Weird nuclear propulsion concept

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Nuclear propulsion, specifically Nuclear Thermal Rockets (NTRs), is gaining attention due to its efficiency in thrust generation, achieving Specific Impulse (Isp) values between 850-1000, significantly higher than traditional rocket engines like SpaceX's Merlin 1D Vacuum, which has an Isp of 348. The primary concern regarding nuclear propulsion is the potential danger of nuclear fuel failing to reach orbit, which could result in widespread contamination. Alternatives to nuclear propulsion tend to prolong missions, increasing astronaut exposure to cosmic radiation, making NTRs a more favorable option for deep space exploration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) technology
  • Familiarity with Specific Impulse (Isp) metrics
  • Knowledge of space mission planning and astronaut safety considerations
  • Awareness of the risks associated with nuclear materials in aerospace applications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the design and engineering principles of Nuclear Thermal Rockets (NTRs)
  • Explore the implications of Specific Impulse (Isp) in rocket propulsion systems
  • Investigate the safety protocols for launching nuclear materials into space
  • Examine alternative nuclear propulsion methods beyond NTRs
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, space mission planners, and researchers interested in advanced propulsion technologies and the implications of nuclear energy in space exploration.

hagopbul
Messages
397
Reaction score
45
TL;DR
A question about nuclear propulsion and it's choices
Hello all:

I have a small question about nuclear propulsion , why everyone are trying to use it ,and why this wired choice of nuclear option , retrofitting a nuclear reactor to mount it on the rocket , isn't that a little dangerous , why they don't use other option or research it , there is few obvious ones
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I presume you're talking about concepts for a Nuclear Thermal Rocket, because I've seen a few articles on them recently.

Why nuclear? It's a question of efficiency, really. NRTs can generally get more thrust out of a given mass of propellant. This is measured as Specific Impulse, per the NRT article they expect 850-1000 Isp for an NRT. For comparison, the Merlin rocket engines SpaceX uses on the Falcon 9 get about 348 Isp (Merlin 1D Vacuum). This let's you go places (like Mars) faster. [Further, NRTs get this Isp and have high thrust, unlike Ion Thrusters which have Isp values in the thousands, but produce very little thrust.]

As far as dangers go, I think the one that gets the most attention is the danger that the nuclear fuel doesn't make it to orbit due to one disaster or another and radioisotopes are distributed over a large swath of the planet.

Why not use another option? Those result in longer missions to deep space, and the less time spent exposing your astronauts to cosmic radiation the better.
 
Last edited:
I was talking about other options for nuclear propulsion ,there is other ways for using nuclear energy in propulsion
 
hagopbul said:
I was talking about other options for nuclear propulsion ,there is other ways for using nuclear energy in propulsion
What research have you done so far? This article mentions several ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_propulsion
Nuclear propulsion includes a wide variety of propulsion methods that fulfill the promise of the Atomic Age by using some form of nuclear reaction as their primary power source. The idea of using nuclear material for propulsion dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. I
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
730
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K