# article: Russia to use nuclear propulsion for space travel?



## CougarKing (30 Oct 2009)

The "space race" for the Moon and Mars heating up again?



> http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2009/10/29/11562161-sun.html
> 
> MOSCOW -- *Russia's space agency is planning to build a new spaceship with a nuclear engine, its chief said yesterday.
> 
> ...


----------



## VIChris (30 Oct 2009)

In asking this question, I'm admitting to not keeping up on my study of physics, but how do you develop thrust for travel in the upper atmosphere and outer space from electrical power? Or is there some other form of energy that can be derived, in a controlled, non-explosive manner, from a nuclear source? I know it can be used to turn a prop shaft or turbine, but that has many limits, well below what's required of space craft.

Either way, interesting to see where they're going with this technology, despite what I think about the usefulness of space travel.


----------



## wannabe SF member (30 Oct 2009)

VIChris said:
			
		

> In asking this question, I'm admitting to not keeping up on my study of physics, but how do you develop thrust for travel in the upper atmosphere and outer space from electrical power? Or is there some other form of energy that can be derived, in a controlled, non-explosive manner, from a nuclear source? I know it can be used to turn a prop shaft or turbine, but that has many limits, well below what's required of space craft.
> 
> Either way, interesting to see where they're going with this technology, despite what I think about the usefulness of space travel.



I looked up _electric propulsion_ on Wikipedia, here's what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_propulsion


----------



## Swingline1984 (30 Oct 2009)

I'm more concerned about the thing blowing up in the atmosphere than what it will be used for.  :-\

Cheers,


----------



## wannabe SF member (30 Oct 2009)

Russia's already used smaller nuclear reactors to power some of it's satellites in the past, nothing new here. 
As for the thing blowing up in the atmosphere, well I guess since we're not talking about an industrial scale nuclear reactor there isn't a lot of chance of it turning into another Tchernobyl.


----------



## VIChris (30 Oct 2009)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> I looked up _electric propulsion_ on Wikipedia, here's what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_propulsion



Ah, that link makes sense of things. Most of what we're likely to see will still involve a chemical propellant within our atmosphere, but as with some of the propulsion systems mentioned in the article, will be made more efficient by electrical energy.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2009)

From a technical perspective, this is nothing new. Nuclear propulsion systems have been proposed and even bench tested since the 1950's.

The most serious efforts were NERVA, which uses the thermal energy of nuclear reactors to heat propellant; it was seriously proposed for post Apollo missions to Mars and revived in the 1980's (as "Timberwind") for propelling large payloads needed for the SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative AKA "Star Wars").

One astounding nuclear propulsion system was Project ORION, which used atomic bombs to propel super large payloads; scientists like Theodore Taylor and Freeman Dyson were involved and seriously proposed 4000 ton spacecraft to take off from Earth and go to Mars by 1965 and Saturn by 1970.

More modest proposals today involve using nuclear reactors to provide electrical energy for ion or plasma engines, a VASMIR plasma engine powered by a powerful enough reactor could (theoretically) take a human crew to Mars in 39 days, rather than the six months to two years most other systems would allow.

While the technology exists, the political will does not (at least not in the West).


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2011)

The Russians have "gone nuclear" to prevent private contractors from becoming players in the space industry
A sad story. Of course companies like SpaceX and Bigelow could conceivably build and support a new space station (or even a series of space stations) at a much faster pace and lower cost than NASA, but too many apple carts would be threatened (jobs in Congressional districts, Aerospace company fixed cost contracts and so on) to think this will happen. There isn't enough commercial business yet for SpaceX or Bigelow to go it alone, so we are stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. Without the ability to develop new technologies and techniques in space, there will be less chance to move to the next stage (lunar landing, going to Near Earth Asteroids etc.):

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-over-a-russian-barrel



> *NASA Over a Russian Barrel*
> 
> Posted By Rand Simberg On April 27, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Europe,Politics,Russia,Science,Science & Technology,Space,US News | 3 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## DBA (27 Apr 2011)

Inky said:
			
		

> Russia's already used smaller nuclear reactors to power some of it's satellites in the past, nothing new here.
> As for the thing blowing up in the atmosphere, well I guess since we're not talking about an industrial scale nuclear reactor there isn't a lot of chance of it turning into another Chernobyl.



Nothing new with them botching it and spreading the debris from such a reactor across Canada either. Just Google for Kosmos 954.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (27 Apr 2011)

If my memory serves me correctly, isn't there a treaty from the '50-60's banning the use of nuclear propulsion systems in space? The original intention was to ban nuclear weapons, but nuclear propulsion systems also fell under the treaty.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jun 2011)

The only direct victim of the treaty was project ORION, which used actual nuclear bombs as the "physics package" to power a proposed 4000 ton spacecraft to Mars.

For the most part, spacecraft orbiting the Earth can get enough electrical energy using solar panels, while deep space probes need to be as light as possible so they can be boosted into interplanetary orbits, which rules out heavy nuclear reactors as power supplies. RTG's use the heat of nuclear decay to provide a compact and reliable power supply, but RTG's don't provide enough power to energize a propulsion system, just the on board electronics.

Given the hysteria that surrounds nuclear energy today, it will be a long time, if ever, before nuclear propulsion becomes a useful option for spacecraft (or at least western spacecraft. I doubt the Russians or Chinese have any qualms about this).


----------

