Mars in 39 days!

[s2art]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/05/vasimr_200...

Exrtact;

The superpowered rocket design is known as the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR), and it is under development by former NASA astronaut and physicist Franklin Chang Díaz at his spinout company Ad Astra Rocket. Last week the experimental VX-200 test rig - which is partly British made - reached its full rated 200 kilowatt power, an achievement described by the firm as a "highly coveted milestone".

[croyde]

A Mars in 39 days helps you work, rest and play.

[thinfourth2]

200kilowatt = about 300bhp

[bobthemonkey]

OK, say you have the engine. Now get me the power source.

[Morningside]

Starbug.

There must be a drawback here somewhere.

[s2art]

bobthemonkey said:

OK, say you have the engine. Now get me the power source.

Small nuke or solar power.

[sidewayz]

Polywell?

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2009/04/polywell...

[bobthemonkey]

s2art said:

bobthemonkey said:

OK, say you have the engine. Now get me the power source.

Small nuke or solar power.

A massive amount of PVA acerage would be needed if you went solar; the proposed demo unit, that may end up being tested on the ISS uses 220kw. For reference the ISS only generates 110Kw, some of which is needed for essential services. This comes from about 1600m2 of PV arrays.

While I'm all for certifying an actual reactor core for spaceflight (again - the Russians did this with liquid metal cooling units on Radar Ocean Surveillance birds) I have my doubts about whether the political will is there.

In the shorter term, I'd still prefer a NTR (Nuclear Thermal Rocket) design. It gives you, give or take, the same kind of Earth-Mars transit times, but at a lower development risk and cost, especially as the nuclear element is much similar to an RTG (as used for decades for space power) than a fully fledged reactor.

The basic design has been about since the 60s and has actually been tested under the NERVA project. In essence you pump liquid hydrogen over an exposed nuclear core to heat the hydrogen, with the option of injecting a small amount of liquid oxygen into the exhaust as an afterburner. The nice thing is you can reconfigure the propulsive core as a generator core to provide power for the flight.

Edited by bobthemonkey on Monday 12th October 21:48

[s2art]

bobthemonkey said:

s2art said:

bobthemonkey said:

OK, say you have the engine. Now get me the power source.

Small nuke or solar power.

A massive amount of PVA acerage would be needed if you went solar; the proposed demo unit, that may end up being tested on the ISS uses 220kw. For reference the ISS only generates 110Kw, some of which is needed for essential services. This comes from about 1600m2 of PV arrays.

While I'm all for certifying an actual reactor core for spaceflight (again - the Russians did this with liquid metal cooling units on Radar Ocean Surveillance birds) I have my doubts about whether the political will is there.

In the shorter term, I'd still prefer a NTR (Nuclear Thermal Rocket) design. It gives you, give or take, the same kind of Earth-Mars transit times, but at a lower development risk and cost, especially as the nuclear element is much similar to an RTG (as used for decades for space power) than a fully fledged reactor.

The basic design has been about since the 60s and has actually been tested under the NERVA project. In essence you pump liquid hydrogen over an exposed nuclear core to heat the hydrogen, with the option of injecting a small amount of liquid oxygen into the exhaust as an afterburner. The nice thing is you can reconfigure the propulsive core as a generator core to provide power for the flight.

Edited by bobthemonkey on Monday 12th October 21:48

Cant see the problem. We have suitable nukes for submarines, they can be used. As for NERVA type systems, they only get a fraction of the ISP, approx 50,000 for Casimir, NERVA got approx 800 in tests.

[rhinochopig]

s2art said:

bobthemonkey said:

s2art said:

bobthemonkey said:

OK, say you have the engine. Now get me the power source.

Small nuke or solar power.

A massive amount of PVA acerage would be needed if you went solar; the proposed demo unit, that may end up being tested on the ISS uses 220kw. For reference the ISS only generates 110Kw, some of which is needed for essential services. This comes from about 1600m2 of PV arrays.

While I'm all for certifying an actual reactor core for spaceflight (again - the Russians did this with liquid metal cooling units on Radar Ocean Surveillance birds) I have my doubts about whether the political will is there.

In the shorter term, I'd still prefer a NTR (Nuclear Thermal Rocket) design. It gives you, give or take, the same kind of Earth-Mars transit times, but at a lower development risk and cost, especially as the nuclear element is much similar to an RTG (as used for decades for space power) than a fully fledged reactor.

The basic design has been about since the 60s and has actually been tested under the NERVA project. In essence you pump liquid hydrogen over an exposed nuclear core to heat the hydrogen, with the option of injecting a small amount of liquid oxygen into the exhaust as an afterburner. The nice thing is you can reconfigure the propulsive core as a generator core to provide power for the flight.

Edited by bobthemonkey on Monday 12th October 21:48

Cant see the problem. We have suitable nukes for submarines, they can be used. As for NERVA type systems, they only get a fraction of the ISP, approx 50,000 for Casimir, NERVA got approx 800 in tests.

Have you seen the size of an RC on a submarine? Trust me a sub NSRP isn't suitable for space flight. Besides that, the design is justified to work in a gravity environment. One of the reasons the nuclear bomber concept was scrapped was due to safety concerns of what would happen in the event of an accident.

Even the smallest designs - which I *think* is probably that fitted to NR1 - would be too big and heavy. Plute batteries would probably be a better option in terms of weight and simplicity - not sure whether they'd generate enough power though as it's not an area I know much about.

[AdeTuono]

bobthemonkey said:

OK, say you have the engine. Now get me the power source.

D'you know, I just bet they hadn't thought of that. You'd better give 'em a call before they waste any more time.

[s2art]

rhinochopig said:

s2art said:

bobthemonkey said:

s2art said:

bobthemonkey said:

OK, say you have the engine. Now get me the power source.

Small nuke or solar power.

A massive amount of PVA acerage would be needed if you went solar; the proposed demo unit, that may end up being tested on the ISS uses 220kw. For reference the ISS only generates 110Kw, some of which is needed for essential services. This comes from about 1600m2 of PV arrays.

While I'm all for certifying an actual reactor core for spaceflight (again - the Russians did this with liquid metal cooling units on Radar Ocean Surveillance birds) I have my doubts about whether the political will is there.

In the shorter term, I'd still prefer a NTR (Nuclear Thermal Rocket) design. It gives you, give or take, the same kind of Earth-Mars transit times, but at a lower development risk and cost, especially as the nuclear element is much similar to an RTG (as used for decades for space power) than a fully fledged reactor.

The basic design has been about since the 60s and has actually been tested under the NERVA project. In essence you pump liquid hydrogen over an exposed nuclear core to heat the hydrogen, with the option of injecting a small amount of liquid oxygen into the exhaust as an afterburner. The nice thing is you can reconfigure the propulsive core as a generator core to provide power for the flight.

Edited by bobthemonkey on Monday 12th October 21:48

Cant see the problem. We have suitable nukes for submarines, they can be used. As for NERVA type systems, they only get a fraction of the ISP, approx 50,000 for Casimir, NERVA got approx 800 in tests.

Have you seen the size of an RC on a submarine? Trust me a sub NSRP isn't suitable for space flight. Besides that, the design is justified to work in a gravity environment. One of the reasons the nuclear bomber concept was scrapped was due to safety concerns of what would happen in the event of an accident.

Even the smallest designs - which I *think* is probably that fitted to NR1 - would be too big and heavy. Plute batteries would probably be a better option in terms of weight and simplicity - not sure whether they'd generate enough power though as it's not an area I know much about.

Well the Russkis actually built and flew a nuclear powered bomber 50ish years ago. If they could build a suitable reactor then, they could build a better one now. Not that the Russkis built it so that it was safe for the crew, but that would be easier to do on a spacecraft.

[rhinochopig]

s2art said:

rhinochopig said:

s2art said:

bobthemonkey said:

s2art said:

bobthemonkey said:

OK, say you have the engine. Now get me the power source.

Small nuke or solar power.

A massive amount of PVA acerage would be needed if you went solar; the proposed demo unit, that may end up being tested on the ISS uses 220kw. For reference the ISS only generates 110Kw, some of which is needed for essential services. This comes from about 1600m2 of PV arrays.

While I'm all for certifying an actual reactor core for spaceflight (again - the Russians did this with liquid metal cooling units on Radar Ocean Surveillance birds) I have my doubts about whether the political will is there.

In the shorter term, I'd still prefer a NTR (Nuclear Thermal Rocket) design. It gives you, give or take, the same kind of Earth-Mars transit times, but at a lower development risk and cost, especially as the nuclear element is much similar to an RTG (as used for decades for space power) than a fully fledged reactor.

The basic design has been about since the 60s and has actually been tested under the NERVA project. In essence you pump liquid hydrogen over an exposed nuclear core to heat the hydrogen, with the option of injecting a small amount of liquid oxygen into the exhaust as an afterburner. The nice thing is you can reconfigure the propulsive core as a generator core to provide power for the flight.

Edited by bobthemonkey on Monday 12th October 21:48

Cant see the problem. We have suitable nukes for submarines, they can be used. As for NERVA type systems, they only get a fraction of the ISP, approx 50,000 for Casimir, NERVA got approx 800 in tests.

Have you seen the size of an RC on a submarine? Trust me a sub NSRP isn't suitable for space flight. Besides that, the design is justified to work in a gravity environment. One of the reasons the nuclear bomber concept was scrapped was due to safety concerns of what would happen in the event of an accident.

Even the smallest designs - which I *think* is probably that fitted to NR1 - would be too big and heavy. Plute batteries would probably be a better option in terms of weight and simplicity - not sure whether they'd generate enough power though as it's not an area I know much about.

Well the Russkis actually built and flew a nuclear powered bomber 50ish years ago. If they could build a suitable reactor then, they could build a better one now. Not that the Russkis built it so that it was safe for the crew, but that would be easier to do on a spacecraft.

AFAIK, whilst they flew a bomber carrying a nuclear reactor it never flew as a "nuclear powered aircraft". It also filled the entire bomb bay of one of their Tu-95s, which gives an idea of the size and weight of thing - getting it into space would be an epic. The other key issue with that type of design is they are very unsafe, as they use an alloy primary coolant - typically NaK or lead-bizmuth which means:

a) you can't shut them down, because if you do they freeze solid.
b) there are issues relating to the potential for voids in the channels, which can cause fuel damage at best and at worst an explosion - one of the reasons why the UK dropped NaK technology.
c) A small failure could result in the mixing of primary and secondary coolants - NaK and water don't mix.

Safer designs use CO2/water or water/water technology but they are less energy dense and heavier still and also need gravity to operate.

An effectively "solid state" design like a plute battery would be better if you can get the power out of it - as I said before I have no idea what sort of power output you get from an RTG

[s2art]

rhinochopig said:

s2art said:

rhinochopig said:

s2art said:

bobthemonkey said:

s2art said:

bobthemonkey said:

OK, say you have the engine. Now get me the power source.

Small nuke or solar power.

A massive amount of PVA acerage would be needed if you went solar; the proposed demo unit, that may end up being tested on the ISS uses 220kw. For reference the ISS only generates 110Kw, some of which is needed for essential services. This comes from about 1600m2 of PV arrays.

While I'm all for certifying an actual reactor core for spaceflight (again - the Russians did this with liquid metal cooling units on Radar Ocean Surveillance birds) I have my doubts about whether the political will is there.

In the shorter term, I'd still prefer a NTR (Nuclear Thermal Rocket) design. It gives you, give or take, the same kind of Earth-Mars transit times, but at a lower development risk and cost, especially as the nuclear element is much similar to an RTG (as used for decades for space power) than a fully fledged reactor.

The basic design has been about since the 60s and has actually been tested under the NERVA project. In essence you pump liquid hydrogen over an exposed nuclear core to heat the hydrogen, with the option of injecting a small amount of liquid oxygen into the exhaust as an afterburner. The nice thing is you can reconfigure the propulsive core as a generator core to provide power for the flight.

Edited by bobthemonkey on Monday 12th October 21:48

Cant see the problem. We have suitable nukes for submarines, they can be used. As for NERVA type systems, they only get a fraction of the ISP, approx 50,000 for Casimir, NERVA got approx 800 in tests.

Have you seen the size of an RC on a submarine? Trust me a sub NSRP isn't suitable for space flight. Besides that, the design is justified to work in a gravity environment. One of the reasons the nuclear bomber concept was scrapped was due to safety concerns of what would happen in the event of an accident.

Even the smallest designs - which I *think* is probably that fitted to NR1 - would be too big and heavy. Plute batteries would probably be a better option in terms of weight and simplicity - not sure whether they'd generate enough power though as it's not an area I know much about.

Well the Russkis actually built and flew a nuclear powered bomber 50ish years ago. If they could build a suitable reactor then, they could build a better one now. Not that the Russkis built it so that it was safe for the crew, but that would be easier to do on a spacecraft.

AFAIK, whilst they flew a bomber carrying a nuclear reactor it never flew as a "nuclear powered aircraft". It also filled the entire bomb bay of one of their Tu-95s, which gives an idea of the size and weight of thing - getting it into space would be an epic. The other key issue with that type of design is they are very unsafe, as they use an alloy primary coolant - typically NaK or lead-bizmuth which means:

a) you can't shut them down, because if you do they freeze solid.
b) there are issues relating to the potential for voids in the channels, which can cause fuel damage at best and at worst an explosion - one of the reasons why the UK dropped NaK technology.
c) A small failure could result in the mixing of primary and secondary coolants - NaK and water don't mix.

Safer designs use CO2/water or water/water technology but they are less energy dense and heavier still and also need gravity to operate.

An effectively "solid state" design like a plute battery would be better if you can get the power out of it - as I said before I have no idea what sort of power output you get from an RTG

Looks like the Uranium or Thorium Hydride generators are favourite.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/vasimr-uranium-hy...