XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

from
https://futurism.com/the-byte/nasa-nuclear-powered-rocket-mars

NASA SIGNS DEAL FOR NUCLEAR-POWERED ROCKET THAT WILL EVENTUALLY POWER
MARS MISSIONS
A NUCLEAR-POWERED ROCKET COULD CUT MARS COMMUTES IN HALF.
DARPA / FUTURISM
Going Nuclear
NASA, joined by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),
could be testing a nuclear-powered rocket in space within the next three
years.

On Wednesday, the agencies announced that the aerospace contractor
Lockheed Martin will design, build, and test a nuclear propulsion system
as part of an ambitious program called the Demonstration Rocket for
Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO).

NASA hopes that the technology it develops could eventually be used to
power trips to Mars, cutting their lengthy duration in half.

"NASA is looking to go to Mars with this system," Anthony Calomino, a
NASA engineer leading DRACO, told Ars Technica. "And this test is really
going to give us that foundation."

Martian Commute
How a nuclear powered rocket should work, in a nutshell, is that a
fission reactor using uranium would heat up extremely cold liquid
hydrogen, propelling hot gas out of a nozzle to generate thrust.

Though Lockheed will be responsible for most of the rocket, designing
the fission reactor itself will be done by another firm called BWX Technologies.

If all goes to plan, the first DRACO test could see a nuclear-powered
rocket in space as early as 2027. NASA itself is investing a chunky $300 million, with the overall value of the award totaling nearly $500 million.

Right now, getting to the Red Planet is a staggeringly lengthy and
expensive exercise. Even when Mars is at perigee — when the orbits align roughly every two years so that it’s at its closest point to Earth — a one-way trip can take at least six months, and usually longer.

That sluggishness owes to the inefficiency of chemically powered
rockets, which can't carry enough fuel to power the engines much longer
after launch.

But nuclear propulsion should be at least twice as efficient, according
to NASA, cutting down on heavy propellant, and lengthening the time the
engines could stay firing.

Long Time Coming
NASA has been contemplating nuclear propulsion since the Project Orion
days of the 50s and 60s, when it and the military entertained the idea
of chained atomic bomb detonations to propel a spacecraft.

After decades out of the spotlight, serious notions of using the
technology heated up again in recent years, as consensus grew amongst
NASA scientists that using nuclear engines would be the most practical
way of getting to Mars. In 2021, DARPA confirmed that it wanted to send
a nuclear-powered rocket into space.

Of course, anything involving nuclear technology comes with great safety concerns. With those in mind, the DRACO vehicle will be launched with
the reactor off, according to project manager Tabitha Dodson, as quoted
by The New York Times.

Only when it's reached a safe distance in space — somewhere between 435
miles to 1,240 miles above Earth — would it be turned on. At that
distance, the craft would stay in orbit for over 300 years, plenty long
enough for radioactive elements to safely decay.

More on NASA: International Space Station Suffers Comms Blackout Due to
Power Outage


NASA engineers have captured the first images of the interaction between shockwaves from a pair of flying supersonic aircraft — and they are
stunning.
SO BEAUTIFUL
NASA'S STUNNING IMAGE: SUPERSONIC SHOCKWAVES SMASHING TOGETHER
3. 9. 19
READ MORE
city-to-city rockets
ELON MUSK'S IDEA FOR CITY-TO-CITY ROCKETS JUST MIGHT WORK
10. 27. 17
READ MORE
NASA Developed an X-Plane that Can Go Supersonic Without a Boom featured
image
NASA DEVELOPED AN X-PLANE THAT CAN GO SUPERSONIC WITHOUT A BOOM
7. 26. 17

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

On 31/07/2023 19:23, a425couple wrote:

from
https://futurism.com/the-byte/nasa-nuclear-powered-rocket-mars

NASA SIGNS DEAL FOR NUCLEAR-POWERED ROCKET THAT WILL EVENTUALLY POWER
MARS MISSIONS
A NUCLEAR-POWERED ROCKET COULD CUT MARS COMMUTES IN HALF.
DARPA / FUTURISM
Going Nuclear
NASA, joined by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),
could be testing a nuclear-powered rocket in space within the next three years.

On Wednesday, the agencies announced that the aerospace contractor
Lockheed Martin will design, build, and test a nuclear propulsion system
as part of an ambitious program called the Demonstration Rocket for
Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO).

I heard that this was the next great thing back in the 1970's , the
project was called NERVA as I recall and it seems not so much to have
died asgone into hibernation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

On 7/31/23 14:08, Keith Willshaw wrote:

On 31/07/2023 19:23, a425couple wrote:

from
https://futurism.com/the-byte/nasa-nuclear-powered-rocket-mars

NASA SIGNS DEAL FOR NUCLEAR-POWERED ROCKET THAT WILL EVENTUALLY POWER
MARS MISSIONS
A NUCLEAR-POWERED ROCKET COULD CUT MARS COMMUTES IN HALF.
DARPA / FUTURISM
Going Nuclear
NASA, joined by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),
could be testing a nuclear-powered rocket in space within the next
three years.

On Wednesday, the agencies announced that the aerospace contractor
Lockheed Martin will design, build, and test a nuclear propulsion
system as part of an ambitious program called the Demonstration Rocket
for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO).

I heard that this was the next great thing back in the 1970's , the
project was called NERVA as I recall and it seems not so much to have
died asgone into hibernation.

Barely related,
But Keith, you might enjoy the sci-fi book
"Saturn Run" by John Sandford.

https://www.amazon.com/Saturn-Run-John-Sandford/dp/1101987529

Saturn Run Paperback – February 7, 2017
by John Sandford (Author), Ctein (Author)
4.1 4.1 out of 5 stars 6,470 ratings 3.9 on Goodreads 13,797 ratings Editors' pick
Best Mystery, Thriller & Suspense
See all formats and editions

Hardcover
$13.75
You Earn: 14 pts
121 Used from $1.23
39 New from $7.00
25 Collectible from $4.99
Paperback
$7.48
You Earn: 8 pts
74 Used from $1.68
10 New from $7.48

"Fans of The Martian will enjoy this extraordinary new thriller of the
future from #1 New York Times bestselling and Pulitzer Prize–winning
author John Sandford and internationally known photo-artist and science
fiction aficionado Ctein.

In 2066, a Caltech intern notices an anomaly from a space
telescope—something is approaching Saturn, and decelerating. Space
objects don’t decelerate. Spaceships do...

A flurry of top-level government meetings produce the inescapable
conclusion: Whatever built the ship is at least one hundred years ahead
of our technology, and whoever can get their hands on it will have an
advantage so large, no other nation can compete.

The race is on, and a remarkable adventure begins. Soon a hastily thrown-together crew finds its strength and wits tested against
adversaries of this earth and beyond. So buckle up, because two
perfectly matched storytellers are about to take you for a ride..."

Review
“A terrific story of alien first contact. It’s a book Michael Crichton would have enjoyed, but never could have written...With the able
partnership of Ctein, it’s fast, scientifically believable, and peopled
by characters who become good friends. Fans of Lucas Davenport and
Virgil Flowers will eat this up.”—Stephen King

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

"a425couple" wrote in message news:Sn_xM.351137$AsA.210928@fx18.iad...

On 7/31/23 14:08, Keith Willshaw wrote:

I heard that this was the next great thing back in the 1970's , the
project was called NERVA as I recall and it seems not so much to have died asgone into hibernation.

Barely related,
But Keith, you might enjoy the sci-fi book
"Saturn Run" by John Sandford.

--------------------------

Closely related, DRACO is a step backwards from NERVA because it doesn't use weapons-grade Uranium. https://www.supercluster.com/editorial/darpa-is-reigniting-the-nuclear-engine

"After a comprehensive testing regime, the rocket engine was eventually
deemed suitable for spaceflight operations by NASA and ready for missions to Mars."

"But the rising costs of the Vietnam War and a dwindling NASA budget made it harder to fund the NERVA program. President Johnson was adamant to keep the
US nuclear propulsion program alive, funding NERVA specifically twice. But
as President Nixon came to power in ’69, cost-cutting went into effect, and he canceled the program by 1973 to fund the Space Shuttle."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

On 01/08/2023 22:28, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Closely related, DRACO is a step backwards from NERVA because it doesn't
use weapons-grade Uranium. https://www.supercluster.com/editorial/darpa-is-reigniting-the-nuclear-engine

"After a comprehensive testing regime, the rocket engine was eventually deemed suitable for spaceflight operations by NASA and ready for
missions to Mars."

"But the rising costs of the Vietnam War and a dwindling NASA budget
made it harder to fund the NERVA program. President Johnson was adamant
to keep the US nuclear propulsion program alive, funding NERVA
specifically twice. But as President Nixon came to power in ’69, cost-cutting went into effect, and he canceled the program by 1973 to
fund the Space Shuttle."

The concern I have is what happens if the launch vehicle malfunctions ?
At the end of the day you are still putting a nuclear reactor along with
its enriched fuel on top of a rocket and we know that launch vehicles
sometimes fail. Scattering several hundred pounds of enriched uranium
over the area downwind of a launcher is not going to win you any brownie points.

I am familiar with the NERVA design and the thing that cancerns me and
always always did is that you cannot run it on a test stand and then
load it into the launch vehicle. because of the radiation levels. Worse
the engine was expected to run with a max temp of 651 Kelvin (378C) but
on testing the tie rod temperatures averaged at 1095 K (822 C) and a
hole was burned in the nozzle.

Now the NTR design is supposed to fix all this but I worked in the
nuclear business to be rather sceptical of radical designs that can only
be tested by launching them on a rather large chemically powered rocket,
its not unknown to have them explosively dismantle themselves on launch.

However a high powered ion drive for use in transit after launch could
cut transit times to planets such as mars as relativel small amounts of
thrust can be sustained for months and their specific impulse makes them extremely efficient.

As for NASA I am afraid that since the Space Shuttle they have promised
much in the way of all singing all dancing manned space vehicles but
delivered nothing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:uagni3$rikv$1@dont-email.me...

The concern I have is what happens if the launch vehicle malfunctions ?
At the end of the day you are still putting a nuclear reactor along with
its enriched fuel on top of a rocket and we know that launch vehicles
sometimes fail. Scattering several hundred pounds of enriched uranium
over the area downwind of a launcher is not going to win you any brownie points.

I am familiar with the NERVA design and the thing that cancerns me and
always always did is that you cannot run it on a test stand and then
load it into the launch vehicle. because of the radiation levels. Worse
the engine was expected to run with a max temp of 651 Kelvin (378C) but
on testing the tie rod temperatures averaged at 1095 K (822 C) and a
hole was burned in the nozzle.

Now the NTR design is supposed to fix all this but I worked in the
nuclear business to be rather sceptical of radical designs that can only
be tested by launching them on a rather large chemically powered rocket,
its not unknown to have them explosively dismantle themselves on launch.

However a high powered ion drive for use in transit after launch could
cut transit times to planets such as mars as relativel small amounts of
thrust can be sustained for months and their specific impulse makes them extremely efficient.

As for NASA I am afraid that since the Space Shuttle they have promised
much in the way of all singing all dancing manned space vehicles but
delivered nothing.

----------------------------

How would you use the nuclear source to generate enough electricity to run
an "afterburner" that further accelerates the exhaust from a relatively low temperature NERVA or DRACO engine? PIDEC?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

Keith Willshaw wrote on 4/8/23 3:18 am:

On 01/08/2023 22:28, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Closely related, DRACO is a step backwards from NERVA because it
doesn't use weapons-grade Uranium.
https://www.supercluster.com/editorial/darpa-is-reigniting-the-nuclear-engine

"After a comprehensive testing regime, the rocket engine was
eventually deemed suitable for spaceflight operations by NASA and
ready for missions to Mars."

"But the rising costs of the Vietnam War and a dwindling NASA
budget made it harder to fund the NERVA program. President Johnson
was adamant to keep the US nuclear propulsion program alive,
funding NERVA specifically twice. But as President Nixon came to
power in ’69, cost-cutting went into effect, and he canceled the
program by 1973 to fund the Space Shuttle."

The concern I have is what happens if the launch vehicle malfunctions
? At the end of the day you are still putting a nuclear reactor along
with its enriched fuel on top of a rocket and we know that launch
vehicles sometimes fail. Scattering several hundred pounds of
enriched uranium over the area downwind of a launcher is not going to
win you any brownie points.

I am familiar with the NERVA design and the thing that cancerns me
and always always did is that you cannot run it on a test stand and
then load it into the launch vehicle. because of the radiation
levels. Worse the engine was expected to run with a max temp of 651
Kelvin (378C) but on testing the tie rod temperatures averaged at
1095 K (822 C) and a hole was burned in the nozzle.

Now the NTR design is supposed to fix all this but I worked in the
nuclear business to be rather sceptical of radical designs that can
only be tested by launching them on a rather large chemically powered
rocket, its not unknown to have them explosively dismantle themselves
on launch.

However a high powered ion drive for use in transit after launch
could cut transit times to planets such as mars as relativel small
amounts of thrust can be sustained for months and their specific
impulse makes them extremely efficient.

As for NASA I am afraid that since the Space Shuttle they have
promised much in the way of all singing all dancing manned space
vehicles but delivered nothing.

I had figured they would use regular rockets to get into orbit and then
switch to Nuclear powered rockets once in orbit.

Perhaps after mining the Nuclear fuel from asteroids rather than having
to launch it from Earth's surface.
--
Daniel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

On 04/08/2023 12:29, Daniel65 wrote:

I had figured they would use regular rockets to get into orbit and then switch to Nuclear powered rockets once in orbit.

Perhaps after mining the Nuclear fuel from asteroids rather than having
to launch it from Earth's surface.

You still have the risk of launching a nuclear reactor which by
definition is large and heavy and a failed launch could end up at best
in the Ocean and at worst in the middle of a city.

This explains what an ion thruster is. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/723/a-brief-history-of-ion-propulsion/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 4:16:58 AM UTC-4, Keith Willshaw wrote:

On 04/08/2023 12:29, Daniel65 wrote:

I had figured they would use regular rockets to get into orbit and then switch to Nuclear powered rockets once in orbit.

Perhaps after mining the Nuclear fuel from asteroids rather than having
to launch it from Earth's surface.

You still have the risk of launching a nuclear reactor which by
definition is large and heavy and a failed launch could end up at best
in the Ocean and at worst in the middle of a city.

Launched rockets are quickly destroyed if they leave specified trajectory parameters.

In the case of Cape Canaveral the debris falls in the ocean or on the space center
land. Never in a city.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

Keith Willshaw wrote on 12/8/23 6:16 pm:

On 04/08/2023 12:29, Daniel65 wrote:

I had figured they would use regular rockets to get into orbit and
then switch to Nuclear powered rockets once in orbit.

Perhaps after mining the Nuclear fuel from asteroids rather than
having to launch it from Earth's surface.

You still have the risk of launching a nuclear reactor which by
definition is large and heavy and a failed launch could end up at best
in the Ocean and at worst in the middle of a city.

Yeah, that was why I suggested mining the Nuclear fuel from Asteroids
rather than taking it into orbit from Earth's surface.

This explains what an ion thruster is. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/723/a-brief-history-of-ion-propulsion/

Ta.
--
Daniel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"koz...@yahoo.com" wrote in message news:d1015944-c07e-4ef1-a5d0-413814aad0een@googlegroups.com...

Launched rockets are quickly destroyed if they leave specified trajectory parameters.

In the case of Cape Canaveral the debris falls in the ocean or on the space center
land. Never in a city.

---------------------

Not yet. Gross failures are quickly destroyed before reaching orbital
velocity and fall into the ocean but failures to reach the intended orbit aren't, and may come down anywhere under their path due to drag from the residual atmosphere at lower orbits.

I worked on this project:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milstar
"Due to a database error affecting the attitude control system of the
Centaur upper stage of its carrier rocket, it was placed into a lower orbit than had been planned, and damaged by deployment at excessive rates. It
could not be raised into its operational orbit due to fuel limitations. Its orbit was raised as much as possible to increase the expected lifetime and
then it was permanently turned off after 10 days. It was the third
consecutive, and last, failure of a Titan IV rocket."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/how-nasa-steers-the-international-space-station-around-space-junk/
At 250 miles / 400 km:
"The ISS' orbit decays due to atmospheric drag at the rate of about two kilometers per year; it must periodically be boosted in order to maintain
its height."

As I mentioned previously, ISS trash can be simply tossed out the back and
drag will pull it to lower orbit. Unlike the ocean the atmosphere doesn't simply stop at some level, it just keeps thinning out with increasing
altitude, boosted by solar heating. Do you remember the US Skylab and Soviet Mir and Salyut (Almaz) space stations coming down?

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/1127/10-things-to-know-about-the-ionosphere/ I learned radio technology from a researcher who had measured those
properties with a radio telescope dish pointed straight up.
jsw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

"Daniel65" wrote in message news:ubaglh$1qpor$2@dont-email.me...

Yeah, that was why I suggested mining the Nuclear fuel from Asteroids
rather than taking it into orbit from Earth's surface.

Daniel

------------------

Heavy elements suited to nuclear uses were originally separated and refined
by small scale laboratory processes with minimal glassware, until radiation exposure and accidents proved fatal and changed the processing to much
heavier automated, remotely controlled and shielded equipment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie
"Marie Curie died in 1934, aged 66, ..., of aplastic anemia likely from exposure to radiation in the course of her scientific research and in the course of her radiological work at field hospitals during World War I."

Enriching Uranium in more than microscopic quantities is particularly difficult, if it wasn't Iran would have the bomb by now and the Nazis might have succeeded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

It's a typical technical problem, all steps but one are easy, that one is nearly impossible.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

On 13/08/2023 13:00, Daniel65 wrote:

Keith Willshaw wrote on 12/8/23 6:16 pm:

On 04/08/2023 12:29, Daniel65 wrote:

I had figured they would use regular rockets to get into orbit and
then switch to Nuclear powered rockets once in orbit.

Perhaps after mining the Nuclear fuel from asteroids rather than
having to launch it from Earth's surface.

You still have the risk of launching a nuclear reactor which by
definition is large and heavy and a failed launch could end up at best
in the Ocean and at worst in the middle of a city.

Yeah, that was why I suggested mining the Nuclear fuel from Asteroids
rather than taking it into orbit from Earth's surface.

This explains what an ion thruster is.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/723/a-brief-history-of-ion-propulsion/

Ta.

There are a few snags here.

1) I doubt there is much in the way of nuclear fuel in the asteroid
belt, yes there will be iron and other heavy metals but finding enough
uranium, enriching it to a useful percentage of U-235 and the
fabricating and testing are tricky enough on earth.

2) The hard part is getting out of the gravity well of our planet.

From what we have learned from probes there are 3 basic types of asteroid.

a) Carbonaceous
b) Silicaceous
c) Metallic

The latter are rare and dont seem to contain much in the way of fissile materials. If we are lucky they MAY have been separated out by orbital
dynamics but we simply dont know.

If you want a simple way to get to the belt try a light sail. https://www.planetary.org/sci-tech/lightsail

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 13/08/2023 04:31, koz...@yahoo.com wrote:

Launched rockets are quickly destroyed if they leave specified trajectory parameters.

In the case of Cape Canaveral the debris falls in the ocean or on the space center
land. Never in a city.

Indeed but if the rocket is nuclear powered that dumps a lot of highly radioactive meterial just offshore where it can :

a) Enter the food chain through fishing
b) Wash up on the beach

That area is rather popular with tourists bringing in billions, the last
figure I saw was over $100 billion per annum with fishing being worth
around $5 billion a year.

As I said in an earlier post a low thrust, high energy ion drive is a
very useful thing for long range space probles without all the baggage
that goes with fission.

Even a large conventional rocket can do immense damage, see the Ariane V
failed launch which was basically the result of a software issue. The
result was a catastrophic breakup at relatively low height just 37
seconds into the flight at a height of 3.7 km

The result was the scattering of burning solid fuel and its toxic
products over the launchpad just 1 minute into the flight.

See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6PWATvLQCY
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tJPXYA0Nec

My speciality was safety, where optimists always work on the basis that
stuff works, my assumption was that things WOULD go wrong. We used to brainstorm failure modes but that was how nuclear design was handled in
the UK before government shut it down assuming we could just burn oil,
coal and gas forever - Oops !

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:uc1v82$2bu6t$1@dont-email.me...

There are a few snags here.

1) I doubt there is much in the way of nuclear fuel in the asteroid
belt, yes there will be iron and other heavy metals but finding enough
uranium, enriching it to a useful percentage of U-235 and the
fabricating and testing are tricky enough on earth.

2) The hard part is getting out of the gravity well of our planet.

From what we have learned from probes there are 3 basic types of asteroid.

a) Carbonaceous
b) Silicaceous
c) Metallic

The latter are rare and dont seem to contain much in the way of fissile materials. If we are lucky they MAY have been separated out by orbital
dynamics but we simply dont know.

If you want a simple way to get to the belt try a light sail. https://www.planetary.org/sci-tech/lightsail

------------------------------

The finding part isn't that difficult in a vacuum because we have several remote sensing techniques to detect elements on or near the surface while orbiting or flying slowly past asteroids. https://kiss.caltech.edu/workshops/primitive/presentations/blacksberg.pdf

A recovered sample can be analyzed with the hand-held instrument scrap metal dealers use. https://www.bruker.com/en/products-and-solutions/elemental-analyzers/handheld-xrf-spectrometers.html

The really difficult part is separating the 0.7% of uranium that's useful
from the 99.3% that isn't. Chemically they are identical so inefficient physical processes that take advantage of the ~1% weight difference between
the isotopes must be used. That's why Iran has been struggling so long to acquire enough for a bomb. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/introduction/what-is-uranium-how-does-it-work.aspx

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)