How effective is nuclear propulsion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Josiah
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Nuclear thermal propulsion is considered highly effective for space travel due to its ability to provide greater thrust and efficiency compared to traditional chemical propulsion. It utilizes a nuclear reactor to heat propellant, resulting in higher specific impulse and reduced travel times for missions. The discussion highlights resources, such as an article from the Department of Energy, that outline key benefits and considerations of nuclear thermal propulsion. Safety, cost, and technological readiness are also important factors in evaluating its effectiveness. Overall, nuclear thermal propulsion presents a promising option for future space exploration endeavors.
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.
 
What type of energy is actually stored inside an atom? When an atom is split—such as in a nuclear explosion—it releases enormous energy, much of it in the form of gamma-ray electromagnetic radiation. Given this, is it correct to say that the energy stored in the atom is fundamentally electromagnetic (EM) energy? If not, how should we properly understand the nature of the energy that binds the nucleus and is released during fission?

Similar threads

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
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K