Nuclear Conversion for Starship
toughsf.blogspot.com
Nuclear Conversion for Starship
1–10 of 155 posts
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#2First 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
#3The summary of this methodical and enlightening article from an excellent source for mathematically backed science fiction / space travel is:
No. Nuclear is not worth it for starship, as the added engine weight limits the additional delta V and the additional challenges of handling nuclear material.
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#4First 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
#5First 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.
Exactly opposite of what the person above you is talking about.
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#6Since 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
#7I 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
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Exactly opposite of what the person above you is talking about.
shhh...cage match.
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#9AFAIK, 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
Re: Nuclear Conversion for Starship
#10Might be a stupid question: would this result in radioactivity just flying through space as we try to propel spacecraft with it?