3 ms·
I love the idea of nuclear fission space propulsion. But, this concept doesn't look even mildly realistic. The first fission-electric rocket in space isn't goin
by perihelions 3y ago
I love the idea of nuclear fission space propulsion. But, this concept doesn't look even mildly realistic. The first fission-electric rocket in space isn't going be f'ing 10 gigawatts [0]: it's going to be 5-6 orders of magnitude smaller, it's going to be conservatively designed and cautiously iterated, in a way that gets useful engineering data even if it doesn't work the first time (it won't). This craziness is an Nth-of-a-kind iteration you might consider attempting, >20 years* after your 1st success, after >20 years of sustained development effort. It's not a near-future plausibility.
*(Coincidentally, the first serious project was cancelled about 20 years before the present day [1]. That would have been an interesting alternate history...)
[0] https://www.howeindustries.net/ppr https://www.howeindustries.net/ppr
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Orbiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Orbiter
edit: To explain my reasoning a little: 10 gigawatts is gigantic amount of violently destructive energy—thermal energy, radiation energy, mechanical and vibrational [2] energy—you're trying to squeeze into a lightweight, complex, mass-optimized aerospace device that needs to run unattended and without maintenance for many years, without failing. That's probably very hard to get right. There have been many nuclear electric reactors in space already, but remarkably none of them, in operation, had any moving parts! They were all solid-state thermoelectric converters. I believe the bulk of that design choice boils down to "it's simple and conservative". Thermoelectrics aren't impressive by any other metric—just simplicity.
Even the first, smallest nuclear electric turbine in space will be a majorly impressive achievement, for whoever succeeds at it.
[2] Let's not forget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_project#High_gain_antenna_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_project#High_gain_ante...
- CaptainOfCoit 3y ago> This craziness is an Nth-of-a-kind iteration you might consider attempting, >20 years* after your 1st success, after >20 years of sustained development effort. It's not a near-future plausibility Fittingly, the project is part of NIAC (NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts) which is specifically for borderline outlandish, far-future ideas like magnetic sails, space elevators, nuclear propulsion, a "Lunar Crater Radio Telescope" and many other somewhat crazy ideas. From NASA: > The NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Program nurtures visionary ideas that could transform future NASA missions with the creation of breakthroughs — radically better or entirely new aerospace concepts https://www.nasa.gov/stmd-the-nasa-innovative-advanced-concepts-niac/ https://www.nasa.gov/stmd-the-nasa-innovative-advanced-conce...
- senectus1 3y agocompletely agree, except one thing. If we shift manufacturing to space from space mined/sourced resources we care a lot less about mass optimization.
- mr_toad 3y agoThe rocket in question is a nuclear thermal rocket, not a nuclear electric rocket. The 10GW figure refers to waste heat. The reason for pulsing the engine, and the advantage over a normal nuclear thermal rocket is that the heat generated by operating at full power continuously would be unmanageable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_nuclear_thermal_rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_nuclear_thermal_rocket https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/pulsed-reactor/ https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/pulsed-reactor/