News NASA fund development of nuclear rocket

[dman]

NASA has funded development of new fuel assembly for nuclear rocket engine

Nuclear rockets are not new. in the 1960's both Us and Soviet Union tested
nuclear rockets. Problem was the early nuclear rockets used Highly enriched
uranium as fuel.

The new fuel assembly will use Low Enriched uranium (less than 20 % U 235)
resulting in lower security concerns

The new fuel assembly will be composed of a tungsten-uranium ceramic material able to sustain extremely high operating temperatures

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/...test-fuel-for-nuclear-thermal-propulsion.html

 

[Pioneer]

Hopefully this one gets off the ground and we finally send people to Mars already.

 

[Andy44]

About freaking time. Best of luck, NASA.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but it's just a fuel element, not a whole NTR engine. And I guarantee the nuclear NIMBYs will start screaming bloody murder over this.

 

[Andy44]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but it's just a fuel element, not a whole NTR engine. And I guarantee the nuclear NIMBYs will start screaming bloody murder over this.

You can't rain on what's already underwater, mate.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

You can't rain on what's already underwater, mate.

... I don't follow. How is it underwater?

 

[Andy44]

... I don't follow. How is it underwater?

My parade. The thing you are raining on. It's been flooded since the early 70s when NERVA got canceled.

 

[Col_Klonk]

Nah.. no good.
We need something better, and to protect the astros from radiation.
19 tons to develop a fuel system... doesn't sound right - this stuff doesn't come that cheap during the development phase.
The equipment just to test it could cost 2x+ as much ??

 

[Urwumpe]

Well the question is: Is the radiation by a nuclear reactor some distance away worse than the radiation you already get in space. That is not that easily simulated on Earth, since the nuclear material of the reactor also reacts with the natural radiation...

 

[Col_Klonk]

it's going to be a balance between high energy isotopes and low energy isotopes - at a level that doesn't microwave your astro, but gives them a good probability of surviving the trip to where-ever.. so that they can look good on tele over there.. then die by accident over there or on the way back.

You know how space business economics works :lol:

 

[Pipcard]

What do you think of the idea of reusable (SpaceX/Blue Origin-style) chemical launch vehicles actually being more worth it compared to nuclear thermal rocket (or even solar or nuclear-electric propulsion) development?

Robotbeat on the NASASpaceflight forum:

Chemical rockets are really awesome. They take stored chemical energy and release it very quickly and efficiently with very little dry mass. Once you get reusability down, then formerly-totally-good-ideas like SEP and whatnot look like a lot of work just to save a few pounds when you could do 20 chemical rocket flights (with the same rocket) while the SEP or NEP tug is still spiralling out of Earth's gravity well. From a capital-return standpoint, a fully and rapidly reusable chemical rocket vehicle is incredibly difficult to beat, plus both handling and development are WAY more straight-forward than they would be for an NTR... and fuel costs may be actually lower (!) since you can use methane and ultra-cheap oxygen instead of a WHOLE bunch of difficult-to-handle hydrogen.

 

[Andy44]

What do you think of the idea of reusable (SpaceX/Blue Origin-style) chemical launch vehicles actually being more worth it compared to nuclear thermal rocket (or even solar or nuclear-electric propulsion) development?

Robotbeat on the NASASpaceflight forum:

Different machines for different situations. A cost-effective reusable chemical system for launches is desired because you don't have to deal with the hazards of nuclear fission in atmospheric flight, but once you are in LEO and beyond, nuclear is the way to go for a number of reasons.

This is getting away from the news item that is the topic of this thread, however.

 

[Pipcard]

Different machines for different situations. A cost-effective reusable chemical system for launches is desired because you don't have to deal with the hazards of nuclear fission in atmospheric flight, but once you are in LEO and beyond, nuclear is the way to go for a number of reasons.

The same person had claimed that a nuclear propulsion system would "explode the cost and weight" of an interplanetary spaceship, implying that it would save money (in development and operations) to just do chemical with reusable tankers and higher flight rates.

RonM:

One of the reasons for nuclear propulsion was to reduce the mass of the spacecraft. For example, one of NASA's Mars mission plans had 12-15 launches of a HLV for chemical rockets to be placed in LEO, but only 4-5 launches for nuclear rockets. That would be a big savings in launches to LEO.

Now with the today's concept of reusable rockets, getting the required chemical rocket fuel to orbit will be far cheaper. A reusable BFR launching a chemically propelled MCT [currently known as ITS] will be practical. SpaceX does not need nuclear propulsion for the MCT.

guckyfan:

People cling to concepts they liked before the concept of reusable BFR and MCT came up. So we see popping up cyclers, L-point deployment, nuclear. All complex and expensive and not necessary when cheap launch capacity is available.

This is getting away from the news item that is the topic of this thread, however.

It is making a comparison to nuclear rockets, so I don't feel that it is off-topic.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think discussing physics should be done in the right forum for the sake of not mixing up facts or news with opinion or assumptions.