3 ms·
So, since beta radiation is even lower mass... just put a block of nickel-63 into a magnetic lens?
by klyrs 3y ago
So, since beta radiation is even lower mass... just put a block of nickel-63 into a magnetic lens?
- abecedarius 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electric_rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electric_rocket
- klyrs 3y agoThat's not quite what I'm picturing (and let's be honest, the idea is silly). That page describes capturing the heat of a nuclear reactor, converting it to electricity, and then using that electricity to force ions out of a thruster. I'm saying, the radiation itself has momentum; don't bother with the contraption.
- abecedarius 3y agoYes, just thought you might not know of the related more practical version, and you might be pleased to encounter it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ben_w 3y agoShooting just electrons out the back of your ship is fine for the brief period before your ship gains a positive electric potential comparable to the net potential those electrons experience due to the inside of the particle accelerator you were using, after which your ship's own field is a major source of drag. If your ship has a positive electric potential of over 1.044 MeV[0], you also start getting positron-electron pairs forming on your hull. [0] less in practice, because any electrons you're going to encounter were already moving
- klyrs 3y agoTwin beta+ and beta- engines?
- ben_w 3y agoFirst, you have a way to store an absurd quantity of positrons. For a sense of scale, without shielding the electric fields, 1 picogram of positrons (or electrons) confined within a 10 cm radius is going to trigger positron-electron pairs formation, thanks to free electrons in the area responding to the surface potential. Second, AFAICT if you can do that then you're either going to want to use them as an energy source to propel your cheap reaction mass even harder than a fission rocket would, or you're going to want to react them with electrons to make a photon rocket.
- klyrs 3y agoI proposed nickel-63 for my electron source. Let's say, aluminum-26? And, yes. The idea is patently absurd. But I'm waiting on a ridiculously long compile.
- ben_w 3y agoIf you're getting them from radioactive decay, it works, but those examples are 63 and 26 times heavier than just using hydrogen as your reaction mass in the first place :)
- klyrs 3y agoHah, good ole rocket nerds, the general thrust of my concept here is not novel! https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#fissionfragment0 https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.ph...
- moffkalast 3y agoDon't ionic thrusters typically solve this problem by also emitting oppositely charged particles from a thin rod behind the motor? Maybe that still causes drag, but overall the main problem is that while the ISP is high, the thrust is almost non-existent.
- perihelions 3y ago- You'd need to account the mass of the copper-63 waste, in addition to the electron - This math is specifically about thermal propulsion; your 17 keV electron wasn't in thermodynamic equilibrium with anything, it's a different sort of problem