Russia Develops Spaceship With Nuclear Engine 297
Matt_dk writes "The Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos has developed a design for a piloted spacecraft powered by a nuclear engine, the head of the agency said on Wednesday. 'The project is aimed at implementing large-scale space exploration programs,' Anatoly Perminov said at a meeting of the commission on the modernization of the Russian economy. He added that the development of Megawatt-class nuclear space power systems (MCNSPS) for manned spacecraft was crucial for Russia if the country wanted to maintain a competitive edge in the space race, including the exploration of the Moon and Mars."
The space race isn't over... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This could be a good source of motivation. Exploring the use of nuclear power for space exploration makes a ton of sense. Currently, when anyone brings it up, people express fears that it is too dangerous and expensive, and so let's just play it safe. Perhaps instead they can fear that other countries will develop it first and leave us behind.
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to add one point. The original Space Race was the US doing all the right things for all the wrong reasons. It isn't necessarily a bad way to get things done!
Ok, this needs to be said (Score:3, Funny)
If nuclear powered spacecraft are a great idea (of which I'm less than completely convinced), then great - let's go for them. But if the motivation for building what could be a very expensive and dangerous vehicle is nothing more than "but the Russians are doing it", then count me out. That would be a totally stupid reason for doing anything.
interesting juxtaposition (Score:3, Insightful)
Subject/body of the comment:
Sig:
Is this a "libertarian except for a massive taxpayer-funded space program" sort of thing?
Re:interesting juxtaposition (Score:5, Informative)
NASA massive?
Social Security is massive.
The military is massive.
Medicare is massive.
Welfare is massive.
Medicaid is massive.
The "War on Terror" is massive.
Department of Health and Human Services isn't so massive, but it's larger than NASA's budget by a factor of four.
Department of Education? bigger than NASA.
Discretionary spending? yep, bigger than NASA.
VA? You might be starting to see a pattern - yes, it's bigger than NASA.
HUD? ditto.
State Department and Foreign Aid? bigger than NASA.
Department of Homeland Security? Still bigger than NASA.
This isn't a conclusive listing of all the things in the Federal Budget that are larger than NASA. What is actually is is a list of all the things in the Federal Budget that would still be bigger than NASA if we doubled NASA's budget.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
... even with the real cold war over.
Putin didn't get the memo...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's wrong with some healthy competition. Nasa is developing the nuclear powered Stirling engine so Russia instead decides to go Nuclear... as in submarine style. Without the USSR, men would not have walked on the moon. I say, go for it!
Re:The space race isn't over... (Score:4, Interesting)
People have been launching satellites with radioactive materials in them for a long while. There are things that can go wrong but generally the fuel is contained so that if the rocket fails it will not scatter the material. There would be no need for Russia to disguise an attack on the US as a space launch... they could just attempt to use real nukes and not some ******-rigged dirty bomb.
Re:The space race isn't over... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, satellites with nuclear reactors haven't always [wikipedia.org] managed to keep from releasing significant amounts of radiation onto earth. The concerns might be overblown, but as far as I can tell, most scientists do consider the problem of designing nuclear reactors for launch such that they won't leak radiation in a disaster a fairly significant one. It's even been cited [amazon.com] (pp. 39-41) as a major motivator for research into fusion-powered spacecraft propulsion, since fusion can in principle achieve similar acceleration characteristics without having to worry about disaster-proofing a payload of radioactive material. (The downside is that we can build lots of fission-powered things today, practically, but not so for fusion-powered things.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with that Wikipedia article is that a nuclear reactor usually means a fission reactor, and not nuclear batteries which are rather common in satellites.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:2, Funny)
"Nuclear engine develops YOU!"
Re:The space race isn't over... (Score:4, Insightful)
And what happens if the nuclear part were to separate over the United States and accidentally detonate?
The lead designer of the project will go on trial in Russia for hitting the wrong target - the "oops" was supposed to happen over China (which is much more of a real threat to Russia these days).
Re:The space race isn't over... (Score:5, Funny)
"I aim vor ze starz, but zumtimes, I hit London."
Werner Von Braun
Re:The space race isn't over... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, actually
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun
Re:The space race isn't over... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! (Score:2)
But who cares about Canada anyway.
Hey! Canada's not a joke!
Re:Hey! (Score:5, Funny)
But who cares about Canada anyway.
Eh! Canada's not a joke!
Fixed that for you.
Re:Hey! (Score:5, Informative)
But who cares about Canada anyway.
Hey! Canada's not a joke, Eh!
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that fix for you, Eh never starts the sentence up here, it ends it. For starting we use "Hey" just like you do down south of the line
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But who cares about Canada anyway.
Hey! Canada's not a joke, Eh!
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that fix for you, Eh never starts the sentence up here, it ends it. For starting we use "Hey" just like you do down south of the line. Oh and get off my lawn!
Fixed that for you. You know where your from, but remember where you are posting also.
Re:Hey! (Score:5, Funny)
But who cares about Canada anyway.
Hey! Canada's not a joke, Eh!
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that fix for you, Eh never starts the sentence up here, it ends it. For starting we use "Hey" just like you do down south of the line. Oh and get off my lawn!
Fixed that for you. You know where you're from, but remember where you are posting also.
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Eh! Canada's not a joke!
You fail at Canadian colloquialism.
Eh != Hey.
Philistine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, someone has to tell people out there that the entire freak'n universe is radio active.
Each single day, more people are killed by automobiles than by falling radio active satellites. I don't see anyone banning cars.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's more to do with the EMP burst, it's much more effective at high altiudes/low orbit. If I recall correctly the US once accidentally knocked out just about every electronic device in Hawaii and the surrounding area while testing nukes in space. That and you end up dumping a whole lot of radiation into the van allen belts which isn't so great for space travel.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I believe the specific test you're referring to is Starfish Prime [wikipedia.org] which was part of the Operation Dominic test series.
/Mikael
They haven't "developed" anything (Score:5, Insightful)
They've drawn up a design.. wooo.. any nuclear engineer can do that - plenty of amateurs too.
Building real hardware is the only way to develop launch technology. Tell me when they've gotten the funding to do some static firing.
Re:They haven't "developed" anything (Score:5, Funny)
Hey man, they like to take their time, you know, not Russian to things.
Re:They haven't "developed" anything (Score:5, Funny)
Perminov said that the draft design of the spacecraft would be finalized by 2012.
This can only end in disaster!
Re: (Score:2)
In post-Soviet Russia, plot runs away from you!
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need to worry, since this guy has already figured out a better design http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2006/02/pto_requests_mo.html [typepad.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I used to wonder what the point of patenting stupidity was.. and then I heard one of my friends say "well he's got a patent on it! They cost money! So he's investing in this idea, and he's not asking for much money to build a prototype." And there ya go, the essence of the scam.
Worse yet are the people who have this 19th century view of the patent office and say stuff like "well, he couldn't get a patent if he didn't have a working prototype." Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the PTO realized this is bogus:
Applicant is required to furnish a model of the instant invention. 35 U.S.C. 114. See Also 37 C.F.R. 1.91.
Soviets may have already done part of the job (Score:2)
The Soviets were a lot more willing to shove nuclear reactors in places we were politically unwilling/unable to. The Russians may even have some Soviet prototypes around. It would be the same barely-post-war era tech all their stuff was, and it would be really, really, REALLY dangerous to use, but the very well might have gotten beyond blueprints.
Seen the Soviet space shuttle prototype? Scary.
Re:Soviets may have already done part of the job (Score:4, Informative)
The Soviets were a lot more willing to shove nuclear reactors in places we were politically unwilling/unable to. The Russians may even have some Soviet prototypes around. It would be the same barely-post-war era tech all their stuff was, and it would be really, really, REALLY dangerous to use, but the very well might have gotten beyond blueprints.
As a matter of fact, the Soviets had a large number of nuclear reactors on satellites satellites (actual nuclear fission reactors, not radioisotope generators):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RORSAT [wikipedia.org]
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/usa.htm [astronautix.com]
A number of them broke down and crashed back down to Earth, including one which crashed into Canada in 1978 and spread a decent amount of radioactive debris. Their nuclear-powered RORSAT series unfortunately also "had the lowest reliability and most quality problems of any Soviet space system."
If I remember right, their shuttle was safer (Score:2)
If it was maintained well, Soviet shuttle was way more safe than US Space Shuttle since it was entirely based on liquid fuel. It was also completely reusable.
I can't find my source now but I am sure I didn't watch it on some "red" propaganda channel, I watched it either on Discovery TV or Nat Geo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They haven't "developed" anything (Score:5, Informative)
Check out this book: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=zmpxV1ygjvsC [google.com.au]
One of the best collected references on the nuclear thermal rocket propulsion development program that I've ever read.. and almost all the pages are available online.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea, by the way-- but I don't see any hint of any those "17 billion rubles" that they say they'll need.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and by "dust it off" you mean embark on a multi-billion dollar technology maturation process right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level [wikipedia.org]
you're talking about a TRL-4 engine as if it is almost TRL-7.. each step up the ladder takes funding.. that's why Apollo, and the Manhattan project were such amazing achievements, they went from concept to operational with dozens of different subsystems in an incredibly short period of time - by spending a massive amount of money.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have to agree with the parent here-- they don't seem to have "developed" anything. Reading the article, they seem to be proposing a nuclear rocket, which they will do a paper study of that will be done in 2012.
They actually developed a nuclear thermal engine [astronautix.com] some years back. They could dust that off, put it on top some Angara stages and build a rocket.
My apologies. I was talking about the subject discussed in the article; I wasn't talking about work done in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Funding. Remember the recent China-Russia high-speed rail deal. The Russians and Chinese have always had a deep mistrust of each other. To do this deal, the Russians had to let the Chinese own part of the Russian projects. This sort of thing between the two has never happened in all of history.
China has 1.5 trillion dollars of US paper. Obama promised the Chinese we would defend the dollar, but the federal reserve has a weak dollar policy and the Chinese are unhappy.. The dollar has gone down more twe
Isn't cold war over yet? (Score:2)
Seriously, whenever a story about Chinese invention or Russian invention appears, the tone of comments instantly change. It is like Slashdot in Reagan era.
Seriously, if both Russia and USA didn't work together, the International Space Station etc. was a complete failure since Soviets had some special expertise and Americans had some special expertise. When you watch NASA TV when ISS stuff going on, it is almost like half Russian, half English broadcast.
You sound like some Taliban guys on Afghan mountains ca
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, whenever a story about Chinese invention or Russian invention appears, the tone of comments instantly change.
Very true. If this had been an article about an American project, there would be WAY more people alternating between complaining, fear-mongering, and derisively mocking it.
Seriously, if both Russia and USA didn't work together, the International Space Station etc. was a complete failure since Soviets had some special expertise and Americans had some special expertise.When you watch NASA TV when ISS stuff going on, it is almost like half Russian, half English broadcast.
Yep. Just like without Canada, the US wouldn't exist! After all, if you look at the continent, Canada takes up more than half of it ...
Read some books/watch some documentaries about their nuclear powered bomber project which actually flown until even red bureaucrats figured it is way risky.
The US made some, too, while managing NOT to have a Chernobyl and an economic/political collapse.
They did by 1990, and lost it (Score:2)
Soviets have been developing a nuclear rocket engine since 70s (RD-0410), and by 1990 they successfully tested a prototype on a stand, powerful enough to drive a real rocket. But by then the USSR disbanded, financing ceased, and the relevant docs were gradually lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Reds ended up being more liberal than USA (Score:2)
Interestingly, the seem way more liberal than USA. At least I see some sponsors branding (HP etc.) at their mission control center.
I wouldn't be surprised if they also start to put ads on the rockets they launch.
About the cheapness: It is in their military culture. I remember reading Su-27 simulator manual saying "Using afterburner while taking off is not accepted as a good practice in Soviet AF". Or that el cheapo T tanks beating amazingly expensive, huge German Tiger tanks just because they are better des
STIV (Score:5, Funny)
This isn't correct... (Score:5, Funny)
Nucular... It's pronounced Nucular!
Sure Russia may not be able to afford it (Score:5, Insightful)
but the chinese can.
What the US needs to get back into the space race is a good old fashioned nose tweaking.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They need to start doing coke?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
um.. russia has a debt of 6.5% of gdp and in 2008 ran a 60 billion dollar (~20%) budget surplus.
The US by contrast has a public debt of about 60% of gdp and in 2008 ran a budget deficit of 400 billion dollars (~20 of budget).
Not disputing that china has the money, but the russians have money to spend. Where the US is struggling to balance the books, the books are a lot bigger admittedly, the red portion is correspondingly bigger. If anything the russians are in the sort of position to try stuff like this.
Re:Sure Russia may not be able to afford it (Score:5, Insightful)
"What the US needs to get back into the space race is a good old fashioned nose tweaking."
It doesn't seem to be working on the good ole economy front. China is running massive trade surpluses with the U.S., are taking all our jobs, and are seizing control of many of the world's raw materials. If there were any competitive fire left in America's belly it should have surfaced already. You can't really do another Apollo or compete in another space race when you are running trillion dollar trade and budget deficits, and mired in several pointless wars that are consuming what resources aren't going to health care and social security. During the 60's the US was still flush with economic success in the wake of World War II when the rest of the world had been flattened.
The U.S. is starting to more closely resemble an early version of Great Britain, which having lost its empire in World War II and the pounds status as global reserve currency is now mired in debt and can't even support its vastly diminished military or pay its civil servants.
Nuclear pulse propulsion (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear pulse propulsion is illegal due to international treaties banning the atmospheric detonation of nuclear explosives.
Re:Nuclear pulse propulsion (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Also the nuclear pulse system IS for liftoff beyond the initial few hundred meters. The whole advantage of nuclear pulse propulsion is that you can lift MASSIVE things into space for cheap. And they can reach high speeds in space. The only reason they don't use nukes straight from the ground is that the debris would damage the ship.
Before you worry, if launched from a safe location the de
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you wouldn't use nuclear pulse propulsion for the launch, but only once outside the atmosphere, for the interplanetary/interstellar portion of a trip? I think the safety issues are more in how to make designs that don't scatter radioactivity during launch failures.
I'll take the Fithp (Score:2)
So it would only be used if we were attacked by baby elephant - like aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Addendum to that: things like the pusher plate are *heavy* to launch using conventional rockets. While a nuclear pulse rocket could function well enough in space, getting one into space without using it would be tricky.
What is it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of the sources I've found on the subject have any real information beyond what TFA says but by the sound of it, a nuclear thermal engine is likely.
The space WHAT? (Score:5, Interesting)
Last time I checked, the space race was over for all intents and purposes by the early 1970's, and the world's space agencies had spent the following four decades mostly dicking around half-heartedly.
Mind you, I think a renewed space race would be great. But there isn't one going on right now. There's not even a space special olympics at the moment.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The space WHAT? (Score:5, Informative)
Hogwash. The US may has been dicking around, but others haven't. Your comment typifies everything wrong with the typical US attitude to space exploration.
The Russians were in space almost continuously from 1971 onwards--from Salyut, through to Mir and then the ISS--running manned missions and supply flights almost continuously until the present. The only pause in the Russian program was a couple years between the time Mir came down and the first ISS module was put up (again, the Russians).
From 1971-present the US couldn't put a man in space for years over several periods: after Skylab; after Challenger; after Columbia. Meanwhile, the Russians continued to grind along, slowly but surely, providing both manned and unmanned supply flights. Those Progress and Soyuz flights that helped keep the ISS alive? Those were from Russia, using proficiences they developed during the 20+ years *regularly* servicing Salyut and Mir and maintaining a manned presence in space.
Check the total time in orbit for the Salyut and Mir, days inhabited, and the number of missions--it's pretty damned impressive. And that was long before the ISS or the Shuttle.
They weren't "dicking around". They were doing serious science on long-term manned missions, and what it takes to sustain an effort, especially from an operational/practical perspective. It's no accident that a lot of the practical ISS LS systems are based on what the Russians learned and developed. NASA has refined some of those systems, but a lot of the basic tech (air revitalization, toilets, etc.) came from the Russian program.
This isn't a "race", at least if you're interested in more than flags and boots. It's learning. It's exploration not just of places, but of systems. It's engineering. It's figuring out how to make people and machinery work in environments that are hostile and for which many effects are little understood. You do that by trying, correcting, and trying again. That takes time and a sustained effort.
The Big Bus (Score:4, Funny)
Wake me up when they've built a nuclear powered bus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I saw a video about this somewhere. It was called "The Bang Bus".
uhh.. point of order! (Score:5, Insightful)
I would just like to point out that developing a spaceship (The title) is a lot different than designing a spaceship (TFA).
Call me when the headline is true.
Megawatt? (Score:2)
Engine or generator? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Other people are guessing nuclear thermal, but you still won't get enough thrust out of that kind of engine to get into orbit. At least, not with a solid core design. I'm thinking what they're really designing is something like VASIMR with a nuclear reactor for the power plant. That would be cutting-edge engineering, certainly, but not necessarily cutting-edge science.
Of course, what I'd really like to see is a gas core nuclear thermal engine. That would give you enough thrust:mass to get you to mars
Test Rockets (Score:2)
I can imagine the testing. How many super soldiers can be accidentally created by nuclear fallout from failed fission spacecraft launches? That's my question.
Second verse, same as the first (Score:2)
Russia takes yet another Brave Powerpoint Forward in space exploration. That's, what, the six or seventh in 2009? I think that sets their all time record!
Re: (Score:2)
Disarmament... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A nuclear propulsion system is as much of a weapon as a regular rocket engine is a bomb. Sure all the components are there, and they CAN go boom, but the question is design and intent.
Any actual link or paper ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone have any real information on this ? (NASA Contractor Report 179614, SPI-25-l. (1988) doesn't count.)
What's the speed like? (Score:4, Interesting)
Compared to current tech, how fast and how far could such a ship theoretically travel?
Re: (Score:2)
A straight up nuclear rocket, is anywhere from 5-10x better than say the space shuttle. (Is that a good guess? someone correct me) Weight for weight and payload for payload. That means you could from ground to the moon and back to earth orbit in one vehicle.
More sophisticated designs with higher specific impulse make the trip to mars in a matter of months.
They have no details about what they are planning to do, exc
Re: (Score:2)
that's unfortunate. One would hope with nuclear power there could be a way to increase both speed and distance. Without those being improved..is there much point in going nuclear?
Nice paper rocket (Score:2)
Nice paper rocket, like the Kliper [russianspaceweb.com] which was also celebrated on these pages. Meanwhile NASA actually tests [spaceflightnow.com] its designs.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA tested a design that's already a white elephant before it's even done. We're trying to replace a system that's useless for anything practical because it costs too much, and NASA's great idea is to take all the expensive parts and use them for the next generation. Color me very unimpressed.
Fact Erosion and Replacement (Score:5, Informative)
Headline: Russia Develops
Subline: has developed a design
Article text: the draft design would be finalized by 2012
Translation: we're drawing stuff. we're going to draw more stuff
FACT: The picture is of an RD-410, a 7 tonne thrust nuclear thermal/LH2, developed by Glushko for the N-1 during 1960-61 under Korolev. It was abandoned in 1963 when Korolev chose nuclear/ion as a preferable technology, and Glushko dropped it in favor of the gas core reactor design.
Except for a few motors (mainly Glushko's) intended for the N-1 and some early nuclear thermal/ammonia long range missiles, Russia's nuclear motors have been intended for Mars missions. The designs were all fair to good, the planning rational. However, during the first decade of design funding was increasingly, then entirely, diverted to Korolev's N-1 booster, counterpart to the Saturn V, on which Soviet moon race hopes were pinned. After the 3 July 1969 explosion of the N-1, funding became scarce for all design work. In the 1 Sept 1969 post mortem report for the Soviet space program, Kamanin lists among the mistakes Korolev and Mishin's rejections of Glushko's motors.
Since relinquishing the moon landing, all Russian nuclear motors have been intended for Mars flights. However, since the US canceled the NERVA and thus its Mars plans in 1972, there was no pressure for Russia to produce and funding was rare. Still, a few were built and tested. After 12 years of testing the official proposal was put forth to develop the RD-0140, a 3.5 tonne version of Glushko's original design, as well as a 70 tonne RD-0411. Two years later there was no longer any Soviet Union. But Glushko's design survived even this, and in 1994 no less than 3 designs emerged from Kuchatov (one) and Keldysh (two) institutes, for Mars craft using 3 or 4 of the RD-0410, for a 460 day round trip.
There have been no Glushko motors built in over 20 years, but there could be. And obviously no Mars mission craft are being built. Designs and plans that persist for 50 years are rare in space exploration. There's little evidence to say whether yet another redesign by Ruskosmos is just another flag waving ritual by a home team that refuses to give up, or whether Glushko's creations have taken on a life of their own, and are simply successes waiting for their time. In any case, present 'development' is restricted to speculative design/redesign, yet more pictures on paper, hoping to become proposals.
United States Intelligence Drain..... (Score:3, Informative)
Ya know, if it wasn't for the Eco-Nazis that squash technological developments like this, the U.S. could have started developing these A LONG TIME AGO.
Unfortunately, we have castrated ourselves in sole favor of "environmeltally freindly" technologies.
Eco-Nazis, coupled with the severe Dumbing-Down of U.S. education, especially in the fields of physics, biology, mechanics, and electrical engineering, pose the biggest threat to the future of the United States as a hotbed of technological development.
Next thing you know, other countries will be developing spacecraft with advanced technologies, while we will pioneer the development of a patchouli-and-love-powered VW microbus.
Yes, I know that sounds terribly cynical, but the state of American education is terrible: We give English tests in other languages, encourage kids to fiddle with their iPhones and video games, and place more value on extra-curricular activities than actual academics. The BEST after-school program is an academic one.
For example, the piss-poor university that I have to go to (unless I want to go broke attending school in either San Francisco or the L.A. area), CSU Monterey Bay, cuts academic classes like Biology, Chemistry, and Psychology, and claims 'budget concerns' and 'classroom space' as the reason. YET, they can still offer Yoga, Dance, and plenty of other academically meaningless classes.
If we cut out all the CRAP in American schools, and offered academically important courses instead, budget concerns would be less of a problem, and students would spend their time learning things that can be used to develop important technologies, ranging from reducing environmental impact to advanced materials and systems, and space travel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has to be built somewhere, or at the very least the raw materials have to come from somewhere and I assume that place will be Earth. So it has to be launched at least once, which means there'll be a rocket with nuclear material going up...launched by the Russians, these guys [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I hope it isn't. I want to see a reusable single stage nuclear launch vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit of an ancient fear don't ya think?
I mean, even back in the 60s it was stupid media fear mongering. Poison wires and adequate casing make nuclear reactors perfectly safe when not in operation. It was exactly those kinds of objections that caused the NERVA project to deliberately overload their biggest prototype and cause an explosion: so they could assess the difficulty of worse case cleanup - btw, it was no trouble. Perhaps the only way "scattering radioactive debris throughout the atmospher
Re: (Score:2)
If it was stupid fear mongering that was solved by the 1960s, how did a Soviet satellite in 1978 apparently have insufficient casing to keep radioactive debris from being scattered across Canada upon reentry in 1978 [wikipedia.org]?
Somebody will see the advantages. (Score:2)
It might be your values that keep you against air bursting to get a 10,000 ton space ship from the ground to Mars in a couple of weeks, but other countries will, and they will dominate the west by learning how to do something we are too big of pussies to do.
I've predicted this a long time ago:
http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/everyonegetsthebomb.aspx [treatyist.com]
The ultimate point is that even if you believed that nonproliferation could work, and it can't, even the genuinely peaceful uses of nuclear technology will bestow
Re:Boom (Score:4, Interesting)
I certainly trust Soviet trained engineers to launch this thing successfully without air-bursting right after take off, scattering radioactive debris throughout the atmosphere. The Russians have a long, celebrated, history of safety and caution when it comes to their nuclear and aerospace endeavors--together they'll be a winning combination!
(and for those who think I'm being too harsh on the Russians, I wouldn't trust NASA to launch a nuclear powered spacecraft either)
NASA and Russia have already launched "nuclear powered spacecraft", typically using a Radioisotope thermoelectric generator [wikipedia.org]. Its needed if you are gonna send a satellite where the sun don't shine. Take Cassini, or the Voyager probes for instance. The difference as I understand it is they would use the electricity to power a high specific impulse low thrust engine, such as an ion thruster [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't get excited yet. (Score:4, Informative)
NASA designed one, called NERVA, it was built and tested, out in Idaho IIRC, and was canceled by the Nixon administration. The photo in the article looks very much like a nuclear thermal engine, and nothing like a pulse system.
No Nozzle, a power plant not engine (Score:3, Informative)
Just wanted to mention, it doesn't look like an "engine" (something that produces thrust as opposed to power). In the photo, there is just a collection of tubes where the very large nozzle (nozzles for use in space as opposed to the atmosphere are larger due to the greater expansion of the exhaust gasses) should be. Also there is no massive turbo-pump, fuel feed system needed even on a regeneratively cooled engine (and nozzle).
The fact that the head of the Russian space agency talks about "the development
Re: (Score:2)
A prototype of Orion did get built in San Diego. The test flight was conducted from Point Loma (now the site of Space and Naval Warfare System Center's model ship-testing pool) using conventional explosives with a delivery tube. By all measures it was successful. Freeman Dyson then worked out the engineering needed for the pusher plate and delivery mechanism for the full nuclear-weapon version. I think there's quite a bit on this in John McPhee's excellent book, _The Curve of Binding Energy_.
Orion alway