Submitted by Creepy_Toe2680 t3_10ozjk9 in space
danielravennest t1_j6ivn9h wrote
Reply to comment by iheartbbq in NASA tested new propulsion tech that could unlock new deep space travel possibilities by Creepy_Toe2680
> (nobody wants a dirty bomb going off in the sky)
Before you start up a reactor for the first time, the core is low radiation. Reactors produce short-life fission products, which is what makes nuclear waste dangerous.
Rocket mass is in kg, not moles. Exhaust velocity is ~9 km/s for hydrogen, vs ~4.5 km for H2-O2 engines.
I'm a space systems engineer, who has worked on nuclear rocket designs. My opinion is the time for nuclear-thermal propulsion is past. Solar-thermal can get the same performance - both heat H2 to the limits of the materials. But solar doesn't have all the nuclear baggage to deal with.
Nuclear-electric has much higher performance (3-20 times), though like all electric systems it has longer burn times. The reactor can be much smaller (1 MW rather than 1 GW), making radiators and such easier to do.
iheartbbq t1_j6iwpzo wrote
Right, and I'm a SUPER spaceman Thunderbirds engineer.
All that matters is mass and rate of the amount of shit that gets shot out the back, doesn't matter if it's in moles or kg, according to your claim 18x more H2 coming out the ass, is that true?
danielravennest t1_j6j7zjo wrote
I'm writing a textbook on Space Systems Engineering. Check the "view history" tab on any page to see who wrote it.
>according to your claim 18x more H2 coming out the ass, is that true?
That's your number, not mine, and it is wrong.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments