4 ms·
When will society stop wasting time with chemical rocketry and start work on the only scalable approach to space travel with nuclear propulsion. We've wasted ov
by infinite8s 4y ago
When will society stop wasting time with chemical rocketry and start work on the only scalable approach to space travel with nuclear propulsion. We've wasted over 60 years of development pursuing a path that is physically impossible to lead to real space travel (the energy density/mass of chemical propellants means we waste an enormous amount of energy just moving the propellant into space, let alone the actual payload).
- dgoodell 4y agoYou’re proposing that we should be using nuclear propulsion to get mass from earth’s surface to earth orbit? The only proposed method of doing this that I’m aware of is nuclear pulse propulsion like project Orion. I think there are a few pretty legitimate reasons that we’re not doing that.
- science4sail 4y agoA nuclear salt water rocket has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 40, so you could presumably use a NSWR to launch payloads to orbit. If you're going to turn the launch pad into a radioactive wasteland, might as well go all the way :). http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#id--Nuclear_Thermal--Gas_Core--Open_Cycle--Nuclear_Salt_Water http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php...
- elil17 4y agoSeems like a weird take to me. Chemical rocketry can meet all of our space "needs" (e.g. satellite launches) and many of our space "wants" (e.g. solar system exploration, large space telescopes). The "chemical" part of chemical rocketry has proven to be pretty economical - the fuel itself is just a small portion of the cost of a rocket. It's building the thing that's expensive. Why incur the safety hazards of nuclear propulsion or the large fixed costs of something like a sky crane when we've just developed reusable rockets?