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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
As a matter of fact, the Soviets had a large number of nuclear reactors on satellites satellites (actual nuclear fission reactors, not radioisotope generators):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RORSAT
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/usa.htm
A number of them broke down and crashed back down to Earth, including one which crashed into Canada in 1978 and spread a decent amount of radioactive debris. Their nuclear-powered RORSAT series unfortunately also "had the lowest reliability and most quality problems of any Soviet space system."
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.
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
But who cares about Canada anyway.
Eh! Canada's not a joke!
Fixed that for you.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
But who cares about Canada anyway.
Hey! Canada's not a joke, Eh!
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that fix for you, Eh never starts the sentence up here, it ends it. For starting we use "Hey" just like you do down south of the line
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Eh! Canada's not a joke!
You fail at Canadian colloquialism.
Eh != Hey.
Philistine.
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.
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.
NASA designed one, called NERVA, it was built and tested, out in Idaho IIRC, and was canceled by the Nixon administration. The photo in the article looks very much like a nuclear thermal engine, and nothing like a pulse system.
Does anyone have any real information on this ? (NASA Contractor Report 179614, SPI-25-l. (1988) doesn't count.)
"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?
It's more to do with the EMP burst, it's much more effective at high altiudes/low orbit. If I recall correctly the US once accidentally knocked out just about every electronic device in Hawaii and the surrounding area while testing nukes in space. That and you end up dumping a whole lot of radiation into the van allen belts which isn't so great for space travel.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
But who cares about Canada anyway.
Hey! Canada's not a joke, Eh!
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that fix for you, Eh never starts the sentence up here, it ends it. For starting we use "Hey" just like you do down south of the line. Oh and get off my lawn!
Fixed that for you. You know where your from, but remember where you are posting also.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
But who cares about Canada anyway.
Hey! Canada's not a joke, Eh!
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that fix for you, Eh never starts the sentence up here, it ends it. For starting we use "Hey" just like you do down south of the line. Oh and get off my lawn!
Fixed that for you. You know where you're from, but remember where you are posting also.
There, fixed that for you.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
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.
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....
I believe the specific test you're referring to is Starfish Prime which was part of the Operation Dominic test series.
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Normally I wouldn't, but it's in keeping with the thread ...
But who cares about Canada anyway.
Hey! Canada's not a joke, Eh!
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that fix for you, Eh never starts the sentence up here, it ends it. For starting we use "Hey" just like you do down south of the line. Oh and get off my lawn!
Fixed that for you. You know where you're from, but remember where you are posting also.
Their, fixed that for you.
There, fixed that for you... This is Slashdot, after all...
Part Time Philosopher, Oft Times Romantic, Full Time Unix Geek
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.