21–30 of 155 posts
I 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.
Name me a country willing to give Elon Musk control of fissile material, however indirect.
Might be a stupid question: would this result in radioactivity just flying through space as we try to propel spacecraft with it?
It's not a stupid question. Space is already highly radioactive, with lots of protons and bigger nuclei from outside the solar system flying around in all directions, along with a ton of proton radiation from the Sun.
If that is the case, liquid hydrogen seems like an awful substance -- hard to produce and transport, hard to store and the mass required to support keeping it is not insubstantialy, all for a mass density of ~70g/L.
Why not just use water? Water is 1000g/L and can be stored without any real effort at all. If all you're doing is shooting it out the rear end of the rocket with as much energy as possible, it's mysterious why you would even consider liquid H2.
I 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.
Name me a country willing to give Elon Musk control of fissile material, however indirect.
There are in fact a lot of countries that would be thrilled to give Elon fissile material in exchange for investment.
Might be a stupid question: would this result in radioactivity just flying through space as we try to propel spacecraft with it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name me a country willing to give Elon Musk control of fissile material, however indirect.
Niger Central African Republic Cambodia Bolivia Palau Laos There are in fact a lot of countries that would be thrilled to give Elon fissile material in exchange for investment.
I only skimmed the article; but as I understood it the liquid hydrogen here is being used strictly as ejecta. It is not being combusted, the way that it is used in the space shuttle boosters. If that is the case, liquid hydrogen seems like an awful substance -- hard to produce and transport, hard to store and the mass required to support keeping it is not insubstantialy, all for a mass density of ~70g/L. Why not just…
I 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.
Name me a country willing to give Elon Musk control of fissile material, however indirect.
I only skimmed the article; but as I understood it the liquid hydrogen here is being used strictly as ejecta. It is not being combusted, the way that it is used in the space shuttle boosters. If that is the case, liquid hydrogen seems like an awful substance -- hard to produce and transport, hard to store and the mass required to support keeping it is not insubstantialy, all for a mass density of ~70g/L. Why not just…
I think all real-life actually-tested nuclear thermal rockets have used hydrogen as propellant, though use of other substances has definitely been proposed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a stupid question. Space is already highly radioactive, with lots of protons and bigger nuclei from outside the solar system flying around in all directions, along with a ton of proton radiation from the Sun.
Yes, but with very little long-lived decaying material that you could carry inside a survivable habitat.