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
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the feasibility of fission-fragment rockets as a propulsion system for high-speed space travel, particularly in relation to missions to distant destinations like Pluto. Participants explore theoretical aspects, engineering challenges, and the current state of technology readiness.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether fission-fragment rockets are a workable propulsion system for high-speed missions, citing the positive portrayal in a wiki entry.
  • Concerns are raised about the low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of fission-fragment technology, suggesting that while it is promising, significant investment may be premature.
  • One participant highlights issues with the wiki article's reliability, noting a lack of citations and potential inaccuracies in the concepts presented.
  • Technical challenges are discussed, including the limited range of fission fragments in solids and the trade-offs between specific impulse, mass flow rates, and thrust in propulsion systems.
  • Engineering challenges of nuclear propulsion designs are mentioned, referencing historical tests and failures that illustrate the difficulties of operating under high pressure, temperature, and radiation conditions.
  • A specific calculation is presented regarding the fuel requirements for a long-duration voyage, raising questions about the maximum speed achievable by such a spacecraft.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of skepticism and cautious optimism regarding the fission-fragment rocket technology. There is no consensus on its viability or the extent of investment warranted at this stage.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the current understanding of fission-fragment propulsion, including unresolved technical challenges and dependencies on material properties that affect performance.

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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
16K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K