Is a NERVA Rocket Safe to Use in an Atmosphere?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the safety of using a Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) rocket in an atmospheric environment, particularly focusing on radiation concerns and historical context. Participants explore the implications of using NERVA technology for space launches, including potential advancements and challenges related to reactor miniaturization and safety measures.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the radiation levels emitted from the NERVA rocket's tailpipe during testing in the 1960s.
  • Another participant mentions historical accidents involving NERVA prototypes, highlighting issues with fuel loss and reactor integrity during tests.
  • A question is raised about the safety of a NERVA rocket in an atmosphere, assuming successful firing.
  • Some participants propose that if the reactor core and fuel remain intact, a NERVA rocket could be safe for small payloads, but launching would need to occur at remote locations.
  • There is a discussion about the historical context of NERVA's development, including its origins related to nuclear propulsion for ICBMs and the evolution of thermonuclear warheads.
  • One participant asks about advancements in reactor miniaturization and the potential for creating a single-stage reusable spacecraft with greater thrust than traditional rockets.
  • Another participant notes that progress on Nuclear Thermal Rockets has largely stalled since 1973, with limited developments and ongoing collaborative efforts with Russian projects.
  • Concerns are raised about backscattered radiation from the reactor affecting the payload and crew compartment when operating in an atmosphere, which is not a concern in a vacuum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the safety of using NERVA rockets in an atmosphere, particularly regarding radiation risks and reactor integrity. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on the feasibility and safety of NERVA technology.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference historical testing and safety concerns, but there are limitations in the available data regarding radiation levels and the specifics of reactor performance in atmospheric conditions. The discussion also highlights the dependence on technological advancements that have not yet materialized.

aquitaine
Messages
30
Reaction score
9
After they tested the NERVA prototypes back in the 60's, how much radiation actually did come out of the tailpipe?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
It may be tough to come up with the numbers, but several rocket motors lost fuel, especially early on.

Kiwi-TNT was deliberately blown apart by a large reactivity transient, and Phoebus-1A had unplanned accident.

One of the earliest tests through out fuel rods and pieces of assembly. One of my colleagues has a video of that test. They used a sapphire mirror to look into the nozzle to see the core - and it was oscillating like a field of tall grass on a windy day.

Here's some links on the tests:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c04rover.htm

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002iaf..confE.303D


http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/
 
I guess what I was asking is assuming a successful firing, is a nerva rocket safe to use in an atmosphere?

Thanks for the links, they were interesting.
 
Technically, if the core and fuel remained intact, then yes NERVA would be safe for a small payload if NERVA was a single stage, but it would probably be launched at a remote location.

As I recall, NERVA was planned as a second stage on something like a SATURN V booster.


The NERVA/ROVER programs were an outgrowth of the nuclear rocket propulsion for ICBMs. The original thermonuclear weapons systems were heavy, and the chemical rockets of the time could not deliver them 6-10K miles, so a nuclear rocket was considered the solution. During the development period in the 50's and into the 60's, the weapons designers successfully reduced the size of the thermonuclear warheads such that improved chemical rockets (e.g. Atlas) could deliver them the desired distance.
 
Thanks. Have they made any progress with miniaturization of the reactor (as well as correcting any issues the original had)? I'm wondering because if they did maybe we could make a single stage reusable spacecraft out of it, since I heard it could have a much greater thrust than traditional rockets.
 
The work on Nuclear Thermal Rockets (NTRs) pretty much ground to a halt in 1973. Much since then has been very limited with a lot of paper.

The Russians have had an ongoing project and folks from NASA and DOE have visited Russia as part of a collaborative effort. I'll see if I can dig up some information on what's been done.

A group (under profs Jim Tulenko and Samim Anghaie) down at The Innovative Nuclear Space Power and Propulsion Institute (INSPI) at the University of Florida, Dept. of Nuc. Eng. was doing some work on carbide fuels.
http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aquitaine said:
I guess what I was asking is assuming a successful firing, is a nerva rocket safe to use in an atmosphere?

Besides exhaust, when operated in an atmosphere, there's the problem of backscattered radiation (both gammas and neutrons) from the reactor reaching the payload/crew compartment. It's not just line of sight - radiation that escapes the reactor will scatter in any surrounding structure and medium and a portion will effectively go around and come in through the sides, and even the front, of the payload compartment. This isn't a problem in a vacuum though you'd still get scattering from the rocket structure.

To illustrate, here's an interesting paper on shielding requirements for nuclear submarines. It will help you see why the idea of the nuclear airplane didn't fly.

www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00339442.html


Ed
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
706
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K