Skip to main content

Space Travel and Nuclear Propulsion

By Eric McErlain

I know we talk a lot about electricity generation here at NEI Nuclear Notes, but it's important to remember that there are plenty of other peaceful uses of nuclear technology that deserve some attention. Over at Wired, they're looking at how companies building space probes are beginning to push for new developments in nuclear propulsion.

For more on nuclear propulsion in space travel, click here.
Labels:

Comments

Space Fission said…
New life for nukes in space

A vision of nuclear propulsion to send humans to the planets is taking shape on the high desert of the Snake River plain in eastern Idaho even though there is no spaceport here. A design from the 1960s to send space payloads to the Moon, Mars, and beyond using a nuclear reactor is being updated with new ideas and technologies. Stephen Howe, Director of the Center for Space Nuclear Research (CNSR), in Idaho Falls, ID, says his design ideas could, if implemented, carry an additional eight tons of payload on a mission to send astronauts to the Moon.

If you are thinking in terms of moving coal or grain along the Mississippi in a river barge, eight tons is a sneeze in the scheme of things. However, in the rocket ship business, where payloads are measured by the pound, and with costs at lift off measured in the tens of thousands of dollars per pound of payload, eight tons is a very big number.

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-life-for-nukes-in-space.html
September 21, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Anonymous said…
The point not made clearly in the Wired piece is that a nuclear reactor wouldn't contain anything other than enriched uranium until it was launched and the reactor fired up once the thing had reached orbit. If anything, the environmental risks posed by a space nuclear reactor are less than those from existing RTGs.

Furthermore, chemical rockets are simply inadequate for space travel. Either you need to use energy from somewhere else (which means some form of solar), or a more energy dense fuel, which means nuclear. And solar energy is simply too diffuse in the outer solar system.

If we want to do substantive exploration of our solar system, we'll have to continue to use nuclear energy. It's that simple.
September 22, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Anonymous said…
here's a good web page on matters related to nuclear power in space:

http://www.nuclearspace.com/
September 24, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more