Is the Fission-Fragment Rocket the Future of High-Speed Space Travel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cjackson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fission Rocket
AI Thread Summary
The fission-fragment rocket is considered a promising yet underdeveloped propulsion system for high-speed space missions, with theoretical capabilities for high specific impulses. However, it faces significant engineering challenges and is currently at a low Technology Readiness Level (TRL), making large investments premature. The technology's viability is uncertain, and while it merits continued research funding, skepticism remains about its practicality. Concerns include the limited range of fission fragments in solids and the difficulties posed by high radiation and extreme conditions on materials. Overall, while the concept is intriguing, substantial hurdles must be overcome before it can be realized for space travel.
cjackson
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Fission-fragment rocket

The wiki entry seems to paint this system in a positive light, so is it a workable propulsion system for high speed space missions?

How long would a trip to Pluto take with something like this?

How many years away is this from becoming a reality?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
cjackson said:
Fission-fragment rocket

The wiki entry seems to paint this system in a positive light, so is it a workable propulsion system for high speed space missions?
From the article, emphasis mine: "The design can, in theory, produce very high specific impulses while still being well within the abilities of current technologies." This is pretty much the standard claim made by a proponent of some technology that is at a perpetually low Technology Readiness Level (TRL).

It, along with several other contenders, is a promising technology, so it does merit continued (but smallish) investments of research monies. There's no telling if it is a workable technology. It would be premature to put sizable amounts of monies into this, or any other technology that is at a perpetually low TRL.
 
cjackson said:
Fission-fragment rocket

The wiki entry seems to paint this system in a positive light, so is it a workable propulsion system for high speed space missions?

How long would a trip to Pluto take with something like this?

How many years away is this from becoming a reality?
The wiki article doesn't really have any reliable sources/citations. It only has one citation. There is a lot wrong with what is presented, especially in the concepts described by the two figures.

One big problem is that fission fragments in solids have a range of travel on the order of 4 to 7 microns, the heavier particles traveling in the lower range, and the lighter nuclei traveling in the upper range.

Alternative concepts have called for gaseous core reactors, but those have low fission density - fissions per unit volume.

In propulsion, high Isp systems usually have low mass flow rates and low thrusts, and require a lot of power. The trade off is low mass of stored propellant at the expense of thrust. The ultimate goal in propulsion is to maximize specific power or power density, while minimize stored propellant (lower mass to accelerate), but subject to the constraints imposed by the mechanical (physical) limits of materials (tensile strength, creep, fatigue resistance, fracture toughness, melting point) with which we much construct the propulsion system.
 
D H said:
From the article, emphasis mine: "The design can, in theory, produce very high specific impulses while still being well within the abilities of current technologies." This is pretty much the standard claim made by a proponent of some technology that is at a perpetually low Technology Readiness Level (TRL).

It, along with several other contenders, is a promising technology, so it does merit continued (but smallish) investments of research monies. There's no telling if it is a workable technology. It would be premature to put sizable amounts of monies into this, or any other technology that is at a perpetually low TRL.

Please name the other contenders.
 
Even the simplest nuclear propulsion designs present serious engineering challenges.
While NASA did gas flow tests with the ground bound prototype of the NERVA nuclear rocket in the early 1960s, the more recent (early 1980s) USAF Timberwind design for a nuclear upper stage engine had a serious partial melt (while tested without nuclear materials, just with electric heaters) because the flow of cooling hydrogen was disrupted by a structural defect. High pressure and high temperature together make for very difficult environments for any material. Adding high radiation levels makes it even worse.
 
http://rbsp.info/rbs/RbS/PDF/aiaa05.pdf

That says 180 kg of fuel would be required for a 10 year voyage to the gravitational focus at 550 AU.

So that means that it will travel 51,125,693,998.5 miles in 10 years at 569,160 mph = .00085c

Would that be the ships maximum speed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...
Back
Top