nuclear thermal propulsion

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0110103501.htm

pasted paragraph:

The Nuclear Cryogenic Propulsion Stage team is tackling a three-year project to demonstrate the viability of nuclear propulsion system technologies. A nuclear rocket engine uses a nuclear reactor to heat hydrogen to very high temperatures, which expands through a nozzle to generate thrust. Nuclear rocket engines generate higher thrust and are more than twice as efficient as conventional chemical rocket engines.

To be used for the interplanetary legs of the trip not for liftoff.

Seen as a step to more powerful technologies.............Trig

.............. Trig

On Jan 10, 7:11*pm, Nun Giver wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0110103501.htm

pasted paragraph:

The Nuclear Cryogenic Propulsion Stage team is tackling a three-year project to demonstrate the viability of nuclear propulsion system technologies. A nuclear rocket engine uses a nuclear reactor to heat hydrogen to very high temperatures, which expands through a nozzle to generate thrust. Nuclear rocket engines generate higher thrust and are more than twice as efficient as conventional chemical rocket engines.

To be used for the interplanetary legs of the trip not for liftoff.

Seen as a step to more powerful technologies.............Trig

............. Trig

the devil in the details will be getting it launched. people will be
understandbly concerned about a accident contaminating the launch site
area.

this may be a good use for stratolauncher. since actual booster
ignition, of the chemical type could be far from lad over the ocean

In article ,
says...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0110103501.htm

pasted paragraph:

The Nuclear Cryogenic Propulsion Stage team is tackling a three-year project to demonstrate the viability of nuclear propulsion system technologies. A nuclear rocket engine uses a nuclear reactor to heat hydrogen to very high temperatures, which expands through a nozzle to generate thrust. Nuclear rocket engines generate higher thrust and are more than twice as efficient as conventional chemical rocket engines.

To be used for the interplanetary legs of the trip not for liftoff.

Seen as a step to more powerful technologies.............Trig

............. Trig

This type of research is good, but can't be counted on to be available
anytime soon, especially if it's going to be used for a manned mission.

I'd think such an engine would be so expensive, that it would need to be
reused for multiple missions, so it's got to be extremely reliable and
able to handle many, very long, burns. Sure, shorter trip times sound
good, but anything that puts an unproven technology on the "critical
path" becomes a show-stopper if it doesn't work out. So, I don't see
this as a "must have" for a manned Mars mission, but a "nice to have, if
it works out".

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article dd0c3bb3-91f5-461b-88c6-a48e28314f2f@
10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 10, 7:11*pm, Nun Giver wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0110103501.htm

pasted paragraph:

The Nuclear Cryogenic Propulsion Stage team is tackling a three-year project to demonstrate the viability of nuclear propulsion system technologies. A nuclear rocket engine uses a nuclear reactor to heat hydrogen to very high temperatures, which expands through a nozzle to generate thrust. Nuclear rocket engines generate higher thrust and are more than twice as efficient as conventional chemical rocket engines.

To be used for the interplanetary legs of the trip not for liftoff.

Seen as a step to more powerful technologies.............Trig

............. Trig

the devil in the details will be getting it launched. people will be
understandbly concerned about a accident contaminating the launch site
area.

People are "concerned" about a lot of things without truly understanding
the risk. Like you, they "feel it in their gut", even though the most
dangerous thing they likely do every day is get into their own personal
transportation vehicle (i.e. car) and drive to work at speeds sometimes
approaching 90 mph.

A young girl (18 or 19 years old) that graduated from my kids' high
school died a week or two ago when she lost control of her car on the
highway, somehow broke through the cable barrier in the center, and hit
a snow plow head on going the other direction on the other side of the
highway. She surely didn't feel any pain because the impact was so
severe and there was literally next to nothing recognizable left of her
vehicle. Accidents like that kill tens of thousands of people in the US
every single year (32,367 deaths in 2011).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._deaths_in_U.S.
_by_year

this may be a good use for stratolauncher. since actual booster
ignition, of the chemical type could be far from lad over the ocean

So, you'd rather replace a fixed launch at KSC or the Cape that would
have the vehicle spending a several seconds over land with the take off
of an aircraft which will spend at least several minutes over land? I
wouldn't make that trade. I'd want the thing away from land as quickly
as possible.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Jan 11, 8:50*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0110103501.htm

pasted paragraph:

The Nuclear Cryogenic Propulsion Stage team is tackling a three-year project to demonstrate the viability of nuclear propulsion system technologies. A nuclear rocket engine uses a nuclear reactor to heat hydrogen to very high temperatures, which expands through a nozzle to generate thrust. Nuclear rocket engines generate higher thrust and are more than twice as efficient as conventional chemical rocket engines.

To be used for the interplanetary legs of the trip not for liftoff.

Seen as a step to more powerful technologies.............Trig

............. Trig

This type of research is good, but can't be counted on to be available
anytime soon, especially if it's going to be used for a manned mission.

I'd think such an engine would be so expensive, that it would need to be
reused for multiple missions, so it's got to be extremely reliable and
able to handle many, very long, burns. *Sure, shorter trip times sound
good, but anything that puts an unproven technology on the "critical
path" becomes a show-stopper if it doesn't work out. *So, I don't see
this as a "must have" for a manned Mars mission, but a "nice to have, if
it works out".

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

have the engine stage reusable, first try it out sending a robot
vehicle to mars after dropping a sat at venus, then have it return to
earth, for any servicing if needed, then attach the mars astronaut
manned vehicle and send it on its way.

reuse of the nuke engine stage is needed to make it affordable

this may be a good use for stratolauncher. since actual booster
ignition, of the chemical type could be far from land over the ocean

So, you'd rather replace a fixed launch at KSC or the Cape that would
have the vehicle spending a several seconds over land with the take off
of an aircraft which will spend at least several minutes over land? *I
wouldn't make that trade. *I'd want the thing away from land as quickly
as possible.

Jeff

YES, since stratolauncher will be the well understood aircraft
operations to release point and booster ignition far out over the
ocean.

rather than booster igntion at KSC a launch failure could contaminate
a large portion of florida and could make it a exclusion zone.....

and even if the strato luncer carrier aircfaft failed it probably
would be a fireball like a typical rocket explosion

On Jan 11, 6:30*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

this may be a good use for stratolauncher. since actual booster
ignition, of the chemical type could be far from land over the ocean

So, you'd rather replace a fixed launch at KSC or the Cape that would
have the vehicle spending a several seconds over land with the take off
of an aircraft which will spend at least several minutes over land? *I
wouldn't make that trade. *I'd want the thing away from land as quickly
as possible.

YES, since stratolauncher will be the well understood aircraft
operations to release point and booster ignition far out over the
ocean.

In a 'one off' airplane. *How stupid are you, Bobbert?



rather than booster igntion at KSC a launch failure could contaminate
a large portion of florida and could make it a exclusion zone.....

Utter horse****.



and even if the strato luncer carrier aircfaft failed it probably
would be a fireball like a typical rocket explosion

If it fails it's going to hit the ground just like a rocket failure
will. *The difference is that it spends a lot longer over land.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

oh really it will be launched in aircraft mode from the shuttle
landing strip thats very near the ocean, and it could be launched
without any fuel other than jet fuel and get air refuled over the
ocean far from land.......

no matter what I say fred says impossible, just as a attempt to
discredit me

On Jan 12, 12:13*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jan 11, 6:30*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

this may be a good use for stratolauncher. since actual booster
ignition, of the chemical type could be far from land over the ocean

So, you'd rather replace a fixed launch at KSC or the Cape that would
have the vehicle spending a several seconds over land with the take off
of an aircraft which will spend at least several minutes over land? *I
wouldn't make that trade. *I'd want the thing away from land as quickly
as possible.

YES, since stratolauncher will be the well understood aircraft
operations to release point and booster ignition far out over the
ocean.

In a 'one off' airplane. *How stupid are you, Bobbert?

rather than booster igntion at KSC a launch failure could contaminate
a large portion of florida and could make it a exclusion zone.....

Utter horse****.

and even if the strato luncer carrier aircfaft failed it probably
would be a fireball like a typical rocket explosion

If it fails it's going to hit the ground just like a rocket failure
will. *The difference is that it spends a lot longer over land.

oh really it will be launched in aircraft mode from the shuttle
landing strip thats very near the ocean, and it could be launched
without any fuel other than jet fuel and get air refuled over the
ocean far from land.......

Even more risky operations for your 'one-off' airplane. *Now you're
going to do air refueling OF CRYOGENIC ROCKET FUEL? *You're well past
stupid at this point and far over the line into insane.



no matter what I say fred says impossible, just as a attempt to
discredit me

Please point to where I said "impossible", Bobbert, you lying little
****. *I said "stupid". *And it is. *YOU discredit you by insisting on
maintaining absolute ignorance about almost everything you talk about.
I don't have to do anything but point out when you say yet another
stupid thing. *It's not even a long wait...

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

fred is perhaps understandbly concerned that a really good idea here,
might somehow result in some defense spending cuts that could impact
his industry..

just imagine a IDEA, for a example unlimited power from a space
anchored tether.
( this is just a example).

if such a power source were discovered it might be a game changer for
many industries.

power plants of all types could be largely shut down, nuclear fuels
would no longer be needed, the oil industry would be hurt
dramatically Oil?? still used for lubrication. Gasoline?
obsolete...... most new vehicles are electric

the capital costs of such a big project might tke money from defense,
and heck might lead to a more peaceful world.......

hurting freds income and investments........

On Jan 10, 4:11*pm, Nun Giver wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0110103501.htm

pasted paragraph:

The Nuclear Cryogenic Propulsion Stage team is tackling a three-year project to demonstrate the viability of nuclear propulsion system technologies. A nuclear rocket engine uses a nuclear reactor to heat hydrogen to very high temperatures, which expands through a nozzle to generate thrust. Nuclear rocket engines generate higher thrust and are more than twice as efficient as conventional chemical rocket engines.

To be used for the interplanetary legs of the trip not for liftoff.

Seen as a step to more powerful technologies.............Trig

............. Trig

They could also use fusion generated thrust, such as the explosive
fusion methods created by our NIF for creating better weapons of mass
destruction, could instead be put to good rocket thrust applications.

On Jan 12, 5:18*am, bob haller wrote:
On Jan 12, 12:13*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:









bob haller wrote:
On Jan 11, 6:30*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

this may be a good use for stratolauncher. since actual booster
ignition, of the chemical type could be far from land over the ocean

So, you'd rather replace a fixed launch at KSC or the Cape that would
have the vehicle spending a several seconds over land with the take off
of an aircraft which will spend at least several minutes over land? *I
wouldn't make that trade. *I'd want the thing away from land as quickly
as possible.

YES, since stratolauncher will be the well understood aircraft
operations to release point and booster ignition far out over the
ocean.

In a 'one off' airplane. *How stupid are you, Bobbert?

rather than booster igntion at KSC a launch failure could contaminate
a large portion of florida and could make it a exclusion zone.....

Utter horse****.

and even if the strato luncer carrier aircfaft failed it probably
would be a fireball like a typical rocket explosion

If it fails it's going to hit the ground just like a rocket failure
will. *The difference is that it spends a lot longer over land.

oh really it will be launched in aircraft mode from the shuttle
landing strip thats very near the ocean, and it could be launched
without any fuel other than jet fuel and get air refuled over the
ocean far from land.......

Even more risky operations for your 'one-off' airplane. *Now you're
going to do air refueling OF CRYOGENIC ROCKET FUEL? *You're well past
stupid at this point and far over the line into insane.

no matter what I say fred says impossible, just as a attempt to
discredit me

Please point to where I said "impossible", Bobbert, you lying little
****. *I said "stupid". *And it is. *YOU discredit you by insisting on
maintaining absolute ignorance about almost everything you talk about.
I don't have to do anything but point out when you say yet another
stupid thing. *It's not even a long wait...

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

fred is perhaps understandbly concerned that a really good idea here,
might somehow result in some defense spending cuts that could impact
his industry..

just imagine a IDEA, for a example unlimited power from a space
anchored tether.
( this is just a example).

if such a power source were discovered it might be a game changer for
many industries.

power plants of all types could be largely shut down, nuclear fuels
would no longer be needed, the oil industry would be hurt
dramatically Oil?? still used for lubrication. Gasoline?
obsolete...... most new vehicles are electric

the capital costs of such a big project might tke money from defense,
and heck *might lead to a more peaceful world.......

hurting freds income and investments........

His job security depends entirely on his FUD-master skills.