Nuclear Conversion for Starship
11–20 of 155 posts
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#12Since this is presumably for interplanetary, and not heavy lift, I'm not sure why you'd use this over just having thin-film solar + pulsed plasma thruster (which can do anything from 1km/s to 3000km/s exhaust velocity).
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#13Might be a stupid question: would this result in radioactivity just flying through space as we try to propel spacecraft with it?
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#14Might be a stupid question: would this result in radioactivity just flying through space as we try to propel spacecraft with it?
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#15I think we'll see nuclear propulsion for Starship variants that receive fuel rods in orbit and are not designed for reentry. Interplanetary logistics between Earth/Moon/Mars orbits.
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#16First I am reading about nuclear engines applied to Starship. I wonder if it would be more practical to launch the reactor, fuel, and propellant into orbit using conventional rockets. Later a mission could pick up this Nuclear rocket engine and use it as a sort of booster while not inside a strong gravitational field. Ofc that doesn’t sound like Starship at all.
Nuclear rockets are useless for launching things into orbit. They don't have the thrust-to-weight ratio to get off the ground. Nuclear rockets are useful because they have high specific impulse which means using less fuel for thrust.
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#17Might be a stupid question: would this result in radioactivity just flying through space as we try to propel spacecraft with it?
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#18First I am reading about nuclear engines applied to Starship. I wonder if it would be more practical to launch the reactor, fuel, and propellant into orbit using conventional rockets. Later a mission could pick up this Nuclear rocket engine and use it as a sort of booster while not inside a strong gravitational field. Ofc that doesn’t sound like Starship at all.
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#19AFAIK, the only nuclear rocket that makes sense is landing a reactor on an icy comet and using it to shoot super heated steam wherever you want thrust. #seveneves
RIP New Caird
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#20Aren't SpaceX launch explosions big enough already?
As an adult, Kerbal Space Program has taught me that it's incredibly difficult to lose the orbital velocity and get things into the Sun!
But the answer my teachers told me was "Well, even if rockets have a 99.5% success rate and a 0.5% failure rate, and only 1 out of every 200 rockets explodes during launch... then eventually a rocket carrying nuclear waste is going to explode and spread it everywhere"
As others have pointed out: Nuclear rockets don't have the thrust ratio necessary for take off, so presumably they'd be assembled and used in space. My question is: What level of risk does launching nuclear rocket parts/fuel into space pose?