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

Skip to comments.

Rolls-Royce Nuclear Engine Could Power Quick Trips to the Moon and Mars
gizmodo ^ | Kevin Hurler

Posted on 02/07/2023 8:28:50 AM PST by BenLurkin

Rolls-Royce Holdings is getting into the spaceflight industry. The British aerospace engineering company says it’s developing a micro-nuclear reactor that the company hopes could be a source of fuel for long trips to the Moon and Mars.

Rolls-Royce Holdings announced in 2021 its intent to develop nuclear reactor technology, having obtained $600 million in public and private funding to develop its business. Since the nuclear reactor won’t have to carry as much fuel as a chemical propulsion rocket, the entire system will be lighter allowing for faster travel or increased payloads. The company says that the reactor could serve as both a new form of propulsion and a power source for bases on the Moon or Mars, and Rolls-Royce claims that they will have a nuclear reactor ready to send to the Moon by 2029.

Rolls-Royce is not the only party working on rocket propulsion outside of traditional chemical fuel. NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced a collaboration to develop a thermal rocket engine that could improve the time it takes to get to deep space. Likewise, NASA had a successful test of a rotating detonation rocket engine, which uses less fuel and provides more thrust than current propulsion systems.

While this is the company’s first public effort at space-based nuclear reactors, it has been supplying submarines with small reactors since the 1960s.

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: rollsroyce
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last
To: 103198

Got it. That’s simple enough for me to understand, lol!


41 posted on 02/07/2023 2:37:21 PM PST by telescope115 (My feet are on the ground, and my head is in the stars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: telescope115
Chemical rocket engines are extraordinarily powerful but burn their fuel quickly and inefficiently. Nuclear rocket engines though are efficient but generate less thrust.

A nuclear reactor rocket engine heats a material of one sort or another in order to make it serve as a propulsion mass for a rocket engine exhaust. In contrast, in conventional rocket engines, a chemical reaction between the fuel and an oxidizer generates heat quickly, with the residue then being explosively ejected from the rocket nozzle as propulsion mass. This generates massive thrust quickly but is highly inefficient.

Since nuclear reactors are far more efficient at generating heat than chemical reactions, they can propel a spacecraft faster and farther by heating mass than can be done by a chemical rocket engine. The so-called fuel fraction can therefore be smaller in spacecraft powered in whole or in part by nuclear engines.

Even more efficient nuclear rocket engines are possible by using electromagnets to accelerate an ionized reaction mass to greater velocity than is possible with simple heat transfer. This efficiency though comes at the price of generating smaller thrust, so such engines would be used primarily for slow, long duration space flights.

In current plans, conventional chemical rockets would be used to boost nuclear rocket engine parts to orbit where they would be assembled and used for space flight to the Moon, Mars, and other destinations. In such flights though, chemical rocket engines would still be used where high thrust is needed for maneuvering.

42 posted on 02/07/2023 3:57:19 PM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
On Nuclear Propulsion:

Aircraft and missiles[edit]

A picture of an Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion system, known as HTRE-3 (Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment no. 3). The central EBR-1 based reactor took the place of chemical fuel combustion to heat the air. The reactor rapidly raised the temperature via an air heat exchanger and powered the dual J47 engines in a number of ground tests.[6]

Research into nuclear-powered aircraft was pursued during the Cold War by the United States and the Soviet Union as they would presumably allow a country to keep nuclear bombers in the air for extremely long periods of time, a useful tactic for nuclear deterrence. Neither country created any operational nuclear aircraft.[1] One design problem, never adequately solved, was the need for heavy shielding to protect the crew from radiation sickness. Since the advent of ICBMs in the 1960s the tactical advantage of such aircraft was greatly diminished and respective projects were cancelled.[1] Because the technology was inherently dangerous it was not considered in non-military contexts. Nuclear-powered missiles were also researched and discounted during the same period.[1]

Aircraft[edit]

Missiles[edit]

Spacecraft[edit]

Many types of nuclear propulsion have been proposed, and some of them (e.g. NERVA) tested for spacecraft applications.[9]

Nuclear pulse propulsion[edit]

Nuclear thermal rocket[edit]

Bimodal nuclear thermal rockets conduct nuclear fission reactions similar to those employed at nuclear power plants including submarines. The energy is used to heat the liquid hydrogen propellant. The vehicle depicted is the "Copernicus" an upper stage assembly being designed for the Space Launch System (2010).

Ramjet[edit]

Direct nuclear[edit]

Nuclear electric[edit]

Russian Federal Space Agency development[edit]

Anatolij Perminov, head of the Russian Federal Space Agency, announced[when?] that it is going to develop a nuclear-powered spacecraft for deep space travel.[13][14] Preliminary design was done by 2013, and 9 more years are planned for development (in space assembly). The price is set at 17 billion rubles (600 million dollars).[15] The nuclear propulsion would have mega-watt class,[16][17] provided necessary funding, Roscosmos Head stated.

This system would consist of a space nuclear power and a matrix of ion engines. "...Hot inert gas temperature of 1500 °C from the reactor turns turbines. The turbine turns the generator and compressor, which circulates the working fluid in a closed circuit. The working fluid is cooled in the radiator. The generator produces electricity for the same ion (plasma) engine..."[18][failed verification]

According to him, the propulsion will be able to support human mission to Mars, with cosmonauts staying on the Red planet for 30 days. This journey to Mars with nuclear propulsion and a steady acceleration would take six weeks, instead of eight months by using chemical propulsion – assuming thrust of 300 times higher than that of chemical propulsion.[19][20]

Terrestrial vehicles[edit]

Cars[edit]

The idea of making cars that used radioactive material, radium, for fuel dates back to at least 1903. Analysis of the concept in 1937 indicated that the driver of such a vehicle might need a 50-ton lead barrier to shield them from radiation.[21]

In 1941 Dr R M Langer, a Caltech physicist, espoused the idea of a car powered by uranium-235 in the January edition of Popular Mechanics. He was followed by William Bushnell Stout, designer of the Stout Scarab and former Society of Engineers president, on 7 August 1945 in The New York Times. The problem of shielding the reactor continued to render the idea impractical.[22] In December 1945, a John Wilson of London, announced he had created an atomic car. This created considerable interest. The Minister of Fuel and Power along with a large press contingent turned out to view it. The car did not show and Wilson claimed that it had been sabotaged. A later court case found that he was a fraud and there was no nuclear-powered car.[23][24]

Despite the shielding problem, through the late 1940s and early 1950s debate continued around the possibility of nuclear-powered cars. The development of nuclear-powered submarines and ships, and experiments to develop a nuclear-powered aircraft at that time kept the idea alive.[25] Russian papers in the mid-1950s reported the development of a nuclear-powered car by Professor V P Romadin, but again shielding proved to be a problem.[26] It was claimed that its laboratories had overcome the shielding problem with a new alloy that absorbed the rays.[27]

In 1958 at the height of the 1950s American automobile culture there were at least four theoretical nuclear-powered concept cars proposed, the American Ford Nucleon and Studebaker Packard Astral, as well as the French Simca Fulgur designed by Robert Opron[28][29] and the Arbel Symétric. Apart from these concept models, none were built and no automotive nuclear power plants ever made. Chrysler engineer C R Lewis had discounted the idea in 1957 because of estimates that an 80,000 lb (36,000 kg) engine would be required by a 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) car. His view was that an efficient means of storing energy was required for nuclear power to be practical.[30] Despite this, Chrysler's stylists in 1958 drew up some possible designs.

In 1959 it was reported that Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company had developed a new rubber compound that was light and absorbed radiation, obviating the need for heavy shielding. A reporter at the time considered it might make nuclear-powered cars and aircraft a possibility.[31]

Ford made another potentially nuclear-powered model in 1962 for the Seattle World's Fair, the Ford Seattle-ite XXI.[32][33] This also never went beyond the initial concept.

In 2009, for the hundredth anniversary of General Motors' acquisition of Cadillac, Loren Kulesus created concept art depicting a car powered by thorium.[34]

Other[edit]

The Chrysler TV-8 was an experimental concept tank designed by Chrysler in the 1950s.[1] The tank was intended to be a nuclear-powered medium tank capable of land and amphibious warfare. The design was never mass-produced.[35] The Mars rover Curiosity is powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), like the successful Viking 1 and Viking 2 Mars landers in 1976.[36][37]s="Z3988"> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_propulsion#Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

43 posted on 02/07/2023 4:46:50 PM PST by daniel1212 (Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute sinner, trust Him who saves, be baptized + follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

Thanks to you, and to everyone who helped me to understand this.
It’s a lot clearer now.


44 posted on 02/07/2023 4:57:05 PM PST by telescope115 (My feet are on the ground, and my head is in the stars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Isn’t part of the problem getting there quickly is also slowing down once you get there?


45 posted on 02/07/2023 6:59:46 PM PST by Mean Daddy (Every time Hillary lies, a demon gets its wings. - Windflier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last

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