A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

About the "Mars in two weeks" nuclear rocket.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 28th 05, 03:54 PM
Robert Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default About the "Mars in two weeks" nuclear rocket.

There was a study announced a few years ago on a more efficient
nuclear fuel, Am-242m, that would allow a trip to Mars in two weeks:

Extremely Efficient Nuclear Fuel Could Take Man To Mars In Just Two
Weeks.
Date: 2001-01-03
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0103073253.htm

Taking the number 75,000,000 km for the distance at closest approach
for Earth and Mars, we can calculate the acceleration required to reach
the half way point in 7 days, or 608,000 seconds (thereafter the rocket
would turn around and use the engine to decelerate over 7 more days.)
The formula for the distance travelled (s) at constant acceleration (a)
over time (t) is:

s= 1/2 * a * t^2

So:

37.5E9 = 0.5 x a x (608000)^2 = 0.5 x a x 3.7E11 ,
so a = 0.2 m/s^2 .

Then the max velocity is: 0.2 x 608000 = 120960 m/s, about 121 km/s.

I found a report on line that derived some design elements for this
propulsion method:

FISSION FRAGMENTS DIRECT HEATING OF GAS PROPELLANT FOR SPACE ROCKET.
http://www.crs4.it/Areas/cfd/10-IWCP_article.pdf

It gives the Isp as 2500s, maximum.

This page gives the formula for the mass ratio in terms of the velocity
change over the trip, or delta V:

DESIGN-CENTERED INTRODUCTION TO AEROSPACE ENGINEERING.
http://www.adl.gatech.edu/classes/dci/space/dci10.html

The mass ratio is given as: M1/M2 = e^(deltaV/g*Isp)

So in this case: M1/M2 = e^(4.937) = 139. If the ship itself weighed
100 tons the ship plus propellant would weigh 14,000 tons.

This is large, but the "DESIGN-CENTERED INTRODUCTION TO AEROSPACE
ENGINEERING" web page gives the mass ratio to reach Earth escape
velocity for standard chemical rockets, as with the Apollo missions, as
18.7. So this nuclear Mars mission would be less than a factor of 10
higher.
Also, this page on general nuclear propulsion methods suggest some,
gas-core designs, can reach Isp's of 6000s:

Nuclear Propulsion
http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html

Since this is only considering plutonium and uranium reactors and the
Am-242m fuel is more efficient, it's likely the Am-242m reactor can
also reach this Isp. Then at 6000s Isp the mass ratio would only be:
e^(120960/9.8*6000) = 7.8 , which is less than the mass ratio for Earth
escape velocity with chemical rockets.
The design shown in the "FISSION FRAGMENTS DIRECT HEATING OF GAS
PROPELLANT FOR SPACE ROCKET" report seems to be intermediate between
the solid core and gas core approach to a nuclear rocket. Perhaps a
fully gas-core approach for using the Am-242m fuel would allow it to
reach Isp's in the 6000s range.

Bob Clark

  #2  
Old February 28th 05, 04:06 PM
Sam Wormley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Clark wrote:
There was a study announced a few years ago on a more efficient
nuclear fuel, Am-242m, that would allow a trip to Mars in two weeks:


What are the G forces involved?

  #3  
Old February 28th 05, 04:36 PM
Robert Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

s= 1/2 * a * t^2
The acceleration is given in the calculation:

s= 1/2 * a * t^2,

37.5E9 = 0.5 x a x (608000)^2 = 0.5 x a x 3.7E11 ,
so a = 0.2 m/s^2 .

This is 1/50 of normal Earth gravity of 9.8 m/s^2. So a 200 pound man
would weigh only 4 lbs. This could be a problem over a long mission but
not on a trip of only two weeks duration.

Bob Clark

  #4  
Old February 28th 05, 04:43 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Robert Clark" wrote in message
oups.com...
There was a study announced a few years ago on a more efficient
nuclear fuel, Am-242m, that would allow a trip to Mars in two weeks:

Extremely Efficient Nuclear Fuel Could Take Man To Mars In Just Two
Weeks.
Date: 2001-01-03
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0103073253.htm


You left out the quotes that indicate that this is far less than a "paper
rocket", more like a theoretical paper rocket.

"There are still many hurtles to overcome before americium-242m
can be used in space," Ronen says. "There is the problem of
producing the fuel in large enough quantities from plutonium-241
and americium-241, which requires several steps and is expensive.
But the material is already available in fairly small amounts.
In addition, actual reactor design, refueling, heat removal, and
safety provisions for manned vehicles have not yet been examined.

So, even the actual design of the reactor has not been examined. At this
point, it's all theory and conjecture.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.



  #5  
Old February 28th 05, 06:36 PM
Gregory L. Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
Robert Clark wrote:
There was a study announced a few years ago on a more efficient
nuclear fuel, Am-242m, that would allow a trip to Mars in two weeks:

Extremely Efficient Nuclear Fuel Could Take Man To Mars In Just Two
Weeks.
Date: 2001-01-03
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0103073253.htm

Taking the number 75,000,000 km for the distance at closest approach
for Earth and Mars, we can calculate the acceleration required to reach
the half way point in 7 days, or 608,000 seconds (thereafter the rocket
would turn around and use the engine to decelerate over 7 more days.)
The formula for the distance travelled (s) at constant acceleration (a)
over time (t) is:

s= 1/2 * a * t^2

So:

37.5E9 = 0.5 x a x (608000)^2 = 0.5 x a x 3.7E11 ,
so a = 0.2 m/s^2 .

Then the max velocity is: 0.2 x 608000 = 120960 m/s, about 121 km/s.

I found a report on line that derived some design elements for this
propulsion method:

FISSION FRAGMENTS DIRECT HEATING OF GAS PROPELLANT FOR SPACE ROCKET.
http://www.crs4.it/Areas/cfd/10-IWCP_article.pdf

It gives the Isp as 2500s, maximum.


Its great claim to efficiency seems to be directly exposing the propellant
to fission fragments, while the more traditional nuclear rocket needs to
let heat leak out from inside the fuel with the temperature limited by how
well the heat is removed from the fuel and the temperatures that the
engine structure can handle.

For something not requiring americium, consider a more conventional
reactor with an array of cooling tubes running through it, made of uranium
or plutonium or other fissile material of your choice. Forget the thin
films of exotic materials, use bulk material with a switchable neutron
source.

--
"Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and win
by experience."
  #6  
Old February 28th 05, 06:37 PM
Robert Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Robert Clark" wrote in message
oups.com...
There was a study announced a few years ago on a more efficient
nuclear fuel, Am-242m, that would allow a trip to Mars in two

weeks:

Extremely Efficient Nuclear Fuel Could Take Man To Mars In Just Two
Weeks.
Date: 2001-01-03
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0103073253.htm


You left out the quotes that indicate that this is far less than a

"paper
rocket", more like a theoretical paper rocket.

"There are still many hurtles to overcome before americium-242m
can be used in space," Ronen says. "There is the problem of
producing the fuel in large enough quantities from plutonium-241
and americium-241, which requires several steps and is expensive.
But the material is already available in fairly small amounts.
In addition, actual reactor design, refueling, heat removal, and
safety provisions for manned vehicles have not yet been examined.

So, even the actual design of the reactor has not been examined. At

this
point, it's all theory and conjecture.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.


The purpose of the report:

FISSION FRAGMENTS DIRECT HEATING OF GAS PROPELLANT FOR SPACE ROCKET.
http://www.crs4.it/Areas/cfd/10-IWCP_article.pdf

was to give a preliminary design of such a rocket. It gives a schematic
diagram of the engine and values for the dimensions, thermal
efficiency, exhaust temperature, thrust, and Isp.

There are ways for separating out desired isotopes that are being used
in experimental work that can probably be scaled up to work for
separating out Am-242m in large amounts.


Bob Clark

  #7  
Old February 28th 05, 06:52 PM
Robert Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article .com,
Robert Clark wrote:
There was a study announced a few years ago on a more efficient
nuclear fuel, Am-242m, that would allow a trip to Mars in two weeks:

Extremely Efficient Nuclear Fuel Could Take Man To Mars In Just Two
Weeks.
Date: 2001-01-03
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0103073253.htm

Taking the number 75,000,000 km for the distance at closest approach
for Earth and Mars, we can calculate the acceleration required to

reach
the half way point in 7 days, or 608,000 seconds (thereafter the

rocket
would turn around and use the engine to decelerate over 7 more

days.)
The formula for the distance travelled (s) at constant acceleration

(a)
over time (t) is:

s= 1/2 * a * t^2

So:

37.5E9 = 0.5 x a x (608000)^2 = 0.5 x a x 3.7E11 ,
so a = 0.2 m/s^2 .

Then the max velocity is: 0.2 x 608000 = 120960 m/s, about 121 km/s.

I found a report on line that derived some design elements for this
propulsion method:

FISSION FRAGMENTS DIRECT HEATING OF GAS PROPELLANT FOR SPACE ROCKET.
http://www.crs4.it/Areas/cfd/10-IWCP_article.pdf

It gives the Isp as 2500s, maximum.


Its great claim to efficiency seems to be directly exposing the

propellant
to fission fragments, while the more traditional nuclear rocket needs

to
let heat leak out from inside the fuel with the temperature limited

by how
well the heat is removed from the fuel and the temperatures that the
engine structure can handle.

For something not requiring americium, consider a more conventional
reactor with an array of cooling tubes running through it, made of

uranium
or plutonium or other fissile material of your choice. Forget the

thin
films of exotic materials, use bulk material with a switchable

neutron
source.

--
"Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and

win
by experience."


Extremely Efficient Nuclear Fuel Could Take Man To Mars In Just Two
Weeks.
"To meet the challenge of a light nuclear reactor, Ronen examined one
element of reactor design, the nuclear fuel itself. He found at the
time that of the known fission fuels, Am-242m is the front-runner,
requiring only 1 percent of the mass (or weight) of uranium or
plutonium to reach its critical state."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0103073253.htm

This seems to be a fundamental improvement in the efficiency over
uranium, plutonium fuels analogous to the efficiency of hydrogen over
kerosene as measured by Isp.


Bob Clark

  #8  
Old February 28th 05, 09:53 PM
Uncle Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Clark wrote:

There was a study announced a few years ago on a more efficient
nuclear fuel, Am-242m, that would allow a trip to Mars in two weeks:

Extremely Efficient Nuclear Fuel Could Take Man To Mars In Just Two
Weeks.
Date: 2001-01-03
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0103073253.htm


[snip erudition]

So in this case: M1/M2 = e^(4.937) = 139. If the ship itself weighed
100 tons the ship plus propellant would weigh 14,000 tons.


Say there, git, how many kilos of americium were you planning to
snuggle within? Do you have any idea how to manufacture it or how
much it would cost to obtain? Or how to handle it at scale in your
application? Remember how fission was going to generate electricity
so cheap it would not be metered?

Even xenon ion engines are obscenely expensive because isolating 10
tonnes of xenon is no laughing matter - and it's in the air for free.
Volatile metal fuels short out the works (and mercury also dissolves
them). SF6, freons, and the like are horribly corrosive when ionized,
including toward ceramics. Argon does not store densely even as the
cryogenic liquid.

This is large, but the "DESIGN-CENTERED INTRODUCTION TO AEROSPACE
ENGINEERING" web page gives the mass ratio to reach Earth escape
velocity for standard chemical rockets, as with the Apollo missions, as
18.7. So this nuclear Mars mission would be less than a factor of 10
higher.

[snip]

"Less than a factor of 10." Giggle. One Reagan-class aircraft
carrier is ridiculous. Mulitply by eight.

Hey Bob, remember the Enviro-whiner stink about a little Pu-238 in the
Cassini thermal isotope generators? They'll stink on your parade much
more - enriched U, Pu and Am are all fission bomb stuffings.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
  #9  
Old March 1st 05, 11:57 AM
Robert Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Uncle Al wrote:
Robert Clark wrote:

There was a study announced a few years ago on a more efficient
nuclear fuel, Am-242m, that would allow a trip to Mars in two

weeks:

Extremely Efficient Nuclear Fuel Could Take Man To Mars In Just Two
Weeks.
Date: 2001-01-03
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0103073253.htm


[snip erudition]

So in this case: M1/M2 = e^(4.937) = 139. If the ship itself

weighed
100 tons the ship plus propellant would weigh 14,000 tons.


Say there, git, how many kilos of americium were you planning to
snuggle within? Do you have any idea how to manufacture it or how
much it would cost to obtain? Or how to handle it at scale in your
application? Remember how fission was going to generate electricity
so cheap it would not be metered?

Even xenon ion engines are obscenely expensive because isolating 10
tonnes of xenon is no laughing matter - and it's in the air for free.


Volatile metal fuels short out the works (and mercury also dissolves
them). SF6, freons, and the like are horribly corrosive when

ionized,
including toward ceramics. Argon does not store densely even as the
cryogenic liquid.

This is large, but the "DESIGN-CENTERED INTRODUCTION TO AEROSPACE
ENGINEERING" web page gives the mass ratio to reach Earth escape
velocity for standard chemical rockets, as with the Apollo

missions, as
18.7. So this nuclear Mars mission would be less than a factor of

10
higher.

[snip]

"Less than a factor of 10." Giggle. One Reagan-class aircraft
carrier is ridiculous. Mulitply by eight.

Hey Bob, remember the Enviro-whiner stink about a little Pu-238 in

the
Cassini thermal isotope generators? They'll stink on your parade

much
more - enriched U, Pu and Am are all fission bomb stuffings.


Was your purpose in mentioning the Reagan-class carriers a reference
to their weight? They weigh much more than the number I remarked for
the mass of the Mars mission:

USS Ronald Reagan
"Displacement: 77,600 tons light, 98,235 tons full"
http://www.answers.com/topic/uss-ronald-reagan

Or a reference to their cost and size multiplied by the number of
carriers built? In any case, they *were* built. A Mars mission would
likewise require a tremendous investment of national resources.
Actually, my guess is that it will be an international project.

Note also that the ratio of actual liftoff weight of the Apollo
missions to payload was 60 to 1:

Saturn V Rocket.
# Stage m0 mp m1
1. S1C 300.0 4492.0 4792.0
2. S2 95.0 942.0 1037.0
3. SIVB 34.0 228.0 262.0
4. IU 4.5 0.0 4.5
5. payload - - 109.6
"Here m0 is the stage empty weight, mp is the propellant, and m1 is the
stage total, in thousands of pounds."
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad3.html

Adding up the numbers in the last column you get total weight over
6,200,000 lbs. to the payload of 109.6 lbs. Note also you probably
wouldn't launch from Earth but from space so you wouldn't have to worry
about the gravitational effects on this large mass.
You probably also wouldn't get the fuel, both reaction mass and
radioactive materials, from Earth but from the Moon or near earth
asteroids.
Also, as I said it is *very* likely that a reactor design can be
created for the Am-242m fuel that produces an Isp of 6000s since such
designs already exist for uranium and plutonium and Am-242m is 100
times more efficient. An Isp of 6000s would result in a mass ratio less
than 8.
There are experimental methods now used that can efficiently separate
isotopes in small amounts. These methods very likely would scale up to
larger amounts. The cost of this scaling I estimate would be a small
fraction of the cost of the mission.
I'm sure with your extensive knowledge you could ferret out some of
these methods. I would prefer not to say precisely in a public forum.



Bob Clark

  #10  
Old March 1st 05, 11:15 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In sci.space.policy Robert Clark wrote:
Also, as I said it is *very* likely that a reactor design can be
created for the Am-242m fuel that produces an Isp of 6000s since such
designs already exist for uranium and plutonium and Am-242m is 100
times more efficient. An Isp of 6000s would result in a mass ratio less
than 8.


It is utterly unimportant how effective Am-242 using nuclear reactors
would be becuase the fact is that you aren't going to get the Am-242.
Because teh total worldwide production of Americum is in kilograms,
only about 5% of that is Am-242 *and* it has a half-life of 150 years.

There are experimental methods now used that can efficiently separate
isotopes in small amounts. These methods very likely would scale up to
larger amounts. The cost of this scaling I estimate would be a small
fraction of the cost of the mission.


You can't extract what isn't there. Am-242 is a short half-life element
that does not occour naturaly at all.


Bob Clark


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ted Taylor autobiography, CHANGES OF HEART Eric Erpelding History 3 November 15th 04 12:32 AM
Space Calendar - February 27, 2004 Ron Astronomy Misc 1 February 27th 04 08:18 PM
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 1 November 28th 03 10:21 AM
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 Ron Baalke History 0 October 24th 03 04:38 PM
Farewell to the Earth and the Moon - ESA's Mars Express Successfully Tests Its Instruments Ron Baalke Misc 0 July 17th 03 04:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.