NASA Research Funding of Combo Nuclear-Thermal and Nuclear-Electric (ion) propulsion
- Thread starter brockrwood
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
I had thought that one reason we stopped research on this direction 50+ years ago was something about treaties and "nuclear in space" issues. From the article there seems to be no mention of this so I'm glad that things are moving forward.
the current time frame of getting to Mars being about 8 months made it a suicide mission (has one prominent scientist stated), so this would make it a possibility. 
we still have a very long way to go in making this happen. then there's a big problem of the Earth only coming close to Mars every two and a half years, so you can't go to Mars and stay there very long or else you have to wait two and a half years before it's possible to be aligned back up to make the return trip short. that's just one of the many problems with attempting to go to Mars. But cool technology coming our way.
we still have a very long way to go in making this happen. then there's a big problem of the Earth only coming close to Mars every two and a half years, so you can't go to Mars and stay there very long or else you have to wait two and a half years before it's possible to be aligned back up to make the return trip short. that's just one of the many problems with attempting to go to Mars. But cool technology coming our way.
ThirstyBarbarian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 12,249
- Reaction score
- 7,482
It’s an interesting idea, but it seems like a $12,500 grant is not much of a commitment.
Wow, that's some huge hydrogen tanks in the drawing. Has me wondering, how many Starship launched to fill those?
The dual motor thing is an interesting solution for big thrust vs efficiency. Very creative.
The other NASA grant studies are fascinating, too
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...l-space-technology-concepts-for-initial-study
I like the flying boat for Titan.
The dual motor thing is an interesting solution for big thrust vs efficiency. Very creative.
The other NASA grant studies are fascinating, too
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...l-space-technology-concepts-for-initial-study
I like the flying boat for Titan.
One of the major advantages of the dual-motor system is accuracy for orbital injection. Nuclear thermal propulsion has a very long thrust tail when it is turned off. The reactor needs to be cooled from its operating temperature so additional gas (or other methods) need to be used to cool it down, resulting in less thrust but for a significant time. Having NEP lets them turn off the NTP earlier and do the final transfer burns with something they have finer control over.
It is interesting that they keep trotting out VASIMR (ion engine). There are other ion engines that are higher power from what I have heard.
Last edited:
Is the 8 month time frame "suicide" from the viewpoint of radiation, or from someone going bonkers, or just no way to assure that major problems could be ruled out to a very small level of probability, and the crew could handle minor ones? I must admit it would take a special kind of person to make that trip. Seeing your home planet shrink to a Venus-like point of light and knowing that just the acknowledgement to "Houston, we've had a problem" could be 20 or more heart-pounding minutes away would require a whole new level of ability to keep one's cool. And then you have to have a way to get home, hopefully, though I've heard of one-way trips to a habitat being batted around. Wow.the current time frame of getting to Mars being about 8 months made it a suicide mission (has one prominent scientist stated), so this would make it a possibility.
Sorry for the minor derail, I won't pursue it further. But I hadn't heard the "suicide" thing before.
ETA: Answered my own question - it's radiation and a possible doubling of the cancer risk an earthbound male has. For women, it's worse. But as the quoted scientist noted, "The error bars are wide." (see- I can use "the Google Internet Web Browser Site"!)
So 45 days one-way cuts that risk a LOT.
Last edited:
I assume that “Nuclear Pulse Propulsion”, a la Project Orion, where a spaceship ejects an atomic bomb from its rear, and then explodes it to thrust the spaceship forward, is off the table because of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion
I noticed that too. I wonder if the $12,500 is a typo.
I am hoping that the “no nuclear in space” policy only refers to atomic bombs and using atomic bombs to propel a spaceship. Just using a nuclear reactor on a spaceship would be OK, no?
The “Bussard Ramjet” method of spaceship propulsion, while theoretically possible, seems to not be practical or feasible.
That’s too bad. It made for great science fiction.
https://www.wired.com/story/sci-fi-space-travel-bussard-ramjet/
That’s too bad. It made for great science fiction.
https://www.wired.com/story/sci-fi-space-travel-bussard-ramjet/
Funkworks
Low Earth Orbit, obstructing Earth's view of Venus
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
- Messages
- 5,379
- Reaction score
- 6,054
There's always been these:
"Radioisotope power systems—abbreviated RPS—are a type of nuclear energy technology that uses heat to produce electric power for operating spacecraft systems and science instruments. That heat is produced by the natural radioactive decay of plutonium-238."
https://rps.nasa.gov/about-rps/overview/
I don't know where propulsion stands, but maybe it could be allowed if shown to be safe enough.
even if you shrink down the trip to 6 months to get there, then you still have to turn right around and head back, as that window of opportunity were they're close together shrinks very rapidly.....so you can't stay there for two and a half years till Earth and Mars line back up fairly close, so even a 6-month trip there and a 6-month trip back, you have to have one years worth of oxygen, food, water, and Sanity. And that's if everything is perfect going there and coming back. the Space Capsule is not going to be that big to carry all of those supplies and you would have no room to really move around.
Yes, the Outer Space Treaty and the Limited Test Ban Treaty ban nuclear explosives and nuclear explosions in space, but there is no prohibition against nuclear reactors.
The Soviet Union launched dozens of nuclear reactor-powered spacecraft (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A), most of which remain in Earth orbit. The United States launched only one, called SNAP-10A, back in the 1960s (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A).
In recent years the United States updated a decades-old policy regarding national authorization of the launch of space nuclear systems, including nuclear reactors for power and propulsion (https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.go...-spacecraft-containing-space-nuclear-systems/). It also issued a national strategy for development and use of these systems, including potential development of both nuclear electric propulsion and nuclear thermal propulsion (https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.go...ar-power-propulsion-space-policy-directive-6/).
Oh, absolutely. Anything realistic would be orders of magnitude beyond Apollo's wildest dreams. The astronaut transport would have to be much larger just to give room to move around more, not to mention air, propulsion and supplies. Whether to a moon or Mars itself, you're talking multiple robotic and cargo supply missions first, etc.
Last edited:
Similar threads
