|
Post by gedzilla on Feb 16, 2017 16:17:48 GMT
I dont understand why the Musk doesnt just use NTR's for the spaceship. After all, the second stage's rockets only burn in space. Environmentalists aren't exactly logical. Plus, sure, lets hand a civillian some weapons grade fuel. Go on. Of all the civilians out there to hand weapons grade fuel to, it would be Musk that I would rather. Hell, I'd trust him to handle it more responsibly than some military leaders out there
|
|
|
Post by ash19256 on Feb 16, 2017 19:19:42 GMT
Plus, NERVA, IIRC, didn't use weapons grade fuel, and you wouldn't need to use it in a modernized version either. It's a reactor, not a bomb, which means you can get around low refinement fissile materials by using more of them in your reactor. As such, it would basically just be Musk getting permission to fly an active nuclear reactor around on his rockets. Considering that IIRC, the second stage makes orbit and stays in space, the environmentalists would have a hell of a lot fewer legs to stand on, especially if the stage had enough fuel left over to move itself into a disposal orbit away from the orbits for anything important, ideally also high enough that they will stay up for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Feb 16, 2017 20:25:41 GMT
Like with most applications of nuclear power, the technical and safety hurdles aren't too big a deal. Putting it on a rocket is more difficult than putting it on the ground of course, but shouldn't be a deal breaker especially if the part with the reactor never comes back down.
It's the irrational fear and the government leviathan that feeds on it that'll kill a NERVA project as dead as a doornail.
Perhaps one day our ambition and/or our hunger for ever more efficient rockets will drive us to overcome it, or perhaps we'll leapfrog straight to fusion rockets.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Feb 16, 2017 20:44:10 GMT
Like with most applications of nuclear power, the technical and safety hurdles aren't too big a deal. Putting it on a rocket is more difficult than putting it on the ground of course, but shouldn't be a deal breaker especially if the part with the reactor never comes back down. It's the irrational fear and the government leviathan that feeds on it that'll kill a NERVA project as dead as a doornail. Perhaps one day our ambition and/or our hunger for ever more efficient rockets will drive us to overcome it, or perhaps we'll leapfrog straight to fusion rockets. Or leapfrog to laser thermal combined with lasersail.
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Feb 16, 2017 21:46:18 GMT
Plus, NERVA, IIRC, didn't use weapons grade fuel, and you wouldn't need to use it in a modernized version either. It's a reactor, not a bomb, which means you can get around low refinement fissile materials by using more of them in your reactor. As such, it would basically just be Musk getting permission to fly an active nuclear reactor around on his rockets. Considering that IIRC, the second stage makes orbit and stays in space, the environmentalists would have a hell of a lot fewer legs to stand on, especially if the stage had enough fuel left over to move itself into a disposal orbit away from the orbits for anything important, ideally also high enough that they will stay up for a long time. The second stage is supposed to make orbit, you mean. If, for some reason, it doesn't, you'd have a has-been-operated (i.e., contaminated with fission products, though probably not much) reactor on a suborbital trajectory.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Feb 16, 2017 21:48:48 GMT
Plus, NERVA, IIRC, didn't use weapons grade fuel, and you wouldn't need to use it in a modernized version either. It's a reactor, not a bomb, which means you can get around low refinement fissile materials by using more of them in your reactor. As such, it would basically just be Musk getting permission to fly an active nuclear reactor around on his rockets. Considering that IIRC, the second stage makes orbit and stays in space, the environmentalists would have a hell of a lot fewer legs to stand on, especially if the stage had enough fuel left over to move itself into a disposal orbit away from the orbits for anything important, ideally also high enough that they will stay up for a long time. The second stage is supposed to make orbit, you mean. If, for some reason, it doesn't, you'd have a has-been-operated (i.e., contaminated with fission products, though probably not much) reactor on a suborbital trajectory. Imagine the political fallout of this.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 17, 2017 0:15:00 GMT
The second stage is supposed to make orbit, you mean. If, for some reason, it doesn't, you'd have a has-been-operated (i.e., contaminated with fission products, though probably not much) reactor on a suborbital trajectory. Imagine the political fallout of this. You said "fallout", heh.
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Feb 17, 2017 0:28:15 GMT
The second stage is supposed to make orbit, you mean. If, for some reason, it doesn't, you'd have a has-been-operated (i.e., contaminated with fission products, though probably not much) reactor on a suborbital trajectory. Imagine the political fallout of this. Why would it be significantly worse than the political fallout associated with the deorbit of nuclear powered satellites? Which is negligible. Happens not infrequently - you never hear anything about it unless it falls on someone's house.
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Feb 17, 2017 9:45:35 GMT
The second stage is supposed to make orbit, you mean. If, for some reason, it doesn't, you'd have a has-been-operated (i.e., contaminated with fission products, though probably not much) reactor on a suborbital trajectory. Imagine the political fallout of this. Maybe you could put a few droptanks, with rockets attached to those droptanks (like the spaceshuttles non-reuseable boosters) on the second stage. Incase it doesnt make it to orbit from the first stage, those booster would provide the final push to get to orbit. In orbit, the second stage's NTR kicks in to get to where it needs to go. Yes you would be carrying large boosters attached to the second stage purely for a (highly unlikely) eventuality, but given how MUCH better NTR are than combustion rockets, it would still be better. Basically, put an NTR on the second stage, as well as a pair of combustion boosters (in case the second stage doesnt make orbit). The benifits of the NTR will offset the extra mass and cost of the boosters, and then some
|
|