Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Russia has just raised the stakes in the space race, by going public with a reusable commercial nuclear powered launch vehicle which has been under development for the last decade.
Russia says it’s going to beat Elon Musk and SpaceX’s ‘old tech’ with a nuclear rocket
Mike Wehner @MikeWehner
November 14th, 2018 at 2:36 PMElon Musk and SpaceX won’t be leading the reusable rocket space race long, at least not if Russia has anything to say about it. Russia’s Keldysh Research Center has been working on a reusable rocket solution for nearly a decade now, and now it’s ramping up the hype with a new concept video showing how its spacecraft works.
Speaking with reporters, Vladimir Koshlakov explained that Elon Musk and SpaceX pose no real threat to the group’s plans. Musk, Koshlakov says, is relying on technology that will soon be antiquated, while Russia is looking towards shaping the future of spaceflight.
…
…
Read more: https://bgr.com/2018/11/14/russia-nuke-rocket-spacex-rocket/
Using nuclear power in principle bypasses some of the problems plaguing reusable chemical rocket programmes; because of the far higher impulse of nuclear rockets, they can be built more robustly than reusable chemical rockets, which must be an exquisite compromise between weight and stress tolerance. The Russian plan calls for a reuse turnaround time of 48 hours.
The Russian plan for a nuclear powered launcher must be taken seriously. Russia has extensive experience with nuclear powered civilian vehicles, such as the Russian nuclear icebreaker fleet. Their nuclear powered cruise missile, a low flying stealth weapon with effectively unlimited range, sent shockwaves through the military community when President Putin revealed the new weapon last March.
A successful, low cost nuclear powered commercial launch vehicle would give Russia a dramatic lead in the race to commercialise space.
Cheaper access to space could also give the Russian military a substantial advantage over other countries, if they used that infrastructure to launch kinetic bombardment weapons into low Earth orbit.
A successful kinetic weapon programme could give an almost unassailable advantage to aggressors. A single special forces forward observer would have the capability to utterly destroy entire armoured columns, fleets of ships and large military bases within seconds of a kill decision, using a laser targeting device the size of a flashlight to direct the attack.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Need to be sure our spies are ready to steal their ideas. /sarc
See “Scepticism is the chastity of the mind.” By George Santayana.
I think Burevestnik (Russian: Буревестник; English: Petrel) as nuclear powered is at least vaporware and likely #FakeNews. It may be nuclear armed and spun into “nuclear powered” as click-bait by the ever more desperate slimestream media.
I call it Russian hype. An ion rocket powered by nuclear reactor? What’s the mass of a reactor in nuclear sub? What’s the mass loss per second of nuclear fuel converted to free neutrons? Do the math. It’s laughable. There’s a reason we don’t have a nuclear airplane: power-to-weight ratio
Dr S
The nuclear airplane made steam, not expelled neutrons. Read first.
Radioactive nuetrons ?
Where’s the nuclear airplane? Steam-powered airplanes have low power-to-weight ratio. Ion rocket is propelled by neutrons from nuclear fission. Still low power-to-weight ratio. Get it?
Let’s calculate the thrust-to-mass ratio of nuclear-powered ion rocket for fun
Let’s use the SNAP-10A space nuclear reactor
Electric power output = 590 W
Mass = 290 kg (excluding lead shield, control system, power conversion system, propellant tank)
Thrust of ion thruster = F = 0.025 N
Let’s use xenon for propellant
Ionization energy of xenon = 1170 kJ/mol
Propellant consumption rate = 590/(1170 x 1000) = 0.0005 mol/s
Operating time = 8760 hrs or 1 yr
Amount of propellant = 0.0005 (8760 x 3600) = 15,902.77 mol
Molar mass of xenon = 131.29 g/mol
Mass of propellant = 15,902.77 (131.29/1000) = 2088 kg
Mass propellant + reactor = m = 2088 + 290 = 2378 kg
Rocket acceleration = F/m = 0.025/2378 = 0.00001 m/s^2
A turtle can walk from 0 to 0.11 m/s in 10 sec.
Turtle acceleration = 0.11/10 = 0.011 m/s^2
Turtle is quicker than nuclear-powered ion rocket! LOL
The weight problem was due to the protective shield for the humans.
Sissies!
Russia’s ahead of us – how?
Russia’s navy has ONE aircraft carrier, and it burns diesel fuel, produces black
smoke. WE have an entire fleet of nuclear aircraft carriers, for Pete’s sake.
Russia has more nuke subs than diesels, but WE have more big nukes than Russia does. WE have a good safety record. Russia’s history with nuke-powered ships has been poor. Early Soviet endeavors resulted in a number of serious accidents – five where the reactor was irreparably damaged, and more resulting in radiation leaks. There were more than 20 radiation fatalities. WE didn’t have those problems.
This arm-waving and ‘look at us!’ stuff is not much else.
“Their nuclear powered cruise missile, a low flying stealth weapon with effectively unlimited range, sent shockwaves through the military community when President Putin revealed the new weapon last March.”
I love this part.
Putin has successfully copied an American program that was abandoned in 1964.
For further info, check out “the flying crowbar” or SLAM.
Mike Griffin, former NASA Administrator, and now Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering explained : “We developed the fundamental research in hypersonics decades ago, and chose not to weaponize it.” … China has done numerous tests of maneuverable hypersonic vehicles, and the U.S. cannot even detect them. The hypersonic threat includes a rapid launch-to-target that is very short, tens of minutes – we need a warning system and our ground-based radar systems can’t do that. We need to be able to see them from space.
Griffin sounds like SDI, no idea if they are looking at it though.
Mr. Griffin is “mis-under-directing”. The US has been working on hypersonic missiles for a long time as well.
Spewing raw hydrogen atoms in to space will increase the ppm of hydrogen atoms thereby causing universal warming.
I a all infavor though I am surprised to see it as a launch vehicle. I rather thought this would be the rocket for interplanetary oepration and never land on a planet. With performance like this, we can build our 1km space craft.
Apologies for the typos; I had an entropy spill on my keyboard. It will probably get worse.
The world is a little safer with Russia wasting its time on big pride projects to nowhere.
This is an article I expected to see in RT, a Kremlin mouthpiece, not in WUWT.
From the link within the article:
https://bgr.com/2018/11/14/russia-nuke-rocket-spacex-rocket/
“The Russian researchers say that their nuclear-powered rocket platform will be able to make it to Mars seven months after launch”
end excerpt
Seven months is roughly the normal trip time to Mars. It doesn’t look like the nuclear rocket speeds up the process any.
We could accomplish the same thing by putting Buzz Aldrin’s “Aldrin Cycler” transfer vehicles into service between Earth orbit and Mars orbit.
From Buzz Aldrin’s website:
“Upon the recommendation of Tom Paine (former NASA Administrator during the Apollo Moon landings), Buzz began to adapt the cycling orbit concept to the much more complex goal of human missions to Mars. Buzz’s shrewd estimations of the relative movements and positions of the Earth and Mars to determine the gravity-assist trajectories and orbital route of a perpetually cycling reusable spacecraft, as seen in his numerous hand drawings, were verified by engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). His concept worked and was christened the “Aldrin Cycler.
Aldrin’s system of cycling spacecraft makes travel to Mars possible using far less propellant than conventional means, with an expected five and a half month journey from the Earth to Mars, and a return trip to Earth of about the same duration on a twin semi-cycler.
The Aldrin Cycler’s design features a slow rotation of the spacecraft to create artificial gravity to avoid the bone and muscle loss hazard of weightlessness on long-duration trips.
In each cycle when the Aldrin Cycler’s trajectory swings it by the Earth, a smaller Earth-departing interceptor spacecraft ferries crew and cargo up to dock with the Cycler spacecraft. Ultimately, the Aldrin Cycler system of transportation offers a way to make travel to Mars sustainable for the long-term, in contrast to the brief excursions to the Moon during the six Apollo lunar landings from 1969 to 1972.”
end excerpt
The International Space Station is supposed to be retired in a few years and I suggest that we modify the habitation modules attached to ISS into Aldrin Cyclers.
Put one habitation module on each end of a mile-long cable and rotate them around the center at one revolution per minute and this will create artificial gravity in the interior of the habitat modules equivalent to the gravity on the Earth’s surface.
Cover each module with a water-ice coating one meter thick and this will protect the inhabitants from harmful radiation.
We need enough propellant to put the modules into an orbit that continuously orbits between the Earth and Mars. Once in this orbit no more propellant is required other than minor orbital adjustments and the modules will periodically return to Earth to pick up more passengers and supplies.
The ISS habitat modules are already in orbit and have served their purpose of protecting humans in space and they can continue to do so with a little retrofitting for the next phase of our space development efforts.
As for the Russian nuclear-propelled rocket and cruise missle, they give no details so there is no way to judge where they are or what exactly they are doing.
“We could accomplish the same thing by putting Buzz Aldrin’s “Aldrin Cycler” transfer vehicles into service between Earth orbit and Mars orbit.”
I suggest we use chemical rockets to send crew to Mars within travel time of less 4 months.
This can’t be done with a hohmann transfer.
And to use Aldrin Cycler, you also can’t reach a Aldrin Cycler using a hohmann transfer.
Nor can get to Mars in 7 months without using hohmann transfer, plus patched conic [which done at outward end/leg of a hohmann transfer- and to get to Aldrin Cycler you need do something like patched conic in the beginning of leg of journey to Mars].
So I would suggest not using a Aldrin Cycler for the Mars exploration program, though it might be useful for later Mars settlement of Mars, once Mars has been explored. And Mars exploration program should be to determine where on Mars would be the better spots to have human settlements- which would be a private sector “business” rather something paid for by a government.
So I would use chemical rockets to get exploration crew to Mars, as fast as possible/practical and this requires a non hohmann transfer to Mars. I think this possible to do this in less than 3 months, though requires a lot more delta-v as compared to Hohmann or Hohmann + patch conic trajectory.
If you start a Mars journey from high earth orbit, you need about 1 km/sec of delta-v. From high earth orbit, one returns near earth and apply the 1 km/sec rocket thrust at perigee to obtain a mars hohmann transfer to Mars. If start from LEO, you need about 4 km/sec and plus later do a patched conic, if want to get Mars in 7 months.
To get to Mars in less than 8 months, you need to change vector of orbit.
And to get to Aldrin Cycler , you need to change the vector at beginning of trip to Mars.
So from high earth orbit one will apply at least 7 km/sec of delta-v at perigee- and most of energy is used to change the vector which allow you arrive a Mars distance in about 4 months, and one also need a patched conic as you would if want to get to Mars within 7 month with hohmann transfer.
But this is not the same as adding 7 km/sec to a hohmann transfer, which is adding the vector, rather than changing the vector. If you add to the vector, you arrive at Mars distance going at high velocity- and need more delta-v for braking than you used to get to Mars.
Any way of getting to Mars in 3, 4, 5, 7 months requires changing the vector- whether Ion, nuclear, or with whatever propulsion. Or it has been claimed that with using ion propulsion, it possible to get to Mars in 39 days. And quite simply, a ion Engine does not use a hohmann transfer- because it’s low thrust, or a long duration rocket burn is not a hohmann transfer and has to involve changing the vector- and require more delta-v as compared to a hohmann transfer [because it’s changing the vector].
Also note this using chemical rockets and using the Oberth effect:
“In astronautics, a powered flyby, or Oberth maneuver, is a maneuver in which a spacecraft falls into a gravitational well, and then accelerates when its fall reaches maximum speed. The resulting maneuver is a more efficient way to gain kinetic energy than applying the same impulse outside of a gravitational well. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
Such advantage is not available to low thrust rockets used to go to Mars, but works with high thrust engines, like chemical rockets.
It looks like Russian or Chinese hypersonic craft were spotted by airline pilots of Southern Ireland recently:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46181662
I’m no physicist, but it appears that the us has successfully experimented with nuclear drones: http://theorichel.nl/Nuclear-drones
Putin would make a great test pilot also.
Nuclear powered cruise missiles? Nothing new – I give you the truly horrifying Pluto/SLAM: http://www.bisbos.com/air_missiles_pluto.html
Even the Brits considered it! http://www.bisbos.com/air_missiles_z-59.html
“The Russian plan for a nuclear powered launcher must be taken seriously. ”
Nope.
In Russia, everyone with a bit of brain is laughing at the Russian Space Agency cartoons. Strange that these fantasies are taken more or less seriously by some.
Russian Space Agency is closing the Soyuz propgram next year, they finally admitted that they are incapable to support it — professionally, financially, and technologically.
With oil prices on their way back up, financial support might reappear.
Well, it doesn’t look like oil prices are rising again. In any case, brain drain is the major factor. Space agency cannot function properly without brains.
Musk relying on antiquated… where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the vacuum tunnel train idea from the late 1700s that ended up being just a subway during that last test.:D