Slashdot Mirror
Russia Develops Spaceship With Nuclear Engine
Matt_dk writes "The Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos has developed a design for a piloted spacecraft powered by a nuclear engine, the head of the agency said on Wednesday. 'The project is aimed at implementing large-scale space exploration programs,' Anatoly Perminov said at a meeting of the commission on the modernization of the Russian economy. He added that the development of Megawatt-class nuclear space power systems (MCNSPS) for manned spacecraft was crucial for Russia if the country wanted to maintain a competitive edge in the space race, including the exploration of the Moon and Mars."
...and if we're not careful, we'll lose. That still has consequences even with the real cold war over.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
Nuclear spaceship pilots YOU!
They've drawn up a design.. wooo.. any nuclear engineer can do that - plenty of amateurs too.
Building real hardware is the only way to develop launch technology. Tell me when they've gotten the funding to do some static firing.
How we know is more important than what we know.
We are looking for the nuclear wessels!
Nucular... It's pronounced Nucular!
but the chinese can.
What the US needs to get back into the space race is a good old fashioned nose tweaking.
It would be interesting to know if the technology includes any stipulation for nuclear pulse propulsion. From the sound of it, that tech was pretty far along over 30 years ago. Space is a big place - would it not be awesome to have a new space race, MINUS the aggression, this time? Or is that simply impossible?
Might I suggest a scout laden with Merculite missiles?
TFA does not go into a great deal of detail - can some kind /. er please explain what these nuclear engines are all about? Is it a nuclear thermal engine?
Last time I checked, the space race was over for all intents and purposes by the early 1970's, and the world's space agencies had spent the following four decades mostly dicking around half-heartedly.
Mind you, I think a renewed space race would be great. But there isn't one going on right now. There's not even a space special olympics at the moment.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Wake me up when they've built a nuclear powered bus.
The Soviets were a lot more willing to shove nuclear reactors in places we were politically unwilling/unable to. The Russians may even have some Soviet prototypes around. It would be the same barely-post-war era tech all their stuff was, and it would be really, really, REALLY dangerous to use, but the very well might have gotten beyond blueprints.
Seen the Soviet space shuttle prototype? Scary.
I would just like to point out that developing a spaceship (The title) is a lot different than designing a spaceship (TFA).
Call me when the headline is true.
or else!
I doubt seriously that this is intended to take off from Earth or any other gravity well. A ship with this kind of power would go from Earth orbit to Mars orbit or Saturn orbit. If you wanted to land on a planetary or moon surface, you would use a lander or shuttle.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
That's a bit of an ancient fear don't ya think?
I mean, even back in the 60s it was stupid media fear mongering. Poison wires and adequate casing make nuclear reactors perfectly safe when not in operation. It was exactly those kinds of objections that caused the NERVA project to deliberately overload their biggest prototype and cause an explosion: so they could assess the difficulty of worse case cleanup - btw, it was no trouble. Perhaps the only way "scattering radioactive debris throughout the atmosphere" could be a serious concern is if you skimp on the casing.. which you might do if you're trying to make a nuclear first stage, or have a limited first stage lift capacity and no on-orbit capabilities, but both Russia and the US now have decades of on-orbit operations under their belt. They could launch the nuclear material inside a multi-ton casing and put it into the dry engine on-orbit.
I miss the days when people worried about looking stupid before posting mainstream media nonsense on this site. Wake up to yourself.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It has to be built somewhere, or at the very least the raw materials have to come from somewhere and I assume that place will be Earth. So it has to be launched at least once, which means there'll be a rocket with nuclear material going up...launched by the Russians, these guys.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Thats too little. Let be it 1.2Gigawatt, and make the 50's sci-fi writers talk about something more realistic.
Is it really a direct nuclear engine, or just the generator to power something like a VASIMR or Hall Effect Thruster? There's a pretty big difference. For the second, as a power source, nuclear power has already been used for a while. Not as a full-blown fissile reactor, but rather a nuclear battery.
You're an ignorant fool.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I can imagine the testing. How many super soldiers can be accidentally created by nuclear fallout from failed fission spacecraft launches? That's my question.
now gotta develop that light array thats going to cancel out these nuclear reactions
cant happen? these nuclear powered engines have
im sure someone will find out how to do this sooner or later
whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
Russia takes yet another Brave Powerpoint Forward in space exploration. That's, what, the six or seventh in 2009? I think that sets their all time record!
Rockets with nuclear material are launched all the time by the US, the Russians and, I assume, others. Most or all interplanetary probes have nuclear power plants, just not nuclear propulsion. A goodly number of Earth orbit satellites have nuclear power.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
It might be your values that keep you against air bursting to get a 10,000 ton space ship from the ground to Mars in a couple of weeks, but other countries will, and they will dominate the west by learning how to do something we are too big of pussies to do.
I've predicted this a long time ago:
http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/everyonegetsthebomb.aspx
The ultimate point is that even if you believed that nonproliferation could work, and it can't, even the genuinely peaceful uses of nuclear technology will bestow adopting nations tremendous advantages.
We're just being stupid by not adopting this technology first.
This is my sig.
On the history channel they had a show that mentioned that a nuclear explosion at the edge of our atmosphere would be a lot worse than an explosion on the ground (eg: hiroshima) because the radioactive fallout would orbit the world and drop over a much larger area. Isn't this a concern?
Subject/body of the comment:
Sig:
Is this a "libertarian except for a massive taxpayer-funded space program" sort of thing?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Because what could be better than detonating nuclear bombs a few thousand feet from your crew?
If it was stupid fear mongering that was solved by the 1960s, how did a Soviet satellite in 1978 apparently have insufficient casing to keep radioactive debris from being scattered across Canada upon reentry in 1978?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
But who cares about Canada anyway.
Hey! Canada's not a joke!
NASA designed one of those, too. It was called Orion; it never got built. It might be interesting if the Russians actually DO something with this design.
Mr. President, we must not allow a nuclear spaceship gap!
If it was maintained well, Soviet shuttle was way more safe than US Space Shuttle since it was entirely based on liquid fuel. It was also completely reusable.
I can't find my source now but I am sure I didn't watch it on some "red" propaganda channel, I watched it either on Discovery TV or Nat Geo.
So it would only be used if we were attacked by baby elephant - like aliens.
...spaceships power nuclear engines
Apple has "Mac vs PC", Microsoft has "Laptop Hunters", Linux has recession
The biggest issue here is the space disarmament treaty or whatever it's called... The US and Russia agreed to not weaponize space, and as we all know from reading Larry Niven, a nuclear propulsion system is also a nuclear weapon. Does this violate the treaty? I couldn't say without looking at it, but it's certainly something that should be looked at.
Seriously, whenever a story about Chinese invention or Russian invention appears, the tone of comments instantly change. It is like Slashdot in Reagan era.
Seriously, if both Russia and USA didn't work together, the International Space Station etc. was a complete failure since Soviets had some special expertise and Americans had some special expertise. When you watch NASA TV when ISS stuff going on, it is almost like half Russian, half English broadcast.
You sound like some Taliban guys on Afghan mountains came up with the idea. At least on science.slashdot.org , please end this "Reds can't do shit" political crap.
If they come up with nuclear ideas, they could be probably right and using the expertise they gained when people didn't question/know their mad experiments. Read some books/watch some documentaries about their nuclear powered bomber project which actually flown until even red bureaucrats figured it is way risky.
I certainly trust Soviet trained engineers to launch this thing successfully without air-bursting right after take off, scattering radioactive debris throughout the atmosphere. The Russians have a long, celebrated, history of safety and caution when it comes to their nuclear and aerospace endeavors--together they'll be a winning combination!
(and for those who think I'm being too harsh on the Russians, I wouldn't trust NASA to launch a nuclear powered spacecraft either)
NASA and Russia have already launched "nuclear powered spacecraft", typically using a Radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Its needed if you are gonna send a satellite where the sun don't shine. Take Cassini, or the Voyager probes for instance. The difference as I understand it is they would use the electricity to power a high specific impulse low thrust engine, such as an ion thruster.
Interestingly, the seem way more liberal than USA. At least I see some sponsors branding (HP etc.) at their mission control center.
I wouldn't be surprised if they also start to put ads on the rockets they launch.
About the cheapness: It is in their military culture. I remember reading Su-27 simulator manual saying "Using afterburner while taking off is not accepted as a good practice in Soviet AF". Or that el cheapo T tanks beating amazingly expensive, huge German Tiger tanks just because they are better designed and can be fixed even by a farmer having ordinary tools.
Does anyone have any real information on this ? (NASA Contractor Report 179614, SPI-25-l. (1988) doesn't count.)
There has been speculation that a Mars mission might eventually be a combined roscosmos/esa/nasa effort, similar to the international space station. It might very well be that if this nuclear rocket is built, it's launched on top of an Ares-V.
Personally, I hope it isn't. I want to see a reusable single stage nuclear launch vehicle.
"Nuclear engine develops YOU!"
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Compared to current tech, how fast and how far could such a ship theoretically travel?
That is soooo 1950ish. The US was developing nuclear engines for ICBMs way back in the cold war...
Nice paper rocket, like the Kliper which was also celebrated on these pages. Meanwhile NASA actually tests its designs.
an ill wind that blows no good
The Russians have a long, celebrated, history of safety and caution when it comes to their nuclear...
Sounds more like the Russians want to abscond with the name "Mobile Chernobyl"
Soviets have been developing a nuclear rocket engine since 70s (RD-0410), and by 1990 they successfully tested a prototype on a stand, powerful enough to drive a real rocket. But by then the USSR disbanded, financing ceased, and the relevant docs were gradually lost.
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes
I for one welcome our soviet nuclear cosmonaut overlords
A totally misleading topic, which caught my attention, after which i soon realized this is a concept, a design. Its not even a project in production...
High spirits and all they went and landed on the moon.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
when you learn to count backwards to zero.
In German oder English, I know how to countdown.
And I'm learning Chinese,
says Werner Von Braun.
Good for them. Nothing really new here, but someone has to make it clear that we aren't going anywhere much beyond the atmosphere on a sustained basis without nuclear power in space.
That includes space guns, space elevators, and whatnot--you need a tugs ("orbital transfer vehicles") to collect all those cheap/dumb parcels and deliver them to where they're needed. Or you use larger/smarter and more expensive vehicles with automonous maneuvering systems (which is what we do today), and which is why (*cough*) $5-10K/Kg-to-LEO turn into $20-80K/Kg of net payload (usable payload minus delivery vehicle structure, guidance, propellant, etc.
Advanced propulsion (e.g., hall-effect/ion/vasimir/thermal) with solar electric power might be OK for slow orbital or cislunar tugs, but are limited due to mass penalties and array degradation. Such systems need power to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time, and the more power (in general) the better. Fusion? Maybe someday.
If we in the West can't manage to swallow our aversion to nuclear power in space (real power, not RTG's), then we will cede space to those who will, whether Russia, China, India or whoever. Maybe when they esablish a sustainable LEO and cislunar system (or a Mars effort) using nukes people will wake up (Sputnick redux), but I won't hold my breath.
Pick your poision... Very limited and occassional manned exploration using chemical propulsion, or a long term and sustainable effort using nuclear power/propulsion. I'd prefer the latter.
Good luck, and more power to them.
Just wanted to mention, it doesn't look like an "engine" (something that produces thrust as opposed to power). In the photo, there is just a collection of tubes where the very large nozzle (nozzles for use in space as opposed to the atmosphere are larger due to the greater expansion of the exhaust gasses) should be. Also there is no massive turbo-pump, fuel feed system needed even on a regeneratively cooled engine (and nozzle).
The fact that the head of the Russian space agency talks about "the development of Megawatt-class nuclear space *power* systems (MCNSPS) for manned spacecraft was crucial for Russia" (my asterisks) further implies that they are in fact designing power systems (for electric propulsion like ion drives) rather than thermal nuclear engines. I have never heard of any Russian program matching the NASA NERVA program, so I would be quite surprised if this was an announcement of them continuing such an effort.
Rocket Rides You!
Headline: Russia Develops
Subline: has developed a design
Article text: the draft design would be finalized by 2012
Translation: we're drawing stuff. we're going to draw more stuff
FACT: The picture is of an RD-410, a 7 tonne thrust nuclear thermal/LH2, developed by Glushko for the N-1 during 1960-61 under Korolev. It was abandoned in 1963 when Korolev chose nuclear/ion as a preferable technology, and Glushko dropped it in favor of the gas core reactor design.
Except for a few motors (mainly Glushko's) intended for the N-1 and some early nuclear thermal/ammonia long range missiles, Russia's nuclear motors have been intended for Mars missions. The designs were all fair to good, the planning rational. However, during the first decade of design funding was increasingly, then entirely, diverted to Korolev's N-1 booster, counterpart to the Saturn V, on which Soviet moon race hopes were pinned. After the 3 July 1969 explosion of the N-1, funding became scarce for all design work. In the 1 Sept 1969 post mortem report for the Soviet space program, Kamanin lists among the mistakes Korolev and Mishin's rejections of Glushko's motors.
Since relinquishing the moon landing, all Russian nuclear motors have been intended for Mars flights. However, since the US canceled the NERVA and thus its Mars plans in 1972, there was no pressure for Russia to produce and funding was rare. Still, a few were built and tested. After 12 years of testing the official proposal was put forth to develop the RD-0140, a 3.5 tonne version of Glushko's original design, as well as a 70 tonne RD-0411. Two years later there was no longer any Soviet Union. But Glushko's design survived even this, and in 1994 no less than 3 designs emerged from Kuchatov (one) and Keldysh (two) institutes, for Mars craft using 3 or 4 of the RD-0410, for a 460 day round trip.
There have been no Glushko motors built in over 20 years, but there could be. And obviously no Mars mission craft are being built. Designs and plans that persist for 50 years are rare in space exploration. There's little evidence to say whether yet another redesign by Ruskosmos is just another flag waving ritual by a home team that refuses to give up, or whether Glushko's creations have taken on a life of their own, and are simply successes waiting for their time. In any case, present 'development' is restricted to speculative design/redesign, yet more pictures on paper, hoping to become proposals.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Obviously, there's people thinking only in we vs. them, nuke this and nuke that. Probably nothing unusual as country is at (constant) war with somebody. After a while it probably becomes state of (united?) mind.
As for article, it's poor. No dimensions, no comparisons, nothing about size and power of current reactors used in ships and submarines. No expected speeds/ranges/whatever, just some blurb on Moon|Mars bases - as if bases have anything to do with ohw exactly same solar system "colony ships" for are powered.
Pity.
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
Ya know, if it wasn't for the Eco-Nazis that squash technological developments like this, the U.S. could have started developing these A LONG TIME AGO.
Unfortunately, we have castrated ourselves in sole favor of "environmeltally freindly" technologies.
Eco-Nazis, coupled with the severe Dumbing-Down of U.S. education, especially in the fields of physics, biology, mechanics, and electrical engineering, pose the biggest threat to the future of the United States as a hotbed of technological development.
Next thing you know, other countries will be developing spacecraft with advanced technologies, while we will pioneer the development of a patchouli-and-love-powered VW microbus.
Yes, I know that sounds terribly cynical, but the state of American education is terrible: We give English tests in other languages, encourage kids to fiddle with their iPhones and video games, and place more value on extra-curricular activities than actual academics. The BEST after-school program is an academic one.
For example, the piss-poor university that I have to go to (unless I want to go broke attending school in either San Francisco or the L.A. area), CSU Monterey Bay, cuts academic classes like Biology, Chemistry, and Psychology, and claims 'budget concerns' and 'classroom space' as the reason. YET, they can still offer Yoga, Dance, and plenty of other academically meaningless classes.
If we cut out all the CRAP in American schools, and offered academically important courses instead, budget concerns would be less of a problem, and students would spend their time learning things that can be used to develop important technologies, ranging from reducing environmental impact to advanced materials and systems, and space travel.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
NASA started the designs for Prometheus for the JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter) mission, but then that got canned due to the cuts & re-prioritising of funding Bush II impemented. It was then suggested it be used as a delivery system touring the inner solar system dropping off & picking up cargo like a UPS van for the Moon & Mars (and other installations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Orbiter
This is it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
Yet again, copying one of our designs!
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
Rubbish, I call your bluff. Flamebait that's got me posting, certainly not insightful on your knowledge of the UK.
"The U.S. is starting to more closely resemble an early version of Great Britain, which having lost its empire in World War II and the pounds status as global reserve currency is now mired in debt and can't even support its vastly diminished military or pay its civil servants."
- your history is wrong, do some reading. Great Britain could be argued to have been started in 1707, the Act of Union. So "early version of Great Britain" probably means, ooh, the first hundred years of GB. World War 2 started after 1807 and the nineteenth century was a period of empire growth for Great Britain. Loss of empire didn't really happen til mid twentieth century.
- "can't pay its civil servants": reference please?! I think this is rubbish. At least, I work in a university and I got paid this month, and I was chatting to my brother (a teacher in the public sector) and he got paid. So I can give you my workplace and his workplace as examples where civil servants are being paid. Believe me it would make major news here if people weren't being paid. Don't see any mention of it on the BBC website.
If you play against a better player in chess you will often (if they are a good chess player, rather than just able to play chess extremely well) learn more than if you played against someone you could beat.
If you run in a race, you get just as fit losing as when you win. Probably more, in fact: when winning, you only need to ensure you do enough to STAY winning. When losing, you have to reach out and try harder to win.
Likewise, why must you win the space race?
Here's the design: set off an H-bomb in a container with a valve on it. Whenever you want to go somewhere just open the valve! Okay, now for the implementation phase...
-- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
I highly doubt that "engine" in the photo in the article is real. It looks like some sort of industrial fluid control device onto which they painted the radiation symbol. Or maybe some sci-fi set piece they bought off of a Hollywood back lot.
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.
US just spent $450 million on Ares X 1 launch. Russia plans to spend $450 million on developing/maintaining a nuclear spacecraft over the next 9 years. Maybe we should contract NASA projects to Russia? :)
Because they are commies and they could give a rats ass about the safety and well being of their own people or other people, see: Chernobyl
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
If nuclear powered spacecraft are a great idea (of which I'm less than completely convinced), then great - let's go for them. But if the motivation for building what could be a very expensive and dangerous vehicle is nothing more than "but the Russians are doing it", then count me out. That would be a totally stupid reason for doing anything.
Look, people, space exploration, etc, is a very, very expensive proposition, at least if you intend to do anything more than send small robotic probes out. If there's a case to be made that this is worth the money, then make it. But "we need to do it to keep up with the Chinese" is just plain dumb. It's either worth doing or it's not. What the Chinese, Russians, etc, are doing has (or at least should have) nothing to do with it.
but this about made me spit out my coffee:
Our "vastly diminished military"? You mean the one on which we spend more than every other nation on earth... combined? Our continued pursuit of this fantasy in which we can buy absolutely anything we want for the military, and the cost doesn't count, is going to kill us.
Interesting... I can't readily find a list of NASA's failures. On manned spaceflight, I recall two big ones that killed 14 people, both attributed to negligence.
I wonder how many unmanned spacecraft NASA lost and how this compares to the Soviet (and other nations) space program.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com