Nuclear Space Ship SSTO Proposal

NuclearSpace.com ^ | None given, Historisal | Anthony Tate

[SauronOfMordor]

Yep, but the only way to develop a sustained power source capable of providing this powerful of a laser is, you guessed it, Nuclear power.

With the difference being that a ground-based nuke is inherently safer than a flying nuke

[meema]

We definitely need a far more powerful engine, most likely nuclear, to do any of these far away trips. What we use now is simply not capable.

[KevinDavis]

[KevinDavis]

[KevinDavis]

I think that the prizes that NASA is offering is a way to go.. SOMETHING THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE YEARS AGO!

[Hawk1976]

Thanks for the ping.

Just another example of the types of thing that are proposed out there that NASA should be taking advantage of. We need to get serious about space travel, and not just for national security reasons. It seems that any proposal that has a chance at allowing access to the solar system and eventually the wider universe should be up for testing. They represent a relatively low government cost high payoff concept. Instead we gave $50 billion to Africa, a prize for most screwed up way to run a continent from what I can tell.

[RightWhale]

Instead we gave $50 billion to Africa

They, our masters, could create the legal environment in outer space that would allow private ownership and private development of space resources. Until then, the anti-gov forces who don't want NASA to get a dime sound just like those whining 'poor people' who couldn't get their govcheck cashed so they could get out of Houston.

For those who want private industry in outer space, remember that FedGov is now able to create corporations. Can you imagine Amtrak trying to mine the asteroids? Yet, nobody can compete with Amtrak. NASA go private? Be careful what you wish for.

[Truth29]

Unfortunately, a more likely scenario is that we would start such a development program, get bogged down in EIS's, other bureaucratic reviews, and lawsuits and then the ChiComs would steal the plans and build it.

[King Prout]

a few years ago I stumbled across a project in Florida concerning a new type of solid-core nuclear hydrogen rocket.

I lost the link at some point.

IIRC - the core was to be 1m in diameter, made from a stack of ten fissile grids, each 10cm thk.

do you know anything about this project?

as to this article - I like it. Sounds worth pursuing aggressively.

[King Prout]

I found out about the KIWI and its descendants shortly after I reinvented the concept in high school chemistry class.

IIRC, it had a thrust to mass ratio of more than double that of the best MODERN chemical rocket.

true?

[tricky_k_1972]

a few years ago I stumbled across a project in Florida concerning a new type of solid-core nuclear hydrogen rocket.

I lost the link at some point.

IIRC - the core was to be 1m in diameter, made from a stack of ten fissile grids, each 10cm thk.

do you know anything about this project?

Check out the website of this article or just go to my home page for a direct link, he has information on several past and future proposals for nuclear rockets and engines.

[RightWhale]

Right. It should be a factor of ten times more efficient, but it is only about double. Still, that would make the difference between Apollo and Buck Rogers.

[King Prout]

thanks - nice to know my memory is functioning.

'course, that was the KIWI, an old solid-core design.

I would expect modern designs, even solid-cores, to be much more powerful than the KIWI.

[King Prout]

thanks.
please add me to your Space Ping list.

[RightWhale]

Specific Impulse, I_spc, the number one factor in the rocket charts, is highest for hydrogen/oxygen among strictly chemical reactors. Something like 200 seconds. KIWI was something like 400 seconds, which makes it possible to include most of the structure as payload, and they need it because the reactor is fairly heavy itself.

[tricky_k_1972]

I always thought DeltaV was the most important factor.?

[Army Air Corps]

It sounds similar to Project PLUTO.

[RightWhale]

Spicific Impulse is the basic factor from which all else derives. The performance of a rocket can be described in terms of Specific Impulse. From Specific Impulse the entire rocket, staging included, can be designed in a couple of minutes. Delta-vee is merely the inverse of payload; 100 tons to orbit would be as meaningful a criterion as delta-vee--it tells you nothing of the size of the rocket or how many stages would be required.

[tricky_k_1972]

Thank you for explaining that to me.

[NicknamedBob]

"I still think that my idea of a tax check-off for direct funding of either NASA or private industry "Prizes" for development is the best way to go."

Just add to this idea, a lottery to be chosen among those who make the checkoff, to be a civilian "astronaut" on one of the first flights.

The winner could wait for his flight into space, or sell the ticket to the highest bidder, tax-free.

The excitement of the lottery winnings alone would push the entrants to make more investments. Maybe it could be in five dollar increments.