# Rejoice! NASA is developing Nuclear Power!

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by tetra, Feb 6, 2002.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### Chagur.Seeker.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,235
Mr. G ...

How big a peace?

Take care

3. ### tetraHelloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
144
I sure wish the fundamental enviormentalists would realize that we are either risking a nuclear accident, or risking extinction..

5. ### BagmanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
31
Chagur,

quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The important thing is that no one is talking about getting a rocket off the ground with nuclear energy, except in this message thread. They're going to be used in space. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that there was no way to get one off the ground. Probably there is. One of the engines that's being talked about has about the same thrust as a 747, and it's not clear to me that this couldn't be increased by a lot. But there would be no reason to do so, because, even if human safety were not a consideration, you wouldn't want a nuclear reactor whose real purpose and value was for the long haul - e.g., all the way to Mars and back - running at full tilt during launch and ascent, because you'd risk destroying or damaging it. (In fact, it won't be running at all during launch and ascent.)

There's no reason to quote the word "rocket," because these things really will be rockets - there's no other way to propel something in space. They won't use heat to electricity conversion; they'll directly heat a propellant. By the way, a nuclear rocket was ground-tested back in the '50s or '60s.

7. ### BagmanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
31
Xelios,

quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. ### BagmanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
31
Xelios,

quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, aparently that number was for the next 5 years. Don't know how I could have missed that =/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think your Canadian figure may be way too high, too. Canada spent $10 billion on defense in some recent year, but since I didn't have the very latest information, I wasn't completely sure. quote --------------------------------------------------------------------------- But$300 billion is still a lot of money to be spending on military.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which of the following do you mean?

a. Our military is too large/strong.

b. We could get the same for less money.

c. Allied countries should spend more on defense, enabling us to spend less.

d. Something else.

I would guess you meant (a), but how am I supposed to know?

In constant dollars, we've been spending very roughly the same since the mid-1960s, but nowadays we're spending a lot less as a percentage of GDP, 3.5% very recently vs. 7% during some longish period or 8% in about 1966.

Regardless of what you mean by "too much," you're going to have to mean it for at least a 35-year period and very likely longer than that. I'd figure on 50 years.

11. ### Chagur.Seeker.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,235
Bagman ...

Re. "A nuclear rocket that simply expels superheated hydrogen ... "

Do you realize how close to criticality it would have to operate to reach
those temperatures? Considering the shielding that would be required
to keep from frying the crew during a long trip, like the four months you
mentioned, forget it!

The experiments you referred to, and I alluded to early in the thread, were
not intended for a manned flight vehicle! (there, I even avoided using 'rocket')

Take care

Last edited: Mar 6, 2002
12. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,162
Fuson Power is Better!

I think we should wait for fuson power... we are getting closer to get it...

Even though it appears that UFOs uses nuclear power...

Besides that... we will never go above the speed of light, if it's really impossible. We could use other dimensions... but you have to be really creative to deal with the idea...

Where is the nearest star? I guess... 4 light years away, isn't it? Imagine travel 4 years to see if it has a planet...
Even inside our own solar system is pretty hard to travel in the speed we can get nowdays...

Colombo took months to cross the Atlantic Ocean. Today, we can do it in three hours. But it passed already more than 500 years! So it seems that we have to look in a veeeery long perspective unless a crazy guy develop a way to travel through another dimensions...