Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nuclear Propulsion in Space (1968...NERVA)
You Tube ^ | 6-23-12 | The Digital Implosion

Posted on 12/16/2013 7:46:06 PM PST by Kolath

Project NERVA was an acronym for Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application, a joint program of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and NASA managed by the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (SNPO) at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station in Jackass Flats, Nevada U.S.A.

Between 1959 and 1972, the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office oversaw 23 reactor tests, both the program and the office ended at the end of 1972.

(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: nasa; nerva; nuclear

1 posted on 12/16/2013 7:46:07 PM PST by Kolath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kolath

2 posted on 12/16/2013 8:05:31 PM PST by null and void (I'm betting on an Obama Trifecta: A Nobel Peace Prize, an Impeachment, AND a War Crimes Trial...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolath

You would never get away with launching it from the surface of the earth but such things are great for in space. Project Orion called for using nuclear explosions and they were even talking about launching from the surface. Obviously that’s a no go but testing with conventional explosives showed that it would work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQCrPNEsQaY

I’ve read that one explosion every 3 seconds for 10 days would achieve around 7% of the speed of light which is considerably faster than the .006% we’re capable of now.


3 posted on 12/16/2013 8:06:42 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolath

BFLR

Hoss


4 posted on 12/16/2013 8:32:04 PM PST by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The problem with launching is that you need high thrust-to-weight, which rules out nuclear power unless you use actual nuclear explosions instead of a controlled reaction. But that’s like hitting a tennis ball with a freight train. Once in space, where specific impulse matters more, there is another problem: heat dissipation. In the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, Discovery used a gas core nuclear reactor for propulsion. But Stanley Kubrick thought the heat radiators looked too much like wings, so they were left out. But it could not have worked without them, if at all.


5 posted on 12/16/2013 8:37:15 PM PST by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I’ve read that one explosion every 3 seconds for 10 days would achieve around 7% of the speed of light

That is a lot of nukes to be tossing out the back like Black Cat firecrackers.

About 48,00 of those suckers for 10 days, no?

Good luck getting a crew to sit on top of that bomb load at lift-off. And then there is that sticky issue of stopping the damn thing when you get there................

6 posted on 12/16/2013 9:29:07 PM PST by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kolath

Related article, perhaps there’s a future for it after all.
http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-nuclear-cryogenic-propulsion/25772/
I certainly hope so. It’s more of a sure bet than VASIMR.


7 posted on 12/19/2013 8:56:07 AM PST by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson