How effective is nuclear propulsion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Josiah
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) offers significant advantages over traditional chemical propulsion systems, particularly in terms of specific impulse, which is theoretically about twice that of hydrogen-oxygen systems. Current ground tests, such as those conducted with the NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application), have not yet demonstrated in situ deployments, leaving the effectiveness of NTP unproven in actual space missions. The potential exhaust velocity of NTP could reach 4,725,000 m/s, translating to a delta V of 3.63% of the speed of light in a spacecraft with a mass ratio of 10. This positions NTP as a promising technology for future deep space exploration, akin to the Artemis program.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of nuclear thermal propulsion principles
  • Familiarity with rocket propulsion systems, specifically the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) and Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs)
  • Knowledge of specific impulse and delta V calculations in rocketry
  • Awareness of current space exploration programs, particularly Artemis
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the NERVA program and its historical significance in nuclear propulsion
  • Explore the Artemis program and its objectives for deep space missions
  • Investigate the theoretical calculations behind specific impulse and exhaust velocity in nuclear thermal systems
  • Examine potential applications of nuclear propulsion in future interplanetary missions
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, propulsion specialists, and space exploration enthusiasts interested in advanced propulsion technologies and their applications in future missions.

Josiah
Messages
34
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
How effective is it
Hi
I was just wondering about the effectiveness of nuclear propulsion, specifically nuclear thermal propulsion.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Hi I was wondering how fast a space shuttle could go, if it didn't have to first escape the earths gravity. As in if it had the rockets attached to it.
 
Josiah said:
Hi I was wondering how fast a space shuttle could go, if it didn't have to first escape the earths gravity. As in if it had the rockets attached to it.
The space shuttle does have rockets attached to it! It has three main engines (SSME). The large fuel tank contains the liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen that is pumped through piping between the large tanks and Space Shuttle. The booster rockets (SRBs) provide the propulsion for the large tank. The SRBs then separate when the shuttle gets high enough to atmospheric drag reduces to the point that the tank can travel with the shuttle without being torn away.

Nuclear thermal propulsion alleviates the need for the chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen; the hydrogen is simply passed through the reactor core and thermal energy is conducted from the reactor fuel elements into the hydrogen. Even with only hydrogen, a Space Shuttle would still require a tank (vessel) to hold the hydrogen, whether external or internal.

The space shuttle is design to return to earth much like an aircraft, and thus serves in low earth orbit. For venturing further out from LEO, one would require a different configuration, much like Apollo system or the successor, Artemis.

https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

So far, only ground tests of NTR systems have been tested (NERVA). There have been no in situ deployments of NTRs, so it is not clear how effective such a system would be. Theoretically, the specific impulse of a nuclear thermal system is about twice that of a hydrogen-oxygen chemical propulsion.
 
My personal favorite:

https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#nswr

That would result in an exhaust velocity of a whopping 4,725,000 m/s (about 1.575% c, a specific impulse of 482,140 seconds). In a ship with a mass ratio of 10, it would have a delta V of 3.63% c. Now you're talkin...

Although it might be pure scifi.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
288
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K