Rejoice! NASA is developing Nuclear Power!

tetra ...

I confuse easy like.

First you say:

"Nuclear rockets do not "blow up" like a chemical rocket ... "

Then you say:

"In the event of an explosion ... "

So ... Which is it?

Take care

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you notice the like a chemical rocket ... part of my statement, youll find out. Anything with compressed matter can explode, but it won't explode like a million tons of rocket fuel do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay lets look at this generally:

A rocket laiden with rocket propellant can suffer from exploding, which does cause the rocket to be destroyed and pieces to rain down upon the surface of the earth.

Every mission up through our atmosphere tears a hole through our ozone, and the very propellant is mixed with the ozone to create alot of damage on a molecular level.

The fuel is processed from fossil fuels and is under the same pressures as that of any other vehicle that utilises a decreasing resource.

Now for the nuke-power:

At first scientists will note "How clean it is, in comparison to Propellant", okay so the burnt output is lessened and it would do less damage to the ozone, and not eat up our valuable resources.

But there are the points that people seem to discuss.

Nuclear material becomes unstable when Heated and suffers Decay when it gets to that point. (You all know of decay through such man made disasters as Chernobyl, if there coolants had been working, then the system wouldn't have had a "Melt-down")

If such a Temperature rise was caused through a Spaceship lacking a protective coating from our atmosphere creating friction, we could end up with a nuclear meltdown that is airborn, sprinkling nuclear ionized particles across a hemisphere.

There are other ideas that could be utilised, One is using an Airballoon to get a craft to a high altitude before it ignites it's rockets, This saves on fuel and damage to the Ozone (Of course no one has tested it)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Built in Space

We can always build our nuclear propelled rockets in space until we have the know how for either the next generation or an environmentally friendly propulsion system to get the parts into space in the first place.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think the Ancient Greeks and a few other ancient civilizations came up with the most environmentally friendly method of placing things inot the air....

It was called a Catapult!

 

We have no such matterials tht would be fit for such a catapult. We need progress in the smart-materials field, maybe using nano-technology. But the idea is really good StryderU.

 

I had this idea for a similar device. It swings a ship around in a circle until it gains enough momentum, then it pivots upward to face the sky and at the right time launches the craft into the air. It appears that I can't post a picture, though, because .bmps are too big and I can't locate the other program I have.

 

If such a Temperature rise was caused through a Spaceship lacking a protective coating from our atmosphere creating friction, we could end up with a nuclear meltdown that is airborn, sprinkling nuclear ionized particles across a hemisphere.

Why would we be lacking a protective coating?

If our cars had no brakes, we'd all be in deep trouble. Our cars do have brakes. eh.

 

Of course we could always use nuclear reactors in another way.

We could use two or three of them to power gigantic electromagnets to launch the ship from the ground.

Or power that catepult.

 

Tetra

Sometimes Brakes Fail (Or they get cut)

Quiote simply, Space is filled with Debris that floats/Moves at a rate that could cause concern if you collided and damaged your shielding.

 

so why not to build a launchpad on the moon. and manufacture spaceships there too (in large hangars)?!

also much less power (money) needed to take the spaceship up into space.

 

Although first you have to get to the moon...

 

Nowadays it should be really easy. We plan a trip to Mars and can't make a base on the moon??? It isn't really so hard to do it, only money is needed and not extremely much too.

 

Well upon looking inside my dresser where I store all of my money I found about five hundred dollars (american). Should that be enough? We could start a pool here on the forums and put together all the money we have, maybe we could amass a few thousand dollars a build a base on ANOTHER COSMIC BODY!!

It is VERY expensive to do ANYTHING in space.

I really love being sarcasic. (sighing) Aaaahhhh...

 

Yes it is EXPENSIVE, but in LONG TERME it should approve itself.
BTW, you could use and acquire materials right on the moon, not bring them all way from Earth. (not the first base though) Maybe at first put a station at moons orbit and workers go down there every two days or so with all the tools and build tht base.

Sooner or later it MUST be done, but better sooner.

 

Alright, alright I give in.

There is a (small) chance the reactor would meltdown on liftoff.
This small chance shouldn'trestrain any missions though, the propulsion system <i>is</i> tried and true. We've been using it in subs and carriers for almost 50 years. There isn't that much difference in a plane or spacecraft, other than a different method of releasing the power.

We should go mine a carbonacous asteroid.. After the initial down-payment, everything else is free.

 

well and I think you should add transportation, but in general that's exactly my point.

 

tetra ...

Re. "... the propulsion system is tried and true. We've been using it in subs and carriers for almost 50 years."

Talk about apples and oranges!

US subs and carriers use pressurized water reactors that operate at relatively
low temperatures to drive the turbines that drive the generators that provide
electricity for propulsion, life support, and various equipment.

That is a far cry from the 'propulsion' you're talking about. Maybe once in
space a heat to electricity exchange powering an ion engine may be possible,
but no way are you going to get a nuclear propelled 'rocket' off the ground
using nuclear energy.

Take care

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Shhhh. I just placed an ad in the back of Popular Science offering building plans for the world's first steam-powered, launch-to-orbit rocket.

And here you are diss'n the idea. How 'bout I cut you in for a peace a da' action to keep you agreeable?

 

but I think tht you could get to orbit if launched from moon, but not as a rocket but more like a plane like (with runway). and we have alternatives of "space age steam rocket"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, magnetict acceleration from a large tunnel with magnetic rings, taking up from a huge plane near outer space and sm others.
well ok, bye I'm already late for school->