Why the Reluctance to Employ Nuclear Propulsion for Interstellar Travel?

[Radrook]

The latest Mars rover (Curiosity) is also powered with a nuclear source. The Curiosity Rover Nuclear Battery Explained To All

That is a vast improvement over solar panels that's for sure. Night nor sandstorms pose no hindrance against continuous operation and no need for recharging! Fourteen long years of output! That means that if it were deployed today we could have it functioning until 2031.

 

[timewerx]

It was planned to be lifted into orbit conventionally and then the nuclear part would kick in after it reached outer space. No need to use it when it was close to Earth at all. We cannot reach one-tenth the speed of light with chemical rocket engines. The amount of fuel that would be needed is impractical.

You must realize new inventions doesn't come into reality without testing first -- to prove the concept works and to prove if it's reliable and resilient to failure.

And testing comes in stages. In order of increasing expense and complexity and closeness to production model.

Obviously, the initial tests would have to be done in the ground, on Earth. And then high altitude test to simulate operation in space....However, a direct-nuclear propulsion system generates radioactive particles that can settle to the ground. Testing on Earth would cause serious resistance from environmental groups.

There's an atmospheric nuclear propulsion program in the 60's. One of the strong reasons for cancellation of the program was the great difficulty of testing the model with the operational nuclear engine.

You can of course, conduct all test in deep space... But such magnitude of space development has never been done before and it would even be far bigger than the Apollo Space Program.... I don't think USA or Russia or a combined effort has the resources to pull it off.

 

[Radrook]

You must realize new inventions doesn't come into reality without testing first -- to prove the concept works and to prove if it's reliable and resilient to failure.

And testing comes in stages. In order of increasing expense and complexity and closeness to production model.

Obviously, the initial tests would have to be done in the ground, on Earth. And then high altitude test to simulate operation in space....However, a direct-nuclear propulsion system generates radioactive particles that can settle to the ground. Testing on Earth would cause serious resistance from environmental groups.

There's an atmospheric nuclear propulsion program in the 60's. One of the strong reasons for cancellation of the program was the great difficulty of testing the model with the operational nuclear engine.

You can of course, conduct all test in deep space... But such magnitude of space development has never been done before and it would even be far bigger than the Apollo Space Program.... I don't think USA or Russia or a combined effort has the resources to pull it off.

Here is a video showing the non--nuclear tests they did as prelimimaries:

This following video summarizes the plans to build such a ship:

 

[RDKirk]

You can of course, conduct all test in deep space... But such magnitude of space development has never been done before and it would even be far bigger than the Apollo Space Program.... I don't think USA or Russia or a combined effort has the resources to pull it off.

That's why I said the space station must come first.

 

[timewerx]

Here is a video showing the non--nuclear tests they did as prelimimaries:

There's a huge difference between nuclear and chemical explosion even at the same yield (same explosive energy). This make extensive nuclear testing inevitable and ultimately necessary. There's even a huge difference exploding a nuke near the ground in the air vs exploding it in space. And that makes nuclear testing in space necessary as well.

I used to have a book compiling all the huge space travel concepts back in the Cold War. It included Project Orion.

I have also researched many aspects of the effects of nuclear explosion in the atmosphere and in space (Starfish Prime and Operation Fishbowl). Unfortunately, several aspects remain classified (Top Secret) to this day.

I did all these research as part of my own effort to design and ultimately build an ultra-relativistic/Faster-than-Light propulsion system for interstellar travel.

Another big problem with the Orion spaceship is that it's going to be huge... Even if thinking of using "micro nukes" and unmanned/robotic package, it is still going to be very large. Even much larger than the entire Saturn V rocket. The large size (to achieve higher "fuel fraction" by weight) is necessary to maintain good levels of efficiency....But the size is also going to make it prohibitively expensive. It's even going to be much larger than the ship for the manned martian expedition.

Bottomline is the cost that would stop it from happening. It's going to be far more costly than the Apollo program unfortunately. But don't worry man, my own concept if works, will not have these problems. All I need is time!

 

[timewerx]

That's why I said the space station must come first.

You need a large supporting space station for that....

Unfortunately, the US Gov cancelled all these large space projects of the late 60's and 70's. Lack of funding, political reasons, etc.

 

[RDKirk]

You need a large supporting space station for that....

Unfortunately, the US Gov cancelled all these large space projects of the late 60's and 70's. Lack of funding, political reasons, etc.

And that means nothing else is actually going to happen. There won't be a manned mission to Mars.

Not that we need one. We don't need another political stunt. The implicit promise to us who marveled at the Space Race in the 60s was that it was leading to a permanent manned presence. The space shuttle was supposed to be used to build that permanent space station that would be the stepping stone further outward. We always knew the space station was essential, otherwise nothing more would happen.

And that's the way it has been.

 

[Shemjaza]

I just watched a video about this a couple of days ago:

 

[timewerx]

And that means nothing else is actually going to happen. There won't be a manned mission to Mars.

Not that we need one. We don't need another political stunt. The implicit promise to us who marveled at the Space Race in the 60s was that it was leading to a permanent manned presence. The space shuttle was supposed to be used to build that permanent space station that would be the stepping stone further outward. We always knew the space station was essential, otherwise nothing more would happen.

And that's the way it has been.

Not just a large space station in orbit but also required a permanent station/factories on the moon.

The moon facilities is necessary to reduce the costs of space projects to as little as only 10%!

This book is a very good source of info on those massive projects in space and also includes concepts on interstellar travel:

Colonies in Space: T.A. Heppenheimer: 9780446955591: Amazon.com: Books

 

[RDKirk]

Not just a large space station in orbit but also required a permanent station/factories on the moon.

The moon facilities is necessary to reduce the costs of space projects to as little as only 10%!

This book is a very good source of info on those massive projects in space and also includes concepts on interstellar travel:

Colonies in Space: T.A. Heppenheimer: 9780446955591: Amazon.com: Books

We ate and drank that vision when I was young in the 60s. For us, the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" was not science fiction, it was a promise.

But I don't believe anything like that is going to happen, at least not by the US, because the US no longer possesses the political will to carry out such major efforts. Not only will a space station or a moon base ever happen, but there will never be anything again like the Hoover Dam or the Eisenhower Defense Interstate System or the Tennessee Valley Authority project. Nothing that will take longer than one presidential election cycle will ever happen again.

 

[timewerx]

We ate and drank that vision when I was young in the 60s. For us, the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" was not science fiction, it was a promise.

But I don't believe anything like that is going to happen, at least not by the US, because the US no longer possesses the political will to carry out such major efforts. Not only will a space station or a moon base ever happen, but there will never be anything again like the Hoover Dam or the Eisenhower Defense Interstate System or the Tennessee Valley Authority project. Nothing that will take longer than one presidential election cycle will ever happen again.

That's because USA is slave to money. In USA, money is God.

Mark 4:19
but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful.

The love of money is what killed that dream!

 

[Radrook]

We ate and drank that vision when I was young in the 60s. For us, the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" was not science fiction, it was a promise.

.

I was young then as well and assumed it would be a reality by now. That's why I feel as if I was deceived and feel cheated. I think all of us who were relatively young at that time feel the same way and that feeling started as we realized that we were still wallowing around in low Earth orbit after decades had passed.

Additional insult was added to injury when the year 2001 actually arrived and we were still contentedly wallowing around in low Earth orbit with no real effort being made to establish that glorious moon base we had seen in 2001 a Space Odyssey.

Also the space station itself with no artificial gravity and with its sardines in a can extremely cramped quarters and hideous interior as opposed to that elegant one displayed on the film was also a great disappointment.

 

[timewerx]

I was young then as well and assumed it would be a reality by now. That's why I feel as if I was deceived and feel cheated. I think all of us who were relatively young at that time feel the same way and that feeling started as we realized that we were still wallowing around in low Earth orbit after decades had passed.

Additional insult was added to injury when the year 2001 actually arrived and we were still contentedly wallowing around in low Earth orbit with no real effort being made to establish that glorious moon base we had seen in 2001 a Space Odyssey.

Also the space station itself with no artificial gravity and with its sardines in a can extremely cramped quarters and hideous interior as opposed to that elegant one displayed on the film was also a great disappointment.

In the book Colonies in Space in the link on my previous post, there a very large NASA concept space station that looked quite like the one in Space Odyssey. It also rotates producing artificial gravity.

The huge projects have been planned right after the Apollo missions in the 70's right up to the early 2000's

It's a shame really because many of the massive space projects are deemed profitable! The ROI might be real slow but it can make very good money in the long run! Suddenly, everyone became cold feet about outer space.

 

[RDKirk]

Additional insult was added to injury when the year 2001 actually arrived and we were still contentedly wallowing around in low Earth orbit with no real effort being made to establish that glorious moon base we had seen in 2001 a Space Odyssey.

Not only did we not have the space station, we no longer even have Pan Am.

 

[KCfromNC]

Nuclear reaction is a method of creating heat. You may just as well have asked why we don't use a steam engine. The burning of fuel is valuable because it is a weight-efficient way to create propulsion (for current technology). For a nuclear reaction to be valuable in space, the heat must be used to propel matter in the opposite direction the ship must go. Where does that matter come from?

Typical designs use hydrogen as fuel : Nuclear thermal rocket - Wikipedia. Since the atomic weight of hydrogen is low it gives the rocket a pretty high Isp compared to those powered by chemical reactions. Plus you don't have to carry oxidizer to help things burn.

It would have to be carried on board just like any fuel is.

True, 44 years of fuel is one of many issues for a mission that long.

 

[Radrook]

Not only did we not have the space station, we no longer even have Pan Am.

Agree! Losing Pan Am was far more traumatizing! IMHO.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It would be devastating to Earth if it failed while in the atmosphere of the Earth (e.g. as it ascends to leave orbit).

Yeah... as someone who remembers the Challenger explosion, I think it was horrible enough without fallout.

 

[Radrook]

That's because USA is slave to money. In USA, money is God.

Mark 4:19
but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful.

The love of money is what killed that dream!

It says "In God we trust!" on the dollar bills.

 

[timewerx]

It says "In God we trust!" on the dollar bills.

Given the nature of the American Politics and Economy, I have doubts they trust and serve the same God that we do.

Not everyone who calls to "God" calls to the same God.

Matthew 7:22-23
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Jesus probably addressing the Pharisees who also calls out to "God"

John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

 

[Radrook]

Given the nature of the American Politics and Economy, I have doubts they trust and serve the same God that we do.

Not everyone who calls to "God" calls to the same God.

Matthew 7:22-23
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Jesus probably addressing the Pharisees who also calls out to "God"

John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Yes I know. I posted it as an ironic example. He said that in the USA they worship money. Lo and behold! The word "God" is placed on their money.

LOL!