# Russia plans 2018 test of nuclear engine....Earth to Mars in 6 weeks



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 16, 2016)

The country is betting on nuclear propulsion because it weighs almost half as much as a chemical rocket without reducing thrust.

This means larger payloads of cargo can be carried on the spacecraft and they can also be made to travel far faster.
And unlike existing technology which uses defined trajectories, a nuclear engine also allows a spacecraft to manoeuvre throughout the flight.
The $274 million project, which was originally overseen by the space agency RosCosmos in 2010, has now become the responsibility of nuclear group, Rosatom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosatom


'A nuclear power unit makes it possible to reach Mars in a matter of one to one and a half months, providing capability for manoeuvring and acceleration,' Sergey Kirienko, head of Rosatom told RT .
'Today's engines can only reach Mars in a year and a half, without the possibility of return.'
Russia currently has used over 30 fission reactors in space, the US has flown only one - the SNAP-10A (System for Nuclear Auxiliary Power) in 1965. 

Engineers at Nasa have also been drawing up plans to use nuclear thermal propulsion in a mission to Mars in 2033.
According to the space agency's design, uranium-235 nuclear reactions are used to heat liquid hydrogen inside a reactor, turning it into ionized hydrogen gas, or plasma.
This plasma is then channeled through a rocket nozzle to generate thrust.












Dr Stanely Borowski, an engineer at Nasa's John Glenn Research Centre, last year outlined how this could then be used to propel a space with its crew through space in a official Nasa paper.
He said the spacecraft, called Copernicus, would consist of separate cargo and crewed transfer vehicles, each powered by a nuclear thermal propuslion stage.
These would be constructed from a 'core' that use three engines each capable of producing thrust of around 25,000 lbs of force.
He estimates that these vehicles could make the 40 million mile trip to Mars within 100 days.
It took the Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft carrying Nasa's Curiosity Rover to Mars 253 days to reach the red planet.
Writing in his paper, Dr Borowski said: 'The analysis presented here indicates transit time reductions as much as 50 per cent are possible.'



Nasa first began researching nuclear thermal rockets as part of its Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) programme in 1959.






The most powerful nuclear rocket engine ever tested was the Phoebus 2a, which was fired for 32 minutes in Nevada in 1968 as can be seen in the photo above


Nasa has been using nuclear material to power spacecraft for decades.
In 1960 a satellite programme called TRANSIT, used to guide missiles from space, was the first to use plutonium isotopes to create batteries.
These work by wrapping the plutonium with thermoelectrics, that turn the heat given off by the decaying isotope into electricity.
Nasa also used plutonium batteries on its failed Nimbus B1 satellite, which blew up on launch.
In 1972 and 1973 Nasa then launched its Pioneer space probes, which used 155-watt nuclear batteries to keep them powered as they travelled to the very edge of the solar system.
The Viking landers, which touched down on Mars for the first time in 1976, also used plutonium batteries to power their experiments.
The Voyager probes, which have become the first manmade objects to leave the solar system, also relied upon three plutonium-238 batteries that have allowed them to communicate with Earth for 36 years.
The Ulysses sun probe also used a nuclear battery to keep the spacecraft operating while it performed a slingshot around Jupiter.
The Galileo spaceprobe to Jupiter's moons also used two nuclear batteries to give it 570 watts of power.
The Cassini space probe to Saturn carried the largest nuclear battery every launched, weighing 72lbs.
In 1959, Nasa began work with the US Atomic Energy Commission to develop a nuclear powered rocket to carry astronauts into space, but the project was ended in 1973 at the same time as the Apollo space missions.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 17, 2016)

Mmmm, plasma.  A novel approach but it is ulitimately limited by how much hydrogen it can carry.  Also, the fission reactor makes manned missions a problem because they have to be shielded.

I'm surprised NASA allowed themselves to get so far behind Russia in this area.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 17, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Russia currently has used over 30 fission reactors in space, the US has flown only one - the SNAP-10A (System for Nuclear Auxiliary Power) in 1965.


What happens in the event these Nuclear powered devices come crashing back down as space junk?


----------



## droopyRO (Mar 17, 2016)

They could burn up upon reentry ? don`t know what would happen to the nuclear material, they could redirect it towards Chernobil or Fukushima


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 17, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> What happens in the event these Nuclear powered devices come crashing back down as space junk?



duck and cover


----------



## Ebo (Mar 17, 2016)

just give the pilots a one way ticket, problem solved.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 17, 2016)

*Nuclear Propulsion In Space (1968)*


----------



## GhostRyder (Mar 17, 2016)

I think the idea of this that sounds the most interesting is not only the time reduction, but the fact its not a one way trip.  That by itself is cool because then it would make travel and building settlements/space stations in the far reaches of space much more feasible.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Mar 17, 2016)

Sure...I'll take a little radiation with my cup of ozone, 2 sugar please.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 18, 2016)

Ebo said:


> just give the pilots a one way ticket, problem solved.


Any volunteers want to live on Mars?


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 18, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> What happens in the event these Nuclear powered devices come crashing back down as space junk?



Hit it with another nuke.  I mean, it just kinda begs for it...


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Mar 18, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Mmmm, plasma.  A novel approach but it is ulitimately limited by how much hydrogen it can carry.  Also, the fission reactor makes manned missions a problem because they have to be shielded.
> 
> I'm surprised NASA allowed themselves to get so far behind Russia in this area.



If I recalled right nasa do planned a nuclear power spaceship it is called "project orion". It don't use plasma though The plan is to use time nuclear detonations to propel the ship.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 18, 2016)

MIRTAZAPINE said:


> If I recalled right nasa do planned a nuclear power spaceship it is called "project orion". It don't use plasma though The plan is to use time nuclear detonations to propel the ship.


----------



## GhostRyder (Mar 18, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Hit it with another nuke.  I mean, it just kinda begs for it...


 I started laughing when I read that because I was thinking the exact same thing LOL.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 18, 2016)

Trolling the depths of my science fiction reading ( its Extensive )
 time to bodge on a Bussard ram jet / Bussard ramscoop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Mar 22, 2016)

I designed this when I was in the 5th grade. They stole it!



dorsetknob said:


> Trolling the depths of my science fiction reading ( its Extensive )
> time to bodge on a Bussard ram jet / Bussard ramscoop
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 22, 2016)

Wow.  I call crap.  I'm calling it, because you copy pasted a huge section of what you are saying directly from somebody else's work, without ever citing them.

How about the link?  http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ons/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx


The exact text blob is copied.  They do a better job at covering the history (though they do so with sheer volume of words), and their only failing is not including pictures.  I don't have an issue with copying to show the material, but at least include a link to the thing you're basically copying from.


----------



## AsRock (Mar 22, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> What happens in the event these Nuclear powered devices come crashing back down as space junk?



more like when we can get of this planet any thing close will be totally polluted lol.



Easy Rhino said:


> duck and cover



is still practiced in some US states.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 22, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> What happens in the event these Nuclear powered devices come crashing back down as space junk?



http://www.space4peace.org/ianus/npsm2.htm

The simple answer is...sad.  Their solution for their nuclear reactors, with highly enriched Uranium, was to include a "disposal" stage to each payload.  Said disposal stage moves the satellite to higher orbits, where they remain to this day.  With the half-life of Uranium they're still a threat.  The short answer is that the US didn't pursue nuclear reactor technologies because they were highly inefficient at the time (2% energy conversion) and posed a gigantic danger.

As far as actual plans, the Soviets didn't have one.  They knew the material wouldn't burn up in re-entry, and even if it did enriched Uranium dust posed a huge issue.  They effectively placed gigantic middle fingers to the future in orbit, that remain there to this day.


----------



## Inceptor (Apr 1, 2016)

It's only a matter of time.
Either there will be some nuclear rocket variant (e.g. Gas core nuclear rocket) for deep space missions and fast transits to Mars.
Or, compact fission reactors will be used to power VASIMR engines; they can't generate enough thrust without a multi-megawatt nuclear powerplant of some kind.


----------



## natr0n (Apr 1, 2016)

To me this is all bullshit. They(anyone involved in space work) already have future tech and just trickle bits of knowledge down to the public to satiate interests.


----------



## vega22 (Apr 1, 2016)

i don't think nasa got far behind in nuke powered craft.

this one got to the moon in hours and mars in weeks....


https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/spacecraft/index.html

http://energy.gov/ne/articles/new-horizons-mission-powered-space-radioisotope-power-systems


----------



## remixedcat (Apr 1, 2016)

natr0n said:


> To me this is all bullshit. They(anyone involved in space work) already have future tech and just trickle bits of knowledge down to the public to satiate interests.


And then the masses are asses lead into nuclear being bad when it's all bullshit. Only reactors fail by operator error or sabatoge by greenpeace hippy shitheads.


----------



## P4-630 (Apr 1, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Any volunteers want to live on Mars?



Mark Watney


----------



## remixedcat (Apr 1, 2016)

I got some food lined up for him as well


----------

