article: Russia to use nuclear propulsion for space travel?

[CougarKing]

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.

Anatoly Perminov told a government meeting that the preliminary design could be ready by 2012. He said it will then take nine more years and $600 million to build the ship.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev urged the Cabinet to consider providing the necessary funding.
"It's a very serious project," Medvedev said. "We need to find the money."

Perminov's ambitious statement contrasted with the state of the Russian space program, and sounded more like a plea for extra government funds than a detailed proposal.

Russia is using 40-year-old Soyuz booster rockets and capsules to send crews to the International Space Station. Development of a replacement rocket and a prospective spaceship with a conventional propellant has dragged on with no end in sight.

Perminov described the spaceship as a "unique breakthrough project." He said the ship will have a megawatt-class nuclear reactor, as opposed to small nuclear reactors that powered Soviet satellites.

Perminov didn't say what the new spaceship will be used for.

The Russian space agency has mulled over future missions to the moon and Mars, but hasn't set a time frame.

 

[VIChris]

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]

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]

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

Cheers,

 

[wannabe SF member]

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]

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]

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]

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

After decades of short-sighted parochialism, our space policy chickens are finally coming home to roost.

This past Friday, Russian news agencies quoted a Russian Space Agency official as refusing to let “unsafe” vehicles [1] dock to the International Space Station (ISS).

Sounds reasonable, right?

But it’s not what it seems. In reality, it is a bare-knuckled attempt to prevent competition from an upstart American company.

Here’s the background. Back in 2004, in the wake of the loss of the space shuttle Columbia, the Bush administration decided to end the program in 2010 (last year –  its two final flights have been delayed into the current year, but the last one will almost certainly occur before 2011 is out). But this presented a problem. The shuttle was America’s only means of accessing the ISS. Thus, without a shuttle, or something to replace its functional capability to get American astronauts to and from orbit, the decision would make us completely, rather than only partially, dependent on the Russian Soyuz (that vehicle has been the “lifeboat” for the ISS, because the shuttle could only stay in orbit for a couple weeks, and couldn’t be docked there for months like the Soyuz).

Thus, at the time of the decision to retire the shuttle, the administration also declared, as part of the Vision for Space Exploration [2] announced in January of that year, that NASA would develop a “Crew Exploration Vehicle” (CEV). In addition to allowing astronauts to venture beyond earth orbit, this new vehicle, to be available no later than 2014 (and hopefully much sooner), would also be used to provide both access to and from ISS and a lifeboat function, reducing or eliminating our dependence on the Russians.

Unfortunately, a not-so-funny thing happened on the way to 2014. Instead of focusing on the CEV, which could have been launched on an existing vehicle (such as a United Launch Alliance Atlas V), Mike Griffin’s NASA decided to build an all-new launcher, called Ares I (as a down payment on a much larger one later, designated Ares V). Part of the rationale for this was to maintain congressional support for the program, by utilizing the same (expensive) work force that was currently involved in shuttle operations, in no-bid, sole-source contracts.

In 2009, a blue-ribbon panel led by space industry veteran Norman Augustine concluded that after spending ten billion dollars on the Ares and Orion (the latter had become the new name for the CEV), they were still tens of billions of dollars, and at least eight years away, from completion. That is, by diverting NASA’s scarce resources on a flawed and unnecessary new rocket design with no competition, the agency has actually increased the “gap” during which we would be utterly reliant on the Russians, from this year into the indefinite future.

Fortunately, there was a back-up plan, reportedly imposed on NASA by the White House, in which other companies were being groomed to at least provide cargo logistics to the ISS with the end of the shuttle. Called the Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS), it was a series of low-cost, fixed-price contracts, one of which culminated in a successful flight of the pressurized Dragon capsule on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle in December, by Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX).

Having demonstrated the ability to deliver and reenter the capsule, with cargo (they carried a wheel of cheese on board), the next step is to demonstrate the ability to dock with the ISS. Once this has been done, SpaceX will be able to start to support the ISS and make up for some of the loss of shuttle capabilities. Beyond this, they (along with other companies) were recently awarded [3] seventy-five million dollars to initiate development of systems that will allow the Dragon to deliver and return crew, as well as serve as a lifeboat.

Now enter the Russians. The ISS has been a very nice bit of business for them, providing them with a lot of hard currency (to the degree that such a phrase can be said to apply to the dollar any more) during the nineties in its construction, and since it became permanently crewed over a decade ago. Because they have a monopoly on lifeboat services and (starting next year) on crew transportation, they’ve been accordingly jacking up the price (the latest contract is for $63M per seat, while SpaceX proposes $20M). In addition, they’ve gotten a continual pass on the Iran/North-Korea/Syria Non-Proliferation Act, because Congress has been forced to waive its requirements for them every time a new contract is negotiated, despite the fact that they continue to help Iran develop nukes and missiles.

Obviously, it is not in their interest to see competition emerge at all, let alone from an upstart private American company with whom they (like the Chinese [4]) will not be able to compete on price. Happily for them, as one of the “partners” on the ISS, they have the ability to throw a wrench into the competitor’s works, as they demonstrated on Friday. They do, in fact, have veto power on issues involving safety. It is quite convenient for them that the only real way to demonstrate the ability to safely dock with the station is to do so, a feat that they can declare “unsafe,” and thus result in a Catch-22 situation in which the burden of proof is on SpaceX to do something that it will not be allowed to do. Other unmanned vehicles, from Europe and Japan, have docked to the ISS in the past, with no objections from the Russians, but those vehicles didn’t threaten their crew-transportation monopoly.

Congress, of course, threatened last year to make things worse. The House originally wanted to provide zero funds for commercial crew, diverting them entirely to the make-work Senate Launch System [5]. Fortunately, a limited degree of sanity prevailed, and while the Congress still got its three-billion-dollar earmark [6], there is also funding for commercial crew, which offers the only hope of ending the gap and our reliance on the extortionate Russians. In the meantime, NASA has few good choices, if it wants to continue participation in the ISS. We may be shipping money to Russia that could go to private American companies, and allowing them to continue to aid our enemies, for years to come.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

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

URLs in this post:

[1] refusing to let “unsafe” vehicles: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gwqkGCR7xfe1lPXZh_GCnA4FwwGw?docId=6641232

[2] Vision for Space Exploration: http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/Vision/index.html

[3] recently awarded: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/22/6513980-how-tycoons-will-fuel-spaceflight

[4] like the Chinese: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/04/shooting-moon-amid-cuts

[5] Senate Launch System: http://www.competitivespace.org/issues/the-senate-launch-system/

[6] three-billion-dollar earmark: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/04/constellation-dead-long-live-constellation

 

[DBA]

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]

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]

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).