Nuke Nerd Alert!
The Soyuz MS-10 spacecraft carrying the crew of astronaut Nick Hague of the U.S. and cosmonaut Alexey Ovchinin of Russia blasts off to the International Space Station (ISS) from the launchpad at the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan October 11, 2018. REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov
It seems that Vlad Putin is taking a stab at using nuclear-powered rockets to send stuff to Mars.
Now, considering that rocket propulsion systems require a “push” to reach delta V (escape velocity, as shown in the Soyuz MS-10 photo), it is not clear exactly how the Russians intend to produce that effect. It’s not quite the same thing as using nuclear fuel to heat water to produce electricity and drive a big nuke bird farm, or even using Bernoulli’s principle to make a caterpillar drive propel a submarine, like that Big Pig in the “Hunt For Red October”. (One of Sean Connery’s better movies.)
There’s no real explanation on how this nukey spacebird will manage to escape the chains of Earth and touch the Heavens. However, I’ve included a link to the original article at BGR, which tells us that Elon Musk’s reusable rockets will soon be outdated because Russia’s will be one better. https://bgr.com/2018/11/14/russia-nuke-rocket-spacex-rocket/
And apparently, the US is bringing back an old tech program abandoned in the 1970s, which someone brought up in the comments for the article about the Russian announcement at WUWT.
I’m really more interested in how a nuclear-powered engine can get something that big off the ground, never mind into Space. I understand how reactors work (at the basic level). I’m just curious as to what they intend to use for the propulsion system to create the liftoff. I’m guessing, however, that they’d use conventional fuels to get liftoff and reach escape velocity, and then switch over to the nuclear engine to keep propulsion stable and control spin/yaw/wobble/whatever floats your boat.
I’m leaving this for you nukey birds to discuss at length and confuse us mere mortals, and have some fun on a snowy Saturday.
Quit putin around Putin and ask Rocky Jones Space Ranger how to launch a rocket into space but not under your pants zipper.
I was not prepared for that, Jeff.
You coulda posted a spew alert!!
Isaac Arthur is one of the best science and futurism youtube channels…here is a video on nuclear rocket science…
IANAN, but the theory seems simple enough. A reactor heats a propulsion fuel of some sort, which is then injected into the craft’s propulsion nozzle where it expands rapidly, producing thrust. Newton’s third still works.
The Russians must have made the system both light enough to launch and more efficient than current chemical systems.
That these systems must work under tremendous temperatures and pressures, is given. Whatever could go wrong?
Elon Musk seems to go wrong a lot.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/01/a-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-just-exploded-at-cape-canaveral/
And it’s snowing in my kingdom.
the reacter likely produces electric for the drive. The drive probably uses helium as a thrusting agent, ions are accelerated near light speed e=mc2
the engine runs continuously, accelerating all the time
not useful for orbital insertion, but they can carry enough helium fuel to make the trip
on mars, the nuclear portion can be repurposed for power and heat
As stated, the biggest problem is getting the nuclear fuel and its container into orbit safely. How would you like a Palomares Incident in your back yard? Or downtown Moscow?
Shove enough dilithium methamphetamine crystals up the nozzles of the missile and it’ll take off like a rocket. Any meth head knows that.
Microwave thruster.
The nuke makes micros wave.
Great for reheating coffee, or popping corn.
https://www.engadget.com/2014/08/01/nasa-microwave-thruster/
And yes, I am very skeptical.
Better than Project Orion.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
No, thanks.
After watching “The Expanse,” I wonder when how close they are to continuous-burn engine technology. When I say “close,” I mean relatively speaking. Is it gonna be decades or centuries?
Couple decades, when you keep in mind the principle of exponential tech development.
The 500 years after Columbus saw as much development as the 5000 years prior. Of the last 500 years, most shit happened in the last century. Of the last 100 years, the last 20 saw the bulk of the dev until today and so on.
Therefore, the next 2 decades will see more tech advances than the last 2 centuries.
Slow math for the win!
It’s pretty insane to think what we could pull off with spacecraft that can maintain 1G acceleration/deceleration for the duration of a trip. That would simulate gravity via inertia, requiring special preparation only for major course/speed changes (flip & burn), reducing if not eliminating issues of muscle atrophy & bone loss during long-term spaceflight, never mind the reduced time involved. Colonization of extraterrestrial bodies could become practical. The only more significant advance would be faster-than-light propulsion or some other means of extrasolar transit.
Sorry, had to let some nerdness out there.
VASIMIR drives by Ad Astra Rockets are fairly close to this now. They were working on using solar power to provide the energy needed but if they were to use a nuke plant that would probably speed things up.
They slipped the surly bonds of earth to punch the face of God.
And God made light of it.
Reminds me of a meme I saw a while back.
Top line: “God himself couldn’t sink this ship!”—Bruce Ismay, April 10, 1912
Image of the Titanic sinking
Bottom line: “Wanna bet?”—God, April 14, 1912
Speaking of nukes, did you hear about the comments made by Eric Swalwell, D(ouche)—CA? He apparently thought it would be funny to threaten to enforce a gun confiscation with the threat of domestic nuclear strikes on US citizens.
Thanks for the reminder. Post coming soon.
Oh, I have to see that.
They announced this 2018 test two years ago. Most surprising of all is that Roscosmos seems to be sticking to their timetable.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3495426/Move-Nasa-Russia-reveals-plans-2018-test-nuclear-engine-cosmonauts-Mars-SIX-WEEKS.html
The intelligenceee on this must have been pretty reliable since NASA restarted their program from the 1970’s last year.
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-nasa-reignites-nuclear-thermal-rockets.html
Roscosmos + Cosmodrome = Fukushima II
That required a tsunami. Chernobyl was self inflicted- the more likely scenario.
There’s a growing theory regarding the interaction among the stars, planets, etc., that involves electromagnetic forces. If this is a constant throughout the universe, electromagnetic propulsion may hold promises.
I recall reading about a proposal to use many nukes to propel a spacecraft. It was just dropping a nuke into a shaped housing behind the ship to direct the thrust. The ship would have a giant lead plate to protect the crew and be the force the blast “pushed” on. Just keep detonating bombs until you’re up to speed.
I imagine, unless we start building this stuff in orbit or on an asteroid, there are far less costly and dangerous methods of transport.
You are talking about the Orion project.
As others have commented, the problem is to get it on orbit.
Once in orbit, it seems to be surprisingly effective. At least on paper.
I will never be able to understand Russia.
How can a country with a misser 1.5 trillion dollar GDP be capable of putting rockets in space?
It must suck to be Russian. A country that puts the glory of the state ahead of the well-being of its people is destined to live in squalor and oppression.
The Russians have some interesting history.
Peter the great took them from medieval backwater to noteworthy power in one generation. It wasn’t pretty or pleasant, but they celebrate him to this day. Petrograd is named for him, and they stripped Lenin’s name back off rather quickly.
They are only conquered successfully from the East, and those were horrific. They are often tried from the west. Those also tend to be butchery on a massive scale. It tilts their thinking markedly.
They do well with the right strongman, and OK under most, from their point of view. Chaos and lack of strongman usually means famine, ruin, and invasion.
Many still believe Putin saved them from NATO conquest, subjugation, and famine.