurgence of interest is happening right now, driven by the desire to settle the moon and get humans to Mars. Jon Kelvey looks at the odds of success this time around.
aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org
 
bobbymike said:
aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org

Nuclear rocket redux

The United States has had multiple dalliances over the decades with in-space nuclear propulsion. The latest resurgence of interest is happening right now, driven by the desire to settle the moon and get humans to Mars. Jon Kelvey looks at the odds of success this time around.
aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org
Click to expand...
This is big news.
With DRACO, DARPA aims to design, build and fly an NTP-powered spacecraft in orbit by fiscal 2026. If all goes as planned, it could serve as the basis of a Space Force fleet of NTP rocket upper stages that could push big satellites around.
Click to expand...
Atomos Space of Denver plans to start its business of moving satellites to their operational orbits with solar-powered tugs like the one in this illustration, but eventually shift to a nuclear-powered version. To test how the regulations for launching such a tug work, the company plans to launch a test reactor in the mid-2020s. Credit: Atomos Space
Click to expand...
Lockheed Martin last year submitted to DARPA its concept for a nuclear-powered spacecraft for the agency’s Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations, shown here in an illustration. The deliverables of Lockheed Martin’s Phase 1 contract included performance requirements for a nuclear thermal propulsion reactor. Credit: Lockheed Martin
Click to expand...

Sounds very much like nuclear is finally happening.
 
In the past, when Delta II launched GPS and Mars probes—there was this drive to cut the other guy’s project to fund your own…so the payload people would fight the rocket people. We don’t have to think that way any more. With space spending on an eventual ascent…the in-fighting should stop and folks outside the industry can feel the pinch instead.
 
publiusr said:
In the past, when Delta II launched GPS and Mars probes—there was this drive to cut the other guy’s project to fund your own…so the payload people would fight the rocket people. We don’t have to think that way any more. With space spending on an eventual ascent…the in-fighting should stop and folks outside the industry can feel the pinch instead.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. Where do come up with nonsense like this? When "Delta II was launching GPS and Mars probes", the "rocket people" was the EELV program and the payload people were just waiting for them since they were to replace Delta II, Atlas II and Titan IV. NASA did not contribute any money to the EELV development. And the DOD manages rocket development with a different pot of money from payload. Marshall had no real rocket programs during this timeframe, only X-33 and SLI. The payload people had nothing to with them.
Delta II program was from 1987 to 2011 (end of Cape launches, NASA strung out more 5 launches from Vandenberg over the next 7 years). NASA did not start buying them until 1992 (early ones were bartered from the USAF). This was when the shuttle was still NASA's launch vehicle and ISS had yet to fly. NASA had no need to build other rockets. Because NASA couldn't shuttle for most satellites, NASA looked to industry and bought rides on Delta, Atlas and Titan. So where was this "drive to cut the other guy's project to fund your own"? And what "payload people are fighting what rocket people"?
What information and where did you get it that leads to these conclusions?

Also, the spending that is on ascent is in industry and marketplace and not by the government. The government's remains flat.
 
It's an interesting video but he gets a lot wrong and I'm not really confident on his premise actually working but glad to see it.
Thanks

Randy
 
The SUNVOYAGER concept

Sunvoyager’s Pedigree: On the Growth of Interstellar Ideas

Kelvin Long’s new paper on the mission concept called Sunvoyager would deploy inertial confinement fusion, described in the last post, to drive a spacecraft to 1000 AU in less than four years. The number pulsates with possibilities: A craft like this would move at 325 AU per year, or roughly...
www.centauri-dreams.org www.centauri-dreams.org
 
First 2025, then postponed to 2026 and now the date slid to 2027... Okay i guess:
DARPA, via its Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) program, is collaborating with NASA to build a nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) engine that could expand possibilities for the space agency’s future long-duration spaceflight missions. The goal is to test an NTR-enabled spacecraft in Earth orbit during the 2027 fiscal year. An NTR presents advantages over existing propulsion technologies, such as sending cargo to a new lunar base, humans to Mars, and robotic missions even farther.
Click to expand...
“NASA will work with our long-term partner, DARPA, to develop and demonstrate advanced nuclear thermal propulsion technology as soon as 2027. With the help of this new technology, astronauts could journey to and from deep space faster than ever – a major capability to prepare for crewed missions to Mars,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “Congratulations to both NASA and DARPA on this exciting investment, as we ignite the future, together.”
Click to expand...
 
Need to get a heavy nuclear reactor into space? Easy, just Project Orion it into space, don't have to worry about radioactive fallout from the reactor when you are detonating multiple nukes on the way up.
 
parabolicarc.com

USNC-Tech Team Wins Contract to Develop Nuclear Thermal Propulsion System For NASA

NTP Technology Can Enable Human Missions to Mars SEATTLE (USNC-Tech PR) — Idaho National Laboratory has selected USNC-Tech and its partners to develop a nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) reactor concept design for space exploration: the Power-Adjusted Demonstration Mars Engine (PADME) NTP engine...
parabolicarc.com parabolicarc.com

USNC_Tech_nuclear_propulsion.jpg


www.usnc.com

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion was resuscitated in the 2010s by the efforts at USNC to deliver more capable fuels and designs that use LEU and HALEU rather than military HEU. The work continues.
www.usnc.com www.usnc.com

Nod to Star Wars in the name.

1676146258914.png


www.usnc.com

EmberCore

Long duration radioisotope decay battery for missions needing long duration operation far from any other energy sources.
www.usnc.com www.usnc.com
 
There I think the NTR just powers the NEP.
I was thinking a Rubbia type NTR to heat the actual NEP propellant. VASIMIR and Nerva both use hydrogen…so maybe this gets you a little extra?
 
www.borntoengineer.com

Meet The NASA Nuclear Propulsion Concept Which Could Get To Mars In Just 45 Days — Born To Engineer

A groundbreaking proposal could revolutionize space exploration, as NASA's Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program has selected a revolutionary nuclear
www.borntoengineer.com www.borntoengineer.com

Even more excitingly, by introducing Wave Rotor technology this already startling achievement can be pushed even further – up to a potential 1400 – 2000 second specific impulse depending on the configuration.
Click to expand...

www.nextbigfuture.com

Nuclear Wave Rotor Propulsion Could Get Ten Times Chemical Rocket Speeds | NextBigFuture.com

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) is one of the best options for manned missions throughout the solar system with over double the ISP of chemical rockets. A
www.nextbigfuture.com www.nextbigfuture.com

A novel Wave Rotor (WR) topping cycle is proposed that promises to deliver similar thrust as NERVA class NTP propulsion, but with Isp in the 1400-2000 second range. Coupled with an NEP cycle, the duty cycle Isp can further be increased (2800-4000 seconds) with minimal addition of dry mass. This bimodal design enables the fast transit for manned missions (45 days to Mars) and revolutionizes the deep space exploration of our solar system.
Click to expand...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdRNHnoDxLQ
 
Plans and speeches are all nice and well but to me nuclear propulsion is still a pipe dream, sure one can theorize on Isp and ttm (time to mars, seems to be a common measure these days even though it makes zero sense, since the engine doesn't go to mars by itself and trajectories vary), but we have yet to see any serious funding/project/political will that could lead to nuclear becoming relevant again. I highly doubt that any kind of nuclear engine will be launched as long as there isn't a clear race to get somewhere first, on the other hand, with NASA's lunar plans becoming clearer by the day it seems plausible that the first nuclear reactor we will see will power a static moonbase.
 
SCAT-15F said:
Forest Green said:
That's not the picture I'm seeing.
Click to expand...
Same here. The DRACO project aims to have NTP tested in orbit (2026/7) before any moon base reactor.
Click to expand...
I truly hope those deadlines are met but historically, most space projects, even "standard" ones technologically have had their fair share of delays and timetable changes. When discussing advanced/experimental projects it's a whole other deal in terms of time constraints, and that's without taking into account the political agenda. As for DRACO, we all remember the NASA competition that lead to boeing, lockheed and spaceX being selected for lunar landers, and with the Starship still years away i doubt that we will see a cislunar ferry ship until operations on the moon expand beyond the DSG. All in all I think (personal belief) that the optimstic timetable set for DRACO is mostly put in place to preemptively prepare the project for any setbacks so that the engine will be ready for a mid 2030's ship project that will be built around it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom