Skip to comments.
MITEE - A Miniature Nuclear Propulsion Engine
New WOrlds COM ^
| FR Post 4-26-02
| Editorial Staff
Posted on 04/26/2002 8:09:24 AM PDT by vannrox
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
1
posted on
04/26/2002 8:09:25 AM PDT
by
vannrox
To: vannrox
Well one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this article takes a rocket scientist to figure it out.
2
posted on
04/26/2002 8:18:02 AM PDT
by
DSHambone
To: space;vannrox;RightWhale;gcruse;anymouse;RadioAstronomer;NonZeroSum;Cincinatus’ Wife;Cincinatus...
Ping list.
3
posted on
04/26/2002 8:21:24 AM PDT
by
Brett66
To: DSHambone
"Zactly. I got tiredhead in the first sentence. Please, Freeper Engineers, explain this mess!
To: vannrox
Now that O'Keefe has put NASA back into the nuke business, maybe we can get back on track with outer planet exploration (not only nuclear thermal propulsion, but new RTG power supplies, too.)
To: Republic of Texas
Radioactive fuel elements generate heat. You pour in cool hydrogen and hot hydrogen comes out. You make a rocket nozzle and you have thrust. It's called a nuclear thermal rocket engine.
To: vannrox
BTTT
To: vannrox
Bump for later.
To: Cincinatus
What ever happened to their ion engine experiments? I remember that NASA launched a probe equipped with one a while back, but I never heard about how it performed.
To: patton
My new freeper friend, patton, might be able to help.
PING....
To: DSHambone
Allow a rocket scientist to comment:
Nuclear thermal rockets are indeed a great idea. However, keep this in mind: each pound of thrust requires about 20 kilowatts (thermal) of power. To equal the SSME, that works out to 9400 megawatts. That is a BIG reactor. SSME has a thrust-to-weight of about 70:1. The best nuclear thermal rocket has a thrust-to-weight of possibly 30 (assuming values given in this article).
Nuclear thermal rockets are thus not useful (or politically possible) as boosters launching from the ground.
A space engine, with a thrust of 20000 to 50000 pounds, is a better match.
I once read a wonderful article in 1969, entitled, To Mars and Back in 30 Days by Gas-Core Nuclear Rocket. Never forgot it. But gas-core nuclear rockets are way in the future--if ever.
--Boris
11
posted on
04/26/2002 8:30:56 AM PDT
by
boris
To: vannrox
There was also an interesting designed called "Dumbo" which was much better than NERVA/KIWI...
--Boris
12
posted on
04/26/2002 8:31:37 AM PDT
by
boris
To: Republic of Texas;DSHambone
This engine is basically twice as efficient as the shuttle's main engine and it's very lightweight. It would be an excellent propulsion for a Mars mission, a return to the moon or just about anything we want to do in space in the future.
13
posted on
04/26/2002 8:33:21 AM PDT
by
Brett66
To: boris
So the thrust to weight ratio is still not sufficient to replace rocket boosters?
To: Zeroisanumber
It's still in use on several, experimental missions, most notably
Deep Space-1, which recently flew by comet Borelly -- click
HERE for details.
Ion (solar electric) propulsion is good for unmanned missions which require low thrust, but long, constant operation. Nuclear thermal operates like a conventional engine (high-thrust, short thrust duration), but with about twice the total power of conventional chemical rockets.
To: boris
Thank you - I know we've used plutonium in a ceramic matrix to power satelites, but that stuff is near indestructable - could you ever send a nuclear reactor into space with an acceptable level of safety?
To: viligantcitizen
See # 11. Boris is the propulsion guy.
17
posted on
04/26/2002 8:53:01 AM PDT
by
patton
To: Brett66;boris
Thanks for the ping. This is the stuff I like to read but I'll have to get back to it later. Use americium-242m and call it "The American Drive".
Say, boris, the article you mention about going to Mars and back was about americium-242m wasn't it? Or is there another super-potent fissile material (californium?)?
18
posted on
04/26/2002 9:23:06 AM PDT
by
techcor
To: vannrox
Looks like a basic, simple design, the kind of machine that would run forever with no maintenance, or close to it.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
fyi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson