Could Nuclear Thermal Rockets Revolutionize Space Travel?

[Astronuc]

Nuclear rockets were given up many years ago and they haven't been taken seriously since.

NASA and others still take them seriously, so much so that funding has been provided to various labs and manufacturers like BWXT and Northrop-Grumman to design and build a system for JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons) mission.

Just for a start hot gas playing on metal will cut through it causing catastrophic failure.

Like Morbius stated, it depends on temperature, and a good designer can select the appropriate materials and flow rates to mitigate erosion of metals by hot hydrogen. Besides, NTR's are usually designed for relatively short periods of thrust (on the order of hrs) because of the relatively low Isp.

Intense radioactivity destroys all structures.

Actually one should use the term radiation in that statement, but it is still incorrect. Again as Morbius stated, radiation (particularly neutron radiation) causes the displacements (dislocations) in material structures which embrittle, but may also strengthen the material (much the same as cold-working does). The effect is well known and can be accommodated in the design.

Operating at high enough temperatures will also anneal some of the dislocations, so the designer can choose an operating temperature where the thermal conditions amerliorate the effects of radiation.

As for steel - it would not be used in a nuclear rocket. Alloys of niobium, tantalum, molybdenum, tungsten and rhenium are under consideration for high temperature rockets - both nuclear thermal and nuclear electric. The nuclear electric designs use compact liquid metal (Li) cooled, fast reactors. The reference alloy is a Nb-1Zr alloy.

 

[CharlesP]

I don't know of any materials that would survive at the high enough temperatures that you will need to get adequate specific impulse out of a nuclear engine. Power plants run cool in comparison. There are so many tough problems, it is a long list. All I see is research and speculation. We were promised a SCRAM jet to replace the Shuttle but I don't see one in production.

I was on "NASA's side" over Cassini when certain lay folk worried that the craft would be a threat on the return pass. That was far fetched.

 

[Astronuc]

Nuclear thermal rockets are temperature limited and therefore the Isp is limited - but that is a design issue. If one needs a greater Isp, then one must use an electric propulsion system.

Designing (including optimization) of the power plant and propulsion system is a challenge - but not impossible.

Actually, the mission requirements will dictate which type of propulsion systems is appropriate.

As for SCRAMJETs - NASA is testing the X-43 - http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html

NASA is getting there - but perhaps not as fast as they would like.

 

[CharlesP]

Thanks for the link.

 

[u235]

BaH!

BaH!

Again my poor friend's, the scientists working on nuclear rocket propulsion are decieving us all. The idea of Fissionable reactions boast ISP'S at a minimum (when engineering plans are acuratley created) of over 1million. These ISp's for 4500 - and 5000 are merley for gas core and liquid core rocket which have barley minimum success - because they over heat too quickley, they will all eventually become expendable, and Lh2 is extremely diffucult propellant to work with, even in space. The theory of using Lh2 + LOX in the future of space flight dynamics if extremely idiotic and will not go ahead. The E.T (External Tank) has to constantly refuel itself until launch, most LH2 turns of useless Hydrogen vapour and such systems of keeping the fuel cyrogenic are so complex that in the end the con's really outway the Pro's.
Chemical Fuels should not be mixed into Fission, Fusion or Antimatter propulsion ever, thus as seen with the current NERVA design's, the mobility and power of Nuclear Physics as we know it will be lost.

 

[u235]

I don't get it. What's the point of using Nuclear Fusion (or to that matter fission) Reactors for Nuclear Propulsion. Surley there has to be a better way. Increasing temprature of fuel's such as Hydrogen is good, and leads to faster velocity energy to transfer and channel into thrust, but thermal issues are huge and so is weight. If nuclear physics has tought me one thing, and it has'nt, it is that > why can't we use the direct energy from fissioning fuels such as Uranium of Plutonium and use the atom's energy to expand and channel the thrust? Surely this would create much more power and the energy from the (MeV) would provide power sources?

Use a nuetron generator for fissioning of the Uranium then the energy will expand and produce the required thrust. Later Fusion could be introduced - D-T and from the Temprature and Pressure these nucleis would create He4 and even more energy for thrust. Off course too much could not work because such a thruster would blow up>?

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Chemical Fuels should not be mixed into Fission, Fusion or Antimatter propulsion ever, thus as seen with the current NERVA design's, the mobility and power of Nuclear Physics as we know it will be lost.

Who says that chemicals are used as fuels? Show me a source where it says that nuclear fission and/or fusion use liquid hydrogen as fuel.

Antimatter propulsion is excluded in this case, due to the fact that some varients of the design require ice or hydrogen.

Furthermore, there is a NERVA with LOX-augmentation, but it can be considered as two different propulsive schemes, as the LOX augmentation does not take place inside the reactor at all.

 

[u235]

Der...What do you think the hydrogen escaping from the Nuclear thermal rocket and minute percentage relatavistic velocities is. Hydrogen is used as the fuel in this concept due to the overheating of it causing critical tempratures which induce it to travel at above supersonic velocity (even some engines depict subsonic) directing out of the thruster for thrust propulsion. The uranium inside the reactor would not be the fuel, even if it can be classified as the fissioable fuel, the escaping Hydrogen is the classified fuel. The reason that their is such poor energy outputs for todays designed NTR (Nuclear Thermal Rockets) is because they use nuclear reactors. Thats why it was canned back is 1972 or whenever - due to the output of thrust (per pound) from between 50,000 to 250,000 pounds. Even boeing 747,s outputted more pounds of thrust, some common rocket engines outputted 400,000 and obviously the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) outputs 512,000 - only in LEO (Low Earth Orbit).

Some scientists from Glenn Reasearch Center in Cleveland - NASA - have depicted the new NTR that they are working on - right now - to only output 15,000 pounds of thrust. ''What the hell's the point". The environment risk would never allow it. Plus constant continuous thrust is required, so to reach the escapes of Earth's gravity is about at a point of 900 million km.
People today spaceflight requires large velocity boosts - has anyone heard of momentum. Yes Earth can pull you back ever so slightly in terms of gravity - decreasing your initial acceleration - however, a large enough boost would only require to start the engine once inside Earth gravity boundary to get into solar orbit. Than mean velocity can be kept by a small amount of large velocity increases (about 1 -2 ) between Earth and Mars - then mars's gravity will bring you in. On the way home the trip is even easier, with escaping Mars grav being extremely easy, (3rd of earth's) and once coating out of solar orbit is complete Earth will pull you back in. The use for 15,000 pound is extremely weak, and requires continuity. That's why NTR engines harnessing Nuclear Reactor do not work.

+ their is no such a thing a fusion based nuclear design's today - except possibly for my depicted version of a hybrid (nuclear fission / fusion engine.)
see. Nerva - nuclear engineering www.physicsforums.com

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Der... What do you think the hydrogen escaping from the Nuclear thermal rocket and minute percentage relatavistic velocities is.

Wrong.

What I know is that the H2 is propellant. There is a difference between fuel and something one propels. The modern chemical rockets and theoretical antimatter drives are the only propulsion systems that utilize chemicals as both fuel and reaction-mass.

Hydrogen is used as the fuel in this concept due to the overheating of it causing critical tempratures which induce it to travel at above supersonic velocity (even some engines depict subsonic) directing out of the thruster for thrust propulsion.

Once again, H2 is not the fuel in a fission/fusion drive.

Why would Hydrogen be used if it has a harmful effect to rocket-plumbing? Check your notes.

The uranium inside the reactor would not be the fuel, even if it can be classified as the fissioable fuel, the escaping Hydrogen is the classified fuel.

The Uranium inside a NERVA-esque propulsion system is the true fuel, providing the energy to the reaction-mass. As stated before, AMAT/MAT and conventional chemical engines provide both energy and the propellant when operated.

Oh, and lastly...

Der... What do you think the hydrogen escaping from ... and minute percentage relatavistic velocities is.

Hydrogen escapes from minute % relativistic velocities? I'd have never seen the day.

Cheerio!

 

[u235]

The uranium is known as the fissionable fuel, which microfissions inside the reactor realeasing heat and other pressure properties that force the hydrogen fuel to exert out of the thruster nozzle.

The hyrogen is the classified accelerent which is indeed the propellant and classified fuel.

"Once again, H2 is not the fuel in a fission/fusion drive."

- this statement is wrong, fusion is not a component in today's NTR. (Nuclear Thermal Rockets)

The hydrogen is harmful because with the properties of uranium inside the fuel the temprature and chemicals can corrode the inside of the chamber. Thus some smaller solid fragments of unfissioned uranium also exist and cause plumbing problems. This is why most NTR's are expendable.

My note -relativistic- from the text only suggest's mi-nute, as written, percentage of velocity compared to anything in the equations of c - speed of light.

and no the uranium in not a core fuel component, the generator itself provides heat and pressure. that's why we are only going to get NTR's From NASA which have about 15,000 pounds or so of outputed energy. This is due to cost cutting and reducing mass.

 

[hitssquad]

The uranium is known as the fissionable fuel...

and no the uranium in not a core fuel component

In nuclear fission reactors that burn uranium as fuel, uranium is the fuel but it is also not the fuel?

 

[u235]

In NTR's (Nuclear Thermal Rockets) harnessing nuclear reactors

the uranium is the fissionable fuel,
the hydrogen is the propellant that is heated to supersonic velocities,

in a classic example, the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) uses both fuels, one categorized as the accelerent - the hydrogen, the other categorized as the oxidizer - LOX.

In this NTR example, the uranium is the fissionable fuel, which heats and pressurizes the accelerent which can also be classified and connected in spaceflight terminology to propellant. - the h2 is the substance being propelled at either supersonic - or - subsonic velocities (designs differ).
The uranium cannot be classified as the fuel, because it is not in direct use.
The fissioning energy which is a expanding sphere of ionization energy, which is derived from nuetronic bombardment, is not being directly used for means of propulsion.

Watters and Engima closed the thread Nerva, which depicted one of my designs that specifically used this direct fission energy.
Yet, the classification for primary fuel is the accelerent which is the analogous term for propellant.

 

[Astronuc]

U235, by convention, i.e. generally accepted and customary usage, the term 'fuel' is defined as:

A substance that consumed to produce energy, especially:

- A material such as wood, coal, gas, or oil burned to produce heat or power.
- Fissionable material used in a nuclear reactor.


In LH₂/LO₂, the combustion reaction of 2H₂ + O₂ \rightarrow 2H₂O provides the heat (thermal energy). You are correct that H is the fuel (accelerant) and O is the oxidizer, however the propellant is primarily the reaction product H₂O with some excess H₂.

Incidentally, the pressure is provided by cryogenic turbopumps. The pressure drops as the reactants pass from the combustion chamber and out the nozzle.

In the case of a nuclear thermal rocket motor, hydrogen is the propellant (or the working fluid).

The uranium, which is fissioned, from which the thermal energy is supplied, is the 'fuel'.

It would be well worth reading James Dewar's book, "To the End of Solar System: The Story of the Nuclear Rocket". It covers some of the technical aspects and political/policy aspects of the program.

Basically, 'direct use of fission for propulsion' is seemingly impractical, but I first have to complete some calculations in order to support that statement.

 

[u235]

So basically you are re-establishing what i stated in my previous post...
That Hydrogen is the primary fuel - the accelerant which is the propellant...

However, the terms for hydrogen and liquid oxygen for use, hypothetically, inside the space shuttle, are scripted as LH2\LOX for their cyrogenic -200.C liquid properties.

Yes the pressure is provided by cryogenic turbopumps, however, the main pressure supply is either helium (for line pressure) and/or nitrogen for (purge pressure). Mechanical pumps do not exist in space flight.

- my referal to pressure properties within uranium are stated because the fissionable fuel inside the core is used to heat as well as pressurize the hydrogen to supersonic (even sometimes, subsonic) velocities. This is the main reason for the nuclear reactor inside these common NTR's (Nuclear Thermal Rockets), - specifically to heat Lh2 to tempratures common checmical reactions can't so that exhaust velocity is faster, thus over all velocity of the thrusters energy output is greater. - Remember when Uranium is fissioned - it not only produces extreme heat - but also pressure.

(note: the pressure from the uranium is not used for pushing fuel through the lines, just some properties exist for accelerating hydrogen into the combustion chamber for higher pressure (PSI).

Quote:
"Basically, 'direct use of fission for propulsion' is seemingly impractical, but I first have to complete some calculations in order to support that statement."

-what?, - yeh you should do some calculations...
Listen, its impractical to use fission for heating fuel. Thats what is impractical. Using energy from direct fission is much more clearer for propulsion than using generators. The output is thousands of times greater...

I will be posting a new thread, named NERVA2... look out for it, it will more clearly articulate my point on NTR's and 'direct fission(+)fusion propulsion'.

(P.s some nuclear reactors differ -NTR's May be affected for analysis...
- some reactors can use nuetrons to increase hydrogen atoms velocity and some use uranium for micro-fissioning purposes.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

The original NERVA had its limitations, I believe it couldn't be on for very long before it developed cracks. Are the newer designs free of this? What is the longest any nuclear thermal engine has remained active continuously?

 

[Astronuc]

So basically you are re-establishing what i stated in my previous post...
That Hydrogen is the primary fuel - the accelerant which is the propellant...

Not exactly - hydrogen is the fuel in a chemical rocket, used in conjunction with oxygen (oxidizer) to provide energy. The propellant is the reaction product water with some excess of hydrogen.

In a Nuclear Thermal Rocket, hydrogen is simply the propellant and uranium (primarily U-235) is the fuel by virtue of the fact that the fission of U provides the thermal energy.

Mechanical pumps do not exist in space flight.

Incorrect - the turbo pumps in the space shuttle are powered by hot exhaust gases from powerhead above the combustion chamber of each shuttle engine. Pay attention to the following:
====================================================
"Two-Duct Powerhead (source - http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/ssme.html )

Considered the backbone of the engine, the powerhead consists of the main injector and two preburners, or small combustion chambers. Liquid oxygen and hydrogen are partially burned in the preburners, generating hot gases. The liquids continue to move through ducts into the main combustion chamber, while the gases created in these chambers drive the high-pressure turbopumps, which give the Shuttle thrust.

The two-duct hot gas manifold is a new powerhead design that first flew on the Shuttle in July 1995. It significantly improves fluid flows in the system by decreasing pressure and turbulence, thus reducing maintenance and enhancing the overall performance of the engine.

The previous powerhead featured five tube-like ducts -- three on one side of the engine where hot gases flow from the fuel turbine, and two on the side where hot gases flow from the oxidizer turbine. The two-duct hot gas manifold replaced the three small fuel ducts with two enlarged ducts -- smoothing the fuel flow, reducing pressure and turbulence, and lowering temperatures in the engine during operation. This design reduces stress on the main injector and requires fewer welds, eliminating potential weak spots in the powerhead.

=====================================================

In a NERVA type rocket, the turbo pumps are powered by has gases which are bleed off the nozzle.

- my referal to pressure properties within uranium are stated because the fissionable fuel inside the core is used to heat as well as pressurize the hydrogen . . .

Incorrect - turbo pumps pressurize the hydrogen. The thermal energy heats the hydrogen causing a considerable decrease in density (conversely increase in specific volume) (due to change in temperature), and in accordance with the continuity equation (mass flow into core = mass flow out), the resulting high exit velocity provides the propulsive thrust.

This is the main reason for the nuclear reactor inside these common NTR's (Nuclear Thermal Rockets), - specifically to heat Lh2 to tempratures common checmical reactions can't so that exhaust velocity is faster, thus over all velocity of the thrusters energy output is greater. - Remember when Uranium is fissioned - it not only produces extreme heat - but also pressure.

Incorrect - Combustion temperature in SSME - ~6,000 °F (3,315 °C). NERVA/Rover fuel approached 3000°C, so the hydrogen coolant/propellant temperature was somewhat less.

the fact that the propellant is hydrogen with a molecular mass of 2 amu is much lighter than H₂O (molecular mass = 18 amu) provides much greater specific impulse. For a given thermal energy, the hydrogen molecule achieves a higher velocity by virtue of

v = \sqrt{\frac{2E}{m}}
where E is the molecular kinetic energy.

-what?, - yeh you should do some calculations...

The calculations to which I am referring have to do with fission density as related to neutron flux or current density, which would then show that 'direct fission for propulsion' is impractical. However, it is not a high priority item at the moment.

(P.s some nuclear reactors differ -NTR's May be affected for analysis...
- some reactors can use nuetrons to increase hydrogen atoms velocity and some use uranium for micro-fissioning purposes.)

I am sorry to say that this last statement makes little sense.

All nuclear reactors based on fission produce neutrons. In high temperature hydrogen gas the free mean path for neutron scattering is so large that the neutrons would contribute little to the velocity of the hydrogen atoms.

It is very hard to take one seriously when one states the following:
[qoute]If nuclear physics has tought me one thing, and it has'nt, . . . . [/quote]

 

[Astronuc]

Are the newer designs free of this? What is the longest any nuclear thermal engine has remained active continuously?

A summary of the US program in the 60's and early 70's can be found at -
http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c04rover.htm

Of the tests, the longest running seem to be (from the FAS site)

NRX-A6

This 1100 MWt engine was operated in December 1967 for 60 minutes at full power, exceeding the NERVA design goal.

XE'

This 1100 MWt engine was a prototype engine, the first to operated in a downward firing position. It accumulated a total of 28 start cycles in March 1968 for a total of 115 minutes of operations. Test stand coolant water storage capacity limited each full power test to about 10 minutes.

--------------------------------------------------------

There may be better references available, but at the moment I can't put my hands on one.

 

[u235]

Quote:
"Not exactly - hydrogen is the fuel in a chemical rocket, used in conjunction with oxygen (oxidizer) to provide energy. The propellant is the reaction product water with some excess of hydrogen"
"In a Nuclear Thermal Rocket, hydrogen is simply the propellant and uranium (primarily U-235) is the fuel by virtue of the fact that the fission of U provides the thermal energy."

We are not discussing chemical rockets here. Hydrogen -is- the propellent which in turn is also the accelerent - giving it the classification as the primary fuel. Uranium inside a nuclear reactor only provides thermal and pressure properties to the Hydrogen flowing through the internal finned passages and thus causes it to accelerate, cause pressure inside the combustion chamber, and an actual higher velocity for H than possible with chemical reactions. You should check your information, heat loads for NERVA based NTR's are much higher than the SSME. The NTR also uses the cryogenic liquid Hydrogen to cool down the engine and reactor structure, however nuclear fuel being processed through a state of fission produces much high tempratures.

I refer to pressure properties of Uranium not for fuel pressurization, line feed or re-pressurization, but for additionally accelerating H velocity. Fission provides both thermal and heat pressure. Unless you've made a break through to stop fission from producing pressure, even at a micro-fissioning level then the breakup of U235 (92 nuetrons + 143 protons) = 2 lighter nuclei usually krypton - barium + [1 - 3] 'spare' nuetrons. This cause 188MeV of energy + about -- PSI - can't find the PSI for 1 atom? - Help? But this should be the pressure that i have stated at the 'added pressure properties' for light H acceleration.

(Something on the order of 200 MeV (million electron volts) is released by the decay of one U-235 atom (if you would like to convert that into something useful, consider that 1 eV is equal to 1.602 x 10-12 ergs, 1 x 107 ergs is equal to 1 joule, 1 joule equals 1 watt-second, and 1 BTU equals 1,055 joules).



Quote:
Mechanical pumps do not exist in space flight.
- I re-state my position.

Hydrogen is a bi-modal fuel that can sort of ''look after itself.''
In some parts of the SSME, the LH2 is boiled off to provide a gaseous pressure, which is returned to the ET to provide re-pressurization.
The term 'Mechanical Pump' specifies a turbine based suction unit that is driven mechanically by rotors, motors, fans and other solid structure entities.
I state that - space flight - does not use mechancal pumps because the pumps inside such systems as NTR's, inside the OMS, inside the RCS, inside the SSME use gas (either GN2 - He - or a Bi-modal appraoch) to pressurize / re-pressurize. The ''two duct powerhead'', and other designs, that you talk of, are all built around pressure systems that act out on traps, pipes, and other non-classified mechanical structures...Mechanical systems are not used in space because they incur a great weight burden on designs...

Almost 2 dozen different Nerva based NTR designs exist, most harnessing different approaches from gas core to solid core. My statement on nuclear reactors is clear, different designs are likely to variate for analysis. Yes fission reactors may work different to fusion reactors, however many variations for reactor based technology exist.

Quote:
"All nuclear reactors based on fission produce neutrons. In high temperature hydrogen gas the free mean path for neutron scattering is so large that the neutrons would contribute little to the velocity of the hydrogen atoms."

And no, why would someone build a hydrogen accelerating reactor and compell it to undergo the exact simalar processes as a fission based reactor. Obviously this would'nt work. But if reactors are changed, then direct process
for nuclear fuel - acceleration production must also be changed...

BTW, how do you quote: properly ?
sad,

 

[hitssquad]

how do you quote: properly?

Click the Quote icon on the lower right corner of the post you want to respond to. The BBCode tags it places in the message can also be manually entered.

 

[u235]

how does em+W+S meet G in one unified equation?

 

[luiscar]

Concerning what you say that electrical engines are heavy, I strongly disagree. In fact, the problem with the MHD and the ion propulsion is that it needs a high level of power; we are speaking from 15MW to 5GW (depending on the efficiency you want and the time to accelerate you have). That means that you need heavy nuclear reactors. The electrical part, ionisation/acceleration of propellant has an insignificant mass (less than 1%).
On the other hand, with the Nuclear thermal rocket, there is the problem of the maximum exhaust speed. Since the speed in the NTR is caused by temperature, there is the limit that you mention. Higher than that (9500m/s) would have no possible container and the exhaust pipe would burn.
In the ion and MHD, you can achieve exhaust speeds up to 150000m/s (which is under development) which is 15 times more (although, achieving near c would be possible, it would not be recommended due to the power needed and therefore, the weight of the power reactor needed, which would be problem)
On the other hand,in an NTR since the exhaust gases pass through a radioactive material, atoms of this radioactive material would also go out with the exhaust gases. You would have a radioactive gas!.
In the ion and MPHD approach, the radioactive core remains confined and the only thing you send out is the gas (maybe Xenon) de-ionised, as in the final part of the exhaust pipe, there is the de-ionization step.

 

[luiscar]

Mandrake, About youir reactor, for how long could it maintain 3000MWt?
Which was the total estimated reactor mass?
Was it possible to make it work to let's say 3MWt when not propelling the spacecraft ?

 

[Coolblueflame]

is it possible the last gentleman was saying the hydrogen was super heated to a nuclear reaction and directed for thrust ...thereby transforming a plain propellant into a propellant/fuel ?

 

[Astronuc]

NTR seems to be favored by the Griffin administration over NEP (Nuclear Electric Propulsion).

NTR and Lunar Surface Reactor Programs will likely get priority.

 

[~()]

Any re-development of previous programs which promote nuclear reactor based rocket engines will likely fail. It fundamentally won't work because the conversion of using nuclear fission to create heat and transfer this to a working fluid is quiet an in-effective design for maximum force and thrust output. Future development will probably need to opt into direct fission fragement propulsion (i.e using the fissioned products directly as expellant), or possibly fusion. Smaller systems need to be built which can undertake efficiently fissioning and fusing particles but that's likely a long way away. Just the amount of energy needed to operate something is enourmous (size of a powerplant).

 

[Astronuc]

Future development will probably need to opt into direct fission fragement propulsion (i.e using the fissioned products directly as expellant), or possibly fusion.

Not necessarily so with respect to fission, and fusion has yet to be perfected as a useful energy source.

 

[superczar]

Let's Scrap Old Technology.

NTRs, NEP, MPD, Orion, Gaseous Fission Reactors, etc., etc. all worked out disappointingly to anyone interested in a workhorse propulsion system designed to make interplanetary manned exploration more feasible. I, for one wouldn't want to be an astronaut on a flight to Mars driven solely by NTRs. I have nothing against a fission plant (such as a pebble-bed reactor) which can deliver 10GW in under 20 tons. I just don't think you're taking full advantage of your brain if all you want to do with that energy is double the ISP over a chemical rocket. Some of the lastest thinking today better exploits the technological possibilities, such as the VASIMR concept (although I think the actual VASIMR concept will fail).

VASIMR has been in development for decades and still dosen't seem to have produced a prototype which I think will be the workhorse of the future. I think ion propulsion (or plasma propulsion) is a great way to achieve high ISPs. My problem is that no one has been immediately successful in demonstrating a concept that achieves an ion propulsion system which can be scaled-up to the kind of thrusts we'll need to perform missions such as near-Earh asteroid deflection, manned interplanetary and near-interstellar probe missions. I think the main problem with VASIMR is that it tries to get too fancy with heating the ions instead on just using an electric field to accelerate them to the necessary energy. A helicon wave machine is an excellent way to make ions. In fact rough calculations show that if this method were used an engine of sufficient power for a 30 - 45 day trip to Mars could be constructed in approximately 5 tons. Also, current reasearchers in helicon wave technology seem certain ion densities could be increased above current levels with increase in magnetic field strength, thus reducing engine mass until it becomes a non-factor.

Apparently, after taking the existence of the pebble-bed reactor of 10 GW (and assuming problems with clogging due to frits can be worked out) and assuming the helicon wave engine can be constructed, all's we need is a converter (and a closed-cycle MHD system would appear to provide a low-mass answer). This appears to be the most efficient possible propulsion system likely to be constructed in the near future whose promise is far beyond what is currently available. Boasts have been made for superior systems employing technologies which I don't see as feasible yet, such as fusion, etc. With only a modest research & engineering effort a small start-up corporation might be able to demonstrate the feasibilty of the propulsion system in a short time. Any advance in ion-propulsion technology is likely to affect the current market for low-payload interplanetary probes like DS-1. So, there's money to be made in this field and ample opportunity of entrepreneurship. Question is, would this lead to a massive effort to privately fund a manned interplanetary mission which could be made profitable by sample return from say Mars or Europa, government funding of space exploration & asteroid deflection, a Mars colonization effort or an interstellar probe.

Although there are a number of other technological hurdles to work out with any particular mission configuration. It is almost a certainty that many missions will not be feasible without such a propulsion system. The types of missions which include the chance for a large and profitable economic expansion, the chance to protect civilization from devastating meteor impacts, the chance to gather data on our solar system and other solar systems, and a furtherance of man's push into space to provide for an expansion of population without overcrowding Earth.

 

[Astronuc]

Actually, NTR's have been and are the only nuclear propulsion technology successfully demonstrated!

NEP certainly have very high Isp, but low thrust, and they still need to be demonstrated over the lifetime of a trajectory (i.e. 1-many years). There are still issues with cathode and anode erosion, and fault tolerance.

VASIMR has yet to produce any significant thrust.

There is still a lot of work to be done in order to develop a reliable and safe nuclear propulsion system.

Forget Gas Core and Orion!

 

[~()]

Although nuclear energy is a viable and much more greater source of energy than chemical , the designs for NTR's need to be drastically refined in order to extract, transfer and control the energy into direct thrust. The general-design method of using a fission reactor which transfers heat to a working fluid (commoly hydrogen) just does not realistically produce any significant differences in thrust performance. The NERVA program failed because of low thrust performance, commonly only reaching values between 50,000 - 250,000 pounds of thrust. We must develop new ways in order to directly extract nuclear energy into thrust if we are to harness a larger potential of the energy source.

 

[Morbius]

Although nuclear energy is a viable and much more greater source of energy than chemical , the designs for NTR's need to be drastically refined in order to extract, transfer and control the energy into direct thrust. The general-design method of using a fission reactor which transfers heat to a working fluid (commoly hydrogen) just does not realistically produce any significant differences in thrust performance. The NERVA program failed because of low thrust performance, commonly only reaching values between 50,000 - 250,000 pounds of thrust. We must develop new ways in order to directly extract nuclear energy into thrust if we are to harness a larger potential of the energy source.

Short of creating a "Maxwell's demon" - how do you do that?

The nuclear energy released in a fission comes out principally as kinetic energy of the
byproducts - i.e. "heat".

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[~()]

I've been working on, for a while, my own design for a NTR. I have tryed to stay away from the general approach of a fission reactor creating and transferring heat to a working fluid and rather tryed a new approach of directly creating larger initial and then sustaining fusion reactions. I have been looking into the generation of an initial fusion reaction confined in a combustion chamber, then a addition of a fuseable aneutronic fuel added to this reaction to create a sustaining reaction which mimics the way in which a chemical reaction in a standarnd rocket engine works. However there is many complex facets to this problem, such as creating accelerating structures which can initiate a initial reaction, confining the reaction inside a sufficient EM structure, establishing whether a smaller yet sufficient power source exists (much smaller than a power station) and whether it is generally theoretically possible to create and sustain a fusion thrust in a simalar way to a conventianal chemical reaction (burn).

Essentially the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) is the most sophisticated working hybrid chemical engine to date and runs of an efficiency of about 80% in converting the H2 / LOX propelland and oxidizer into energy for direct thrust. It operates within the ranges of about 400,000 to 500,000 pounds of thrust which tells us that even in the next decade with little refinement, the standard chemical rocket will have reached its maximum performance ability. Unfortunately, these engines which rely on a chemical energy source are insufficient for space propulsion outside of LEO. This is why it is most probable that sustaining nuclear reactions which use direct fragments as exhaust thrust will naturally replace the chemical ones if they are theoretically possible. Although we know these reactions are possible inside suns and stars which initiate these reactions under their own gravitational fields, maybe we will be able to replicate this with man made engineering systems.