nuke power for exploration?

[ehs40]

do u think we should use nuke power for exploration?

 

[vogon13]

As many here will attest, I am strongly in favor of this.<br /><br />Heck, it would be interesting to nuke a hole in Saturn's rings and watch how fast the blemish fills in.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[ehs40]

i think it is a good idea for a faster means of travel possibly to mars

 

[spacester]

IMO Nuclear power and nuclear propulsion need to be treated a bit differently.<br /><br />Nuclear power for space is essential. Solar doesn't get the job done at Mars, Solar doesn't work at night on the Moon. We need small nuke power plants, the Navy knows how to do it, the US Government needs to make it happen. It's critical.<br /><br />Nuclear propulsion for space would be a very very nice thing to have. But chemical propulsion will get the job done, yes the mass fractions kinda suck, but we know how to make it work and just need to be clever in designing our transportation strategy. No one really truly knows how to make nuke propulsion work. There are some excellent conceptual designs and they need to be pursued and developed.<br /><br />If the Powers That Be are faced with the choice of developing nuke space power quickly at the expense of rapid development of nuke propulsion, thay should do exactly that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

nuclear power in RTGs and nuclear propulsion all the way. It is safe to do without all the enviromental whackos saying it isn't.<br /><br />nuclear propulsion will save time and effort on transit times to and from mars, the astroids and the outer rim of the solar system.<br /><br />just think if we can transit mars in 120 or less days and we can build a ship that can maintain a good radiation proof skin whether it is water protection or whatever just imagine what you can do on a 365 day trip out and back....<br /><br />dont just think mars think the belt and back becuase if we can get to some close asteroids and such they can be mined as well....<br /><br /><br />

 

[spacester]

Nothing personal, john_316 - but it sure would be nice if folks understood the facts, accepted the facts, dealt with the facts before formulating opinions on what should be done.<br /><br />365 days out and back CANNOT happen.<br /><br />This is not an opinion, this is Mathematics.<br /><br />It is folly IMO to base our hopes on FutureTech in the first place, but if you want to wait decades to get things going, well that's a valid opinion.<br /><br />But be aware that the only FutureTech out there that can do a 365 day round trip is the Starship Enterprise.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

If we're looking for Asteroids, the NEA are a much better option than main belt.

 

[cyrostir]

um, knowing what nukes do here on earth, I think this is a bad idea unless its nuclear reactor - that works safely<br /><br /><br />Nuking saturns rings would be like going into the forest with people in it and blowing it up - destroying nature

 

[lunatic133]

I think so, yes. It's really silly to protest it really ... I think I read somewhere that *if* in an unlikely event there was an accident on launch *and* the heavily protected nuclear material was exposed, then the radiation each person would get would be about equivalent to what you get from talking on your cell phone or sitting at the computer reading SDC. And as for when the thing gets to space, that's even more rediculous. The SUN is a nuclear reactor. SPACE is largely radioactive. Our piddling little fission reactor isn't going to make a huge difference there. <br /><br />As for nuking saturns rings, that strikes me as having little scientific value ... some people just love to blow things up <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[vogon13]

It would be an experiment in the tricky field of orbital ring dynamics. Percentage of ring surface area zapped by even our largest nuke is insignificant. Differrential ring rotation would erase the hole pretty quickly, and having a spacecraft situated to watch process is quite difficult.<br /><br />Just an interesting thought experiment.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[john_316]

???<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b> Nothing personal, john_316 - but it sure would be nice if folks understood the facts, accepted the facts, dealt with the facts before formulating opinions on what should be done. </b></font> <br /><br />which facts are we discussing?<br /><br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b> 365 days out and back CANNOT happen. </b></font><br /><br />With gas core nuclear rockets a space vehicle can transit mars earth in less than 120 days. Half a year is 182.5 days. So theoretically a mission of 60 more days outbound can send a space vehicle beyond the mars orbital plane and an additional 60 days in bound can bring a vessel back to earth. So a properly equiped nuclear gas cored and fueled vessel can do 365 day roundtrip to mars and further out and return... Those studies already have been done.<br /><br /><br /> <br /><font color="yellow"><b>This is not an opinion, this is Mathematics. </b></font><br /><br />Fuzzy math to me and some I think.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b>It is folly IMO to base our hopes on FutureTech in the first place, but if you want to wait decades to get things going, well that's a valid opinion. </b></font><br /><br />Nuclear cored gas rockets are not future tech they can be produced as of 2005 and we do have that technology. RTGs are produced all the time so power sources are there even if for limited power and duration. This is not future tech or whatever you want to call it.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b>But be aware that the only FutureTech out there that can do a 365 day round trip is the Starship Enterprise. </b></font><br /><br />Future Tech? Are you trying to tell me we cant build a nuclear gas core or even a solid core nuclear rocket with specific impulse to reach mars in 120 days? The math says we can build a nuclear rocket that can send a vessel to Saturn in 3 years. So much for future tech.......<br /><br />And if you took OV-101 out of mothballs and rebuilt/remanufactured the vessel, it could theoretical

 

[aaron38]

All the worry about space nuclear reactors involves the danger of poluting earth during a launch. Nobody really cares about the reactor after that.<br /><br />Do we know anything about the solar system's uranium resources? Is there uranium on the moon, mars or asteroids?<br /><br />If the uranium can be found off-world, then all the dirty work can be done off world and everyone's happy.<br />

 

[vogon13]

Was pondering that today. Not sure any Mars or Lunar mission results have indicated presence (or absence) of U or DU on either body. Suspect extensive melt history of moon has left heavy elements in core, probably beyond our reach for centuries. Mars however, had geological processes that may have concentrated those elements for us to discover and use.<br /><br />Mercury probably rates some thought too.<br /><br />Venus might as well be solid plutonium, tough, tough job retrieving feasible quantities from Venus. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[ehs40]

i agree it is a good idea to look off world for the power but im sure if nasa were to launch that kind of mission to look for uranium there would have to be a reason for not using what we have here on earth because it would not be cost effective untill a later mission that may be launched from the moon or mars

 

[cuddlyrocket]

As Griffin is fond of pointing out - it's all a question of priorities.<br /><br />Nuclear propulsion is a good idea - eventually. However, it will take a great deal of time to develop with no intermediate achievements to sustain through multiple administrations and Congresses. I can't see it getting enough political support until there's a serious proposal to do a mission that either needs it, or would be obviously more cost efficient with it. Current planned missions are to the Moon, and nuclear propulsion is not required, or that much more advantageous here.<br /><br />Nuclear power is, however, required to do initial Moon missions longer than two weeks. Strictly you could do it with fuel cells - if you send all the fuel! But the extra expense is horrendous. Given time you could establish a solar cell manufacturing plant on the Moon that could recharge batteries or fuel cells, but I suspect that a nuclear power plant will be cheaper than providing the storage. A likely later scenario would be nuclear power providing base load during the night with Moon-manufactured solar cells providing power for energy-intensive activities during the day.<br /><br />So Griffin is right. Develop a small nuclear power plant suitable for a small lunar base.

 

[spacester]

john_316,<br /><br />My apologies for being too harsh. It's just that this particular mathematical factoid is critically important to formulating valid approaches to space development.<br /><br />Yes we can build rocketships to get us to Mars in 120 days. Yes we can get back in 120 days. <b>But we have to wait about 600 days in between the two legs of our journey.</b><br /><br />It's all about orbital timing. You can get out to Mars' orbit, but if Mars isn't there when you get there, uh that's called mission failure - the objective was to get to Mars and you're out there in a useless orbit somewhere other then Mars.<br /><br />There are mission scenarios called "sprint missions" that are a loophole to this truism. You can spend a lot of energy - which would indeed take gas core technology - and spend a few weeks at Mars. But IMO this would be a very silly mission; also it is not available for all launch cycles.<br /><br />We have to leave at the correct time to get where we're going. It does not matter how good our technology is, everything is in orbit around the sun. You cannot just go hither and yon in the solar system at leisure just because you have a lot of propulsion prowess.<br /><br />That's the point I feel is important to be understood by all, and I apologize for any harshness. I won't further belabor my point.<br /><br />ps, after checking your post before closing, hey what a fun idea with a Spaceship Enterprise for real. That's really quite clever, seriously, I like the idea. I believe the vehicle can be made spaceworthy, so who knows?<br /><br />If you can build a gas core system, I say you should get started! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

spacester point taken!!!<br /><br /><br />Yes with orbital mechanics of mars and earth during launch it is normally not taken into account when we discuss these situations for transit times.<br /><br />But I'm not here to bash you or anyone. The idea of and or use of nuclear power and or nuclear rockets has to be taken with great concern.<br /><br />It would be restrictively high as far as time and power goes to send a rocket to mars based on the sail boat approach (chemical means) when we can use steam power (nuclear) to get there faster and it would also provide sufficent power. <br /><br />I take this idea as a Navy Vet and the reliability of navy reactors on Submarines, Aircraft Carriers and now decommissioned Nuclear Cruisers. Nuclear power can be made safe for the crew. I know that still disheartens some but if you want to be able to get to Mars in a fast time and a possible longer duration mission your going to need Nuclear power. Chemical and solar power can't do it on a small scale. I don't venture even to suggest Ion propulsion because you wont get there in under 120 days with it unless a leap in advancement occurs before the first Mars Vessel is built.<br /><br />Yes If alternate reliable power sources can do the job I am for it. But if for example 20 tons on nuclear propellants over say 120 tons of solar arrays and ion engines you know what I would take. Nuclear all the way.<br /><br /><br />The issue is really so much the the launch of the nuclear material but the crew saftey. Well with a heavy launch vehicle we can design a crew vehicle that matches or is below the weight limitations of the heavy lift vehicle designs that would be used to launch the vehicle.<br /><br />If there was alternate sources that would revolutionize the trip then great but I doubt it for the next 20-30 years and we are no where near fusion power for a space ship let alone building one under 50,000 tons.<br /><br />We have to constantly rely on each others critism and ideas not just for our perso

 

[gunsandrockets]

"do u think we should use nuke power for exploration?"<br /><br />I take it you mean nuclear power aided propulsion for manned exploration. The answer is yes.<br /><br />I am surprised by the number of people who think chemical rockets are all we need for manned exploration. Or who think nuclear propulsion is of little benefit. Nasa administrator Griffin is not among them. Griffin has repeatedly stated his desire for Nuclear Thermal Rockets especially in the context of Mars exploration. Even the Zubrin scheme for Mars Direct can employ chemical rockets only because nuclear power is used to create on Mars a supply of rocket fuel for the return flight.<br /><br />Nuclear Electric Rockets have come in for lots of criticism, even though it was a favorite idea of the Soviets for manned travel to Mars. Jeffrey Bell even claims NER are useless even for unmanned cargo missions. See this article of Bell's "The myth of low-thrust propulsion"...<br /><br />http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-04d.html<br /><br />I wonder if Bell's team which was so frustrated with NER ever examined using lunar flybys to solve the low-thrust Earth return problem as this paper partially examines...<br /><br />http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/spaceres/IV-1.html<br /><br />"As mentioned previously, it is reasonably safe to use a lunar-gravity-assisted maneuver to capture an Earth-approaching body with a [delta] V relative to the Earth of less than about 1.5 km/sec..." <br /><br /> "...This simple scenario ignores two interesting possibilities. The first is the use of continuous thrust after lunar encounter to further ****** the body. A body with incoming V = 2.25 km/sec injected into a hyperbola with perigee at 6 Earth radii may be captured with a continuous thrust under 5 microgee (5XI0-5 m/sec 2) applied during the