Russian Nuclear powered spacecraft by 2025

Jaafa

Just talk or the real deal?

A ground-breaking Russian nuclear space-travel propulsion system will be ready by 2017 and will power a ship capable of long-haul interplanetary missions by 2025.........The megawatt-class nuclear drive will function for up to three years and produce 100-150 kilowatts of energy at normal capacity.
It is under development at Skolkovo, Russia’s technology innovation hub, whose nuclear cluster head Denis Kovalevich confirmed the breakthrough to Interfax.

Dublin_Gunner

Smells like BS to me.

1. A nuclear reactor does not generate thrust.
2. 'Nuclear propulsion' originally envisaged deflecting nuclear explosions to push the craft in the opposite direction - however, this article is getting itself confused, as it mentions using nuclear power as an energy source instead of sunlight (see point 1).
3. What type of engine would a nuclear reactor power, that makes it so revolutionary? Sure, replace the main power source with nuclear generated energy, but the propulsion system itself would be quite conventional I'd imagine.

Or they've though up of some super duper incredible nuclear drive that can not only generate power for the craft, but generate thrust to propel it.

dbran

Hi

Sounds like a belated April Fool joke

dbran

Zubeneschamali

There've been lots of ideas for nuclear powered spaceships: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA for example.

Nuclear power is also used for probes heading into the outer solar system, where solar power is weak, like Voyager.

shizz

There's been lot's of research done into Nuclear power for propulsion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_core_reactor_rocket to be specific in one I really like the thoughts of.

But more generally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

Calibos

Could be powering an ION drive system

2 stroke

Jaafa wrote: »

produce 100-150 kilowatts of energy at normal capacity /QUOTE]


Definitly enough energy to light a few bulbs, but I think the astronauts will have to get out and push.

slade_x

Calibos wrote: »

Could be powering an ION drive system

yes thats exactly what it is. its even stated in the article how the power will be supplied to drive an electric ion propulsion system

The new project proposes the use of an electric ion propulsion system. The engines exhaust thrust will be generated by an ion flow, which is further accelerated by an electric field. The nuclear reactor will therefore “supply” the necessary amount of electric power without unwanted radioactive contamination of the environment

The conventional ion drive uses energy aquired by a solar panel array and uses that energy to ionize and then accelerate a gas as an exhaust. This engine will use a nuclear reactor to do the same thing

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Smells like BS to me.

1. A nuclear reactor does not generate thrust.
2. 'Nuclear propulsion' originally envisaged deflecting nuclear explosions to push the craft in the opposite direction - however, this article is getting itself confused, as it mentions using nuclear power as an energy source instead of sunlight (see point 1).
3. What type of engine would a nuclear reactor power, that makes it so revolutionary? Sure, replace the main power source with nuclear generated energy, but the propulsion system itself would be quite conventional I'd imagine.

Or they've though up of some super duper incredible nuclear drive that can not only generate power for the craft, but generate thrust to propel it.

1. No they do not generate thrust. nor does a steam engine generate trust either

2. i dont see how it confuses itself as it clearly states nuclear energy as the power source. much like many countries around the world use nuclear energy to create electricity. the reactor will generate electrical energy to power an ion drives systems. solar power generates electrical energy also but first has to aquire solar energy and store it however temporarily, an onboard nuclear reactor will have all the energy it needs from the get go.

3. Although not new I think an ion drive is pretty revolutionary. it is not a chemical propulsion system and so does not need to carry a massive payload of fuel to power itself. chemical rockets as you know are limited.

also:

The nuclear reactor will therefore “supply” the necessary amount of electric power without unwanted radioactive contamination of the environment.

2 stroke wrote: »

Jaafa wrote: »

produce 100-150 kilowatts of energy at normal capacity

Definitly enough energy to light a few bulbs, but I think the astronauts will have to get out and push.

That is a lot of power. The International Space Station has no more than 200kW of power usage. The Hubble space telescopes power usage is 2.8kW

So a few light bulbs? you do realise 100-150kW is 100,000 to 150,000 watts of power. Thats up to 1500 100 watt light bulbs, or 6000 25 watt energy saving bulbs

Dublin_Gunner

slade_x wrote: »

1. No they do not generate thrust. nor does a steam engine generate trust either

2. i dont see how it confuses itself as it clearly states nuclear energy as the power source. much like many countries around the world use nuclear energy to create electricity. the reactor will generate electrical energy to power an ion drives systems. solar power generates electrical energy also but first has to aquire solar energy and store it however temporarily, an onboard nuclear reactor will have all the energy it needs from the get go.

3. Although not new I think an ion drive is pretty revolutionary. it is not a chemical propulsion system and so does not need to carry a massive payload of fuel to power itself. chemical rockets as you know are limited.

You know I think that article has changed a whole lot from when I first read it - either that or my iPhone re-edited it when I read it first lol

AugustusMinimus

Problem with all these engine designs is that they all require propellant. Run out of propellant and you're screwed.

Propellantless propulsion could be the biggest revolution in space travel if it is ever achieved.

Dublin_Gunner

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Problem with all these engine designs is that they all require propellant. Run out of propellant and you're screwed.

Propellantless propulsion could be the biggest revolution in space travel if it is ever achieved.

Hydrogen shouldn't be an issue. Its everywhere if they come up with a way to collect it in space. (this obviously depends on exactly how long you wish to travel for - carrying enough propellant for a specific journey shouldn't be an issue barring an accident).

AugustusMinimus

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Hydrogen shouldn't be an issue. Its everywhere if they come up with a way to collect it in space.

It's in insanely minute quantities. Nothing near what would be required to be used as a propellant I would suspect.

You also have the issue of picking up stationery hydrogen would slow down your spaceship.

Dublin_Gunner

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

It's in insanely minute quantities. Nothing near what would be required to be used as a propellant I would suspect.

You also have the issue of picking up stationery hydrogen would slow down your spaceship.

If in the future its structured into the mission plan, I really wouldn't see the issue. However we're talking a long time away.

For now, carrying enough propellant doesn't seem to be an issue.

al28283

does anyone know how long one of these new ones would realistically last without refuelling? Is it the same tech as a reactor in a nuclear submarine?

slade_x

al28283 wrote: »

does anyone know how long one of these new ones would realistically last without refuelling? Is it the same tech as a reactor in a nuclear submarine?

Really depends on how its designed but the voyager 1 spacecraft (which is coasting unlike what an ion drive will do) that left earth about 35 years ago is nuclear powered and is still transmitting. Takes over 16 hours though each way. Its about 120 times (120 AU) more distant from earth than the mean distance between the earth and sun (1 AU)

I think its estimated to completely run out of power within the next 15-20 years.

slade_x

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Problem with all these engine designs is that they all require propellant. Run out of propellant and you're screwed.

Propellantless propulsion could be the biggest revolution in space travel if it is ever achieved.

Ikaros does not use any propellant. It uses a solar sail as propulsion as does the Cubesail

There is also the idea to utilise the same type of sail only powered by lasers. You could not only use the two beam laser propulsion system to propel the spacecraft but could also possibly use the beam to power onboard systems. We dont have nearly enough power generation capabilities required for this solution though

SNAKEDOC

its all well and good having a satellite or small craft with solar panels to provide power for a short burn but scale that up to a craft which is supposed to carry humans and everything to keep them alive for how many years to other planets even in our solar system and back again with one tank of propellant its crazy. look at the now retired shuttle. look at the big tank it needed just to get into orbit. and yes i know it won't be normal rocket fuel on the Russian ship but still thats a lot of mass and a very big volume of propellant. space isn't a walk in the park. one teeny little leak and sorry folks no going home. Also will they be building this thing in orbit if so that's a huge undertaking and the amount quoted around 200 million won't cut it. or should i say launch it. here's dreamin. inter planetary endeavors is more then twenty years away.

Tomk1

Problem with solar sails is it's one-way, not great if you wanna return home.

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

its all well and good having a satellite or small craft with solar panels to provide power for a short burn but scale that up to a craft which is supposed to carry humans and everything to keep them alive for how many years to other planets even in our solar system and back again with one tank of propellant its crazy. look at the now retired shuttle. look at the big tank it needed just to get into orbit. and yes i know it won't be normal rocket fuel on the Russian ship but still thats a lot of mass and a very big volume of propellant. space isn't a walk in the park. one teeny little leak and sorry folks no going home. Also will they be building this thing in orbit if so that's a huge undertaking and the amount quoted around 200 million won't cut it. or should i say launch it. here's dreamin. inter planetary endeavors is more then twenty years away.

The Ion-drive was being reseached in the 60's but with the political moon-landing mission, the project as with many other projects were scrapped, only with the millennium project was Ion propultion system used, as satellite operators didn't want to try untested technology on thier new billion dollar satellite. Now launching a satellite without an ion-drive system on board is the laughable, many craft has been saved after failure of the final stage, the ion-system which primary use is for keeping the satellite in position, has been used to get a craft from a low diminishing orbit up to it's correct operating orbit.

So ion-drives are there in use, and being reseached & improved to use heavier propultion particules. (basically they're akin to a cathode ray tube ie old TV-tech)

Combining two funtional proven teachnologies makes sense. A mission to Mars needs a craft that can return under it's own propulsion, unlike a ballistic missile, swing-shot around another body, and having to wait for the window. A ion-drive though low thrust, delivers a constant acceleration which should result in substantial velocities.

A craft can be final assembled in orbit as we know and refueled in ordit, SNAKEDOC how many died assembling the ISS ?

Appologies for spelling, math is my language

SNAKEDOC

i don't have the first clue how many died during the construction but that's not what the thread is about. we are discussing the feasibility of a Russian nuclear fueled interplanetary ship capable of prolonged flight beyond our atmosphere. i think that it is many decades away. think of it this way. in 1892 the first car was built and in 1997 man broke the speed barrier while on four wheels. thats 105 years between those two events. now space travel. 1957 sputnik launched and now 2012. thats only 55 years since space travel by a machine was made possible. All advances made in space flight was on the back of a military need to do it better that the russians so i believe that we won't see any flight beyond our protective atmosphere before 2070 at least, whether or not ion drives exist.

Captain Chaos

Ok this is getting silly. No one died in the construction of the ISS, that much is clear. No astronaut has died in space, only the two shuttle accidents in our atmosphere.

Ion drives exist. There is an ion engine planned to be launched and docked to the ISS for testing. If all goes well it will be used in an orbit boost for the ISS that it needs every so often and was provided by the shuttle in the past.

Yes there will be a manned mission by some nation to beyond what has been done before to either the L3,4 or 5 positions as a mid point to maybe getting to a stable NEO which will be easier to get back from than Mars. Any manned Mars mission before 2100 will be a one way mission for sure.

battle_hardend

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Ok this is getting silly. No one died in the construction of the ISS, that much is clear. No astronaut has died in space, only the two shuttle accidents in our atmosphere.

Ion drives exist. There is an ion engine planned to be launched and docked to the ISS for testing. If all goes well it will be used in an orbit boost for the ISS that it needs every so often and was provided by the shuttle in the past.

Yes there will be a manned mission by some nation to beyond what has been done before to either the L3,4 or 5 positions as a mid point to maybe getting to a stable NEO which will be easier to get back from than Mars. Any manned Mars mission before 2100 will be a one way mission for sure.

how could a manned mission be one way ?

AugustusMinimus

battle_hardend wrote: »

how could a manned mission be one way ?

Can remember who it was, but they volunteered themselves back in the 70s to land on Mars, spend a month on the surface and then commit suicide as it would have been impossible with 70s and 80s tech to get them back.

The truth is that the technology is there now, or would be here within a short time with relevent investment to get people on Mars and return them. It won't take until 2100 to put people on Mars as the poster has said.

battle_hardend

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Can remember who it was, but they volunteered themselves back in the 70s to land on Mars, spend a month on the surface and then commit suicide as it would have been impossible with 70s and 80s tech to get them back.

The truth is that the technology is there now, or would be here within a short time with relevent investment to get people on Mars and return them. It won't take until 2100 to put people on Mars as the poster has said.

2100 is not that far away and since we would be going there for the sake of it , its unlikely such a mission will be prioritised

SNAKEDOC

its easy to get a human to mars relatively speaking. however there is the problem of radiation beyond the electric fields of the moon and the earth to protect the astronaut so any ship will have to be built like a nuclear reactor shield just to be half way safe for the occupant but your problems start the second you start planning how to get enough propellant from earth to mars in order to get any sizable ship of the planet and out of the gravitational pull of mars and on a return trajectory to earth. i don't even think it has even been attempted to land a ship without dumping all fuel before reentry even the shuttle dumped fuel before attempting reentry. How do you even get that amount of fuel into orbit. 500.000 gallons of fuel is a lot and thats just to get in an orbit of about 500 km's. try landing that on mars. The only feasible way is to have a mothership and landing craft configuration like the moon landings however it would obviously have to be built in orbit.

Now before anyone starts on about ion drives and such yes they are available for orbit stabilization and for small satellites propulsion but it isn't capable of launch or entry to a planets atmosphere for which wee need rocket engines. the thought of a manned mission to mars inside of 15 years is frankly silly. its a throwback to the cold war days of getting a nuclear bomber flying. the cold war is over so stop competing

dbran

Hi

Getting humans to Mars is very do-able. However it would take the collective will of a number of nations to do it and certainly would not be done in the form of a space race. It would be simply just too expensive for one country alone to bear the cost.

Some of the factors that were mentioned as impediments

1. Radiation

There are two types of radiation that a would be astronaut would need to worry about.

The first type is radiation from the solar wind and the sun. If an unshielded astronaut is caught in a solar storm then a lethal dose of radiation can be quickly suffered. However the type of particles that are emitted by solar flares are mainly alpha particles which can be easily shielded by parts of the spacecraft itself. The Astronauts would have a few hours or days warning before the onset of a solar storm. Enough to get into a securely shielded area for the few hours until the storm passed.

The second type of radiation is from outside the solar system itself and cosmic rays. These are generally much heavier particles and have higher energies and cannot be shielded without putting enormous structures into the spacecraft. However this form of cosmic radiation does not spike into storms but is constantly at a low level. It turns out that a trip to Mars would effectively give you your lifetime dose of radiation and would be the equivalent of smoking two cigarates a day for the entirety of your life. Not healthy, but still not lethal just a significant increase in the risk of you getting cancer latter on in life.

Fuel

Fuel is everything and an important Fuel Management Plan would be vital. Most of the launch weight of any craft would be fuel. Robert Zubarin in his book Together to Mars advocates that we "Live off the Land".

What Mars has is an atmoshere, water, carbon dioxide and basically all the chemicals and ingrediants necessary to make enough fuel for the return journey to Earth from Mars in sitiu. An Ion drive would not be strong enough to launch from Mars so a combination of chemical and ion propulsion would surely have to be used.

Basically the plan would be to launch an unmanned vehicle before the manned expedition set out from Earth which would ensure that before we left Earth, there was already fuel made and waiting for us to arrive.

The huge "Batlestar Galactica" approach would just be enormously expensive and complex as you would need bring enough fuel to launch, slow down at mars, launch again and slow down again at Earth.

dbran

SNAKEDOC

the idea of sending an advance ship to refine fuel is itself risky at best. The project would cost as much as getting the humans to mars and back and then some. The refining process would take probably several years if not over a decade to have enough fuel for a launch from the mars surface and then to get on a return trajectory to earth. I know it sounds far fetched but the set up portrayed in the movie Red Planet could work and similar to the moon landings with one ship in constant orbit and a smaller ship to land on the surface and be launched back to orbit to the waiting ship to return to earth. a smaller ship means less propellant required for liftoff and if docking with a ship in orbit then even less fuel is required as the fuel is only used to get to orbit.

dbran

Hi

Sending the unmanned advance ship would not be that risky at all. We have plenty of experience of sending unmanned landing craft to Mars and have been doing this since the 70s. Send two if you need backup redundancy.

Based on the information we have on Mars atmosphere and soil it would take maybe 6 months, not years and certainly not decades to produce sufficient fuel for the return trip.

Bringing all the fuel from Earth would be enormously expensive and risky as if anything happens to the fuel on the way you will be in trouble.


dbran

dbran

duplicate

corpo3030

As far as I remember NASA did a feasibility study for the US government back around 2002. The result was that with current technology it would be possible to send a crew there as long as they were willing to stay. Like has already been mentioned, propulsion and radiation shielding were the main obstacles to getting the crew back. As well as the estimated cost being something like 400 billion dollars, because NASA do not have anything capable of leaving Earth orbit, they have to get lifts off of Russia to get to the ISS.

shizz

corpo3030 wrote: »

As far as I remember NASA did a feasibility study for the US government back around 2002. The result was that with current technology it would be possible to send a crew there as long as they were willing to stay. Like has already been mentioned, propulsion and radiation shielding were the main obstacles to getting the crew back. As well as the estimated cost being something like 400 billion dollars, because NASA do not have anything capable of leaving Earth orbit, they have to get lifts off of Russia to get to the ISS.

WOAH no way man. I think Mars Direct is targeted at about 20-30 Billion and that doesn't require them to stay. Staying wouldn't necessarily bring down the cost either. The amount of technology that will have to be designed, bettered, field tested and proven before we would put any human on a lump of rock in space indefinitely.

EDIT: I think you got the 400 Billion dollars from the 90 day report in the 80's which of course involved the LEO, Moon and "battlestar galactica" style space infrastructure.

The thing is there has been suggestions that solve all of the problems stated here but there just hasn't been a push to get testing them out on Mars. That's the problem at the moment.

I would be one of the people who think we need to push for lunar development at a slow and steady space. We could well get to Mars without touching the Moon again but why do that? Test ourselves on the Moon first. Our species isn't going anywhere any time soon (hopefully). I would love to see all of this in my time but I'm not greedy. These things take time and I sincerely hope I will play a part in it.

shizz

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

the idea of sending an advance ship to refine fuel is itself risky at best. The project would cost as much as getting the humans to mars and back and then some. The refining process would take probably several years if not over a decade to have enough fuel for a launch from the mars surface and then to get on a return trajectory to earth. I know it sounds far fetched but the set up portrayed in the movie Red Planet could work and similar to the moon landings with one ship in constant orbit and a smaller ship to land on the surface and be launched back to orbit to the waiting ship to return to earth. a smaller ship means less propellant required for liftoff and if docking with a ship in orbit then even less fuel is required as the fuel is only used to get to orbit.

It's actually an awful lot safer to produce fuel on the surface (providing the technology works). Can you imagine the risk involved in landing a fully crewed and fuelled ship on Mars? One that is full with the return to Earth fuel?

Also, why is it better to have a mothership in orbit? These Mars missions will be going on for over a year on the surface. So you're talking about leaving an unmanned orbiter there for that length of time and hoping that nothing happens to it and its safe to ride home. You are putting all of your hope in that ship which you can't maintain or fix.

Capt'n Midnight

Tomk1 wrote: »

A craft can be final assembled in orbit as we know and refueled in ordit, SNAKEDOC how many died assembling the ISS ?

One hundred billion buys a lot of healthcare.

Defo enough to eradicate several diseases.




Thing to remember about the Russians is that they can give NASA / ESA a run for their money on about a tenth the budget.



As for reaction mass, there are plenty of decomissioned satellites up there, could probably charge to remove them

Capt'n Midnight

shizz wrote: »

It's actually an awful lot safer to produce fuel on the surface (providing the technology works). Can you imagine the risk involved in landing a fully crewed and fuelled ship on Mars? One that is full with the return to Earth fuel?

Also, why is it better to have a mothership in orbit? These Mars missions will be going on for over a year on the surface. So you're talking about leaving an unmanned orbiter there for that length of time and hoping that nothing happens to it and its safe to ride home. You are putting all of your hope in that ship which you can't maintain or fix.

Apollo 13 got home because they were able to use the fuel in the lander

Mothership means all the mass you don't need on the planet can be left in orbit. Like radiation shielding, long range communications, exercise rooms, food for the return trip, you can sleep in inflatable tents or find a cave on mars and seal it. Enviromental conditions on the surface are easier for humans but more difficult for machines the reverse in orbit.
It's just like apollo ,having an orbiter means the lander only needs to a smaller crew alive for a shorter time, so suddenly you have a much smaller lander which means weight savings all the way back.


To make fuel on the surface you would need nuclear reactor or perhaps wind turbine and hope there are no accidents in the 18 months it takes you to get there,

shizz

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Apollo 13 got home because they were able to use the fuel in the lander

The Apollo programs ascent/lander didn't have nearly as much fuel as would be needed in a Mars mission. Not to mention he was talking about landing in the ascent vehicle with all the fuel needed, through an atmosphere. That could be incredibly dangerous.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Mothership means all the mass you don't need on the planet can be left in orbit. Like radiation shielding, long range communications, exercise rooms, food for the return trip, you can sleep in inflatable tents or find a cave on mars and seal it. Enviromental conditions on the surface are easier for humans but more difficult for machines the reverse in orbit.
It's just like apollo ,having an orbiter means the lander only needs to a smaller crew alive for a shorter time, so suddenly you have a much smaller lander which means weight savings all the way back.

Why would having an orbiter affect the crew size and time? There's no way you could leave someone up there in the orbiter for the length of time manned missions to Mars are planned for. This leads to it being unoccupied and orbiting for many days,presumably in some sort of idle working condition, where if something goes wrong on it the crew could be in jeopardy on the ground.

EDIT: Admittedly this obviously can be done and is an engineering problem more than anything. But of course other events out of your hands could come into place.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

To make fuel on the surface you would need nuclear reactor or perhaps wind turbine and hope there are no accidents in the 18 months it takes you to get there,

Yes you would undoubtedly need a large power source and this has been implanted in Mars mission plans. The crews wouldn't be sent out until they signal coming from the ISRU plant confirms that the provisions of fuel needed are satisfactory. If anything happens to it on the way there are aborts available (most notably to Mars anyway). Also 18 months? 180 days is the length that has been chosen for manned missions, which comes from a conjunction type mission. No one would want a crew travelling for 18 months.