Russian nuclear-powered SSTO vehicle

We would have **** bricks if they had launched this thing rather than
Buran (it's towards the bottom of the webpage):
http://translate.google.com/translat...ry.htm%23myasi
This was a project from way back, around the time they were planning Buran.
As you can see by the Mir station it's carrying cargo to in the top
painting, this thing would have been huge in size.
That reactor back at the tail end looks pretty huge in its own right.

Pat

On Feb 13, 1:56špm, Pat Flannery wrote:

We would have **** bricks if they had launched this thing rather than
Buran (it's towards the bottom of the webpage):http://translate.google.com/translat...n&ie=UTF-8&lay...
This was a project from way back, around the time they were planning Buran.

On 2/13/2011 2:40 PM, Allen Thomson wrote:

If I understand it, which is only moderately likely, the reactor was
to be used in-atmosphere as a nuclear ram-jet-ish engine.
Exoatmosphere was H2O2 conventional rocket, no?

To quote and translate

In 1974, at Gurko, a new technical idea, which allows to significantly
reduce fuel consumption by placing in an air heat exchanger circuit,
nagrevayusch (heating) its warm air from an onboard nuclear reactor.

âÌÁÇÏÄÁÒÑ ÔÁËÏÍÕ ÔÅÈÎÉÞÅÓËÏÍÕ ÒÅÛÅÎÉÀ ÐÏÑ×ÉÌÁÓØ ×ÏÚÍÏÖÎÏÓÔØ × ÐÒÉÎÃÉÐÅ
ÉÓËÌÀÞÉÔØ ÒÁÓÈÏÄ ÔÏÐÌÉ×Á ÐÒÉ ÐÏÌÅÔÅ × ÁÔÍÏÓÆÅÒÅ É ÓÏÏÔ×ÅÔÓÔ×ÕÀÝÉÅ
×ÙÂÒÏÓÙ × ÁÔÍÏÓÆÅÒÕ ÐÒÏÄÕËÔÏ× ÓÇÏÒÁÎÉÑ. (Thanks to such a
technological solution it was possible in principle to avoid expending
fuel during atmospheric flight with the accompanying ejection of
combustion products into the atmosphere.)

As near as I could make of it, it starts out as a air and hydrogen
powered jet engine aircraft, cranks up the reactor and picks up speed
till it becomes a nuclear powered hot-air ramjet, then switches over to
pure rocket mode, heating its LH2 fuel supply with the reactor to work
like a NERVA rocket.
The translation is odd enough to know just what they are talking about
in detail.
Back around the time this was being talked about, the Soviets converted
a airliner to run on liquid hydrogen, and that might have been related
to this project: http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=82
Scott Lowther says that a new Russian language book to be released
shortly will have a lot more info on this spacecraft design.
It would have been a real problem as far as maintenance and storage
between flights went, as the reactor (and the whole back end of the
aircraft after a few flights)would be dangerously radioactive. in the
case of our NB-36H Convair Crusader nuclear test aircraft, the reactor
was lowered into a shielded pit after every flight, and raised back into
the aircraft before flight.
We actually designed something as big as this thing once as a SSTO
shuttle, but it didn't use a reactor AFAIK:
http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytw...lvs/sld047.htm

Pat

On Feb 13, 10:03*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 2/13/2011 2:40 PM, Allen Thomson wrote:





If I understand it, which is only moderately likely, the reactor was
to be used in-atmosphere as a nuclear ram-jet-ish engine.
Exoatmosphere was H2O2 conventional rocket, no?

To quote and translate

In 1974, at Gurko, a new technical idea, which allows to significantly
reduce fuel consumption by placing in an air heat exchanger circuit,
nagrevayusch (heating) its warm air from an onboard nuclear reactor.

âÌÁÇÏÄÁÒÑ ÔÁËÏÍÕ ÔÅÈÎÉÞÅÓËÏÍÕ ÒÅÛÅÎÉÀ ÐÏÑ×ÉÌÁÓØ ×ÏÚÍÏÖÎÏÓÔØ × ÐÒÉÎÃÉÐÅ
ÉÓËÌÀÞÉÔØ ÒÁÓÈÏÄ ÔÏÐÌÉ×Á ÐÒÉ ÐÏÌÅÔÅ × ÁÔÍÏÓÆÅÒÅ É ÓÏÏÔ×ÅÔÓÔ×ÕÀÝÉÅ
×ÙÂÒÏÓÙ × ÁÔÍÏÓÆÅÒÕ ÐÒÏÄÕËÔÏ× ÓÇÏÒÁÎÉÑ. (Thanks to such a
technological solution it was possible in principle to avoid expending
fuel during atmospheric flight with the accompanying ejection of
combustion products into the atmosphere.)

As near as I could make of it, it starts out as a *air and hydrogen
powered jet engine aircraft, cranks up the reactor and picks up speed
till it becomes a nuclear powered hot-air ramjet, then switches over to
pure rocket mode, heating its LH2 fuel supply with the reactor to work
like a NERVA rocket.
The translation is odd enough to know just what they are talking about
in detail.
Back around the time this was being talked about, the Soviets converted
a airliner to run on liquid hydrogen, and that might have been related
to this project:http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=82
Scott Lowther says that a new Russian language book to be released
shortly will have a lot more info on this spacecraft design.
It would have been a real problem as far as maintenance and storage
between flights went, as the reactor (and the whole back end of the
aircraft after a few flights)would be dangerously radioactive. in the
case of our NB-36H Convair Crusader nuclear test aircraft, the reactor
was lowered into a shielded pit after every flight, and raised back into
the aircraft before flight.
We actually designed something as big as this thing once as a SSTO
shuttle, but it didn't use a reactor AFAIK:http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytw...lvs/sld047.htm

Pat

Sort of like "Project Pluto" except Pluto was low altitude.
I think Pluto should be revived as an "in atmosphere" probe for Venus,
Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Titan. It would fly for months
or even years taking data.

On Feb 14, 11:58*am, Frogwatch wrote:

I think Pluto should be revived as an "in atmosphere" probe for Venus,
Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Titan. *It would fly for months
or even years taking data.

I'm not sure about a nuclear ramjet for scoping out those places, but
a nuclear blimp or slightly-rigid airship might be very interesting.

http://www.astronautix.com/props/nucarlh2.htm

The US test fired a nuclear thermal rocket, and ram jet, in the
1950s. Things slowed down after LBJ took over after JFKs death.
Nixon gutted the program. Carter canceled it.

Too bad.

I remember reading about the Helios B in Scientific American and other
publications back in the day.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/heliosb.htm

81 tonnes to Earth escape. I recall a winged reusable version that
would fly to Mars, aerobrake and land, then take off to return to an
airstrip landing on Earth - 18 months after launch. Then, 26 months
after the first launch, the system would be launched again -
delivering 22 tons on a round trip to Mars and back every Synodic
period. A fleet of 20 vehicles would deliver 200 tons to Mars a year
on average - and build up cities there within a decade and within two
decades establish self sustaining culture.

Finding water, and refueling on Mars - with a 20 ton return payload -
allows up to 60 tons to be flown. Upping the size of the reactor from
14 GW to 140 GW increases vehicle size by 10x - and payloads as
well. So, 20 larger vehicles deliver 6,000 tons to Mars a year -
enough to sustain 100,000s of people tied to Earth - more when not
dependent of Earth.

On Feb 14, 8:53*pm, wrote:
http://www.astronautix.com/props/nucarlh2.htm

The US test fired a nuclear thermal rocket, and ram jet, in the
1950s. *Things slowed down after LBJ took over after JFKs death.
Nixon gutted the program. *Carter canceled it.

Too bad.

I remember reading about the Helios B in Scientific American and other
publications back in the day.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/heliosb.htm

81 tonnes to Earth escape. *I recall a winged reusable version that
would fly to Mars, aerobrake and land, then take off to return to an
airstrip landing on Earth - 18 months after launch. *Then, 26 months
after the first launch, the system would be launched again -
delivering 22 tons on a round trip to Mars and back every Synodic
period. *A fleet of 20 vehicles would deliver 200 tons to Mars a year
on average - and build up cities there within a decade and within two
decades establish self sustaining culture.

Finding water, and refueling on Mars - with a 20 ton return payload -
allows up to 60 tons to be flown. *Upping the size of the reactor from
14 GW to 140 GW increases vehicle size by 10x - and payloads as
well. * *So, 20 larger vehicles deliver 6,000 tons to Mars a year -
enough to sustain 100,000s of people tied to Earth - more when not
dependent of Earth.

the radioactive exhaust in our atmosphere might have been a issue

On Feb 14, 11:18*pm, " wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:53*pm, wrote:



http://www.astronautix.com/props/nucarlh2.htm

The US test fired a nuclear thermal rocket, and ram jet, in the
1950s. *Things slowed down after LBJ took over after JFKs death.
Nixon gutted the program. *Carter canceled it.

Too bad.

I remember reading about the Helios B in Scientific American and other
publications back in the day.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/heliosb.htm

81 tonnes to Earth escape. *I recall a winged reusable version that
would fly to Mars, aerobrake and land, then take off to return to an
airstrip landing on Earth - 18 months after launch. *Then, 26 months
after the first launch, the system would be launched again -
delivering 22 tons on a round trip to Mars and back every Synodic
period. *A fleet of 20 vehicles would deliver 200 tons to Mars a year
on average - and build up cities there within a decade and within two
decades establish self sustaining culture.

Finding water, and refueling on Mars - with a 20 ton return payload -
allows up to 60 tons to be flown. *Upping the size of the reactor from
14 GW to 140 GW increases vehicle size by 10x - and payloads as
well. * *So, 20 larger vehicles deliver 6,000 tons to Mars a year -
enough to sustain 100,000s of people tied to Earth - more when not
dependent of Earth.

the radioactive exhaust in our atmosphere might have been a issue


A well designed and operated nuclear reactor operated within the
limits of its design using 1950s technology that is lightweight, high
power, produces NO radioactive exhaust during normal operation.

This is why in the early designs radioactive exhaust was really a non-
issue. It only became so later - after LBJ was installed as President
in November 1963.

That's because LBJ replaced the early leadership of the reactor
program when he took office.

In my view he sidelined the good guy in 1963, who said NERVA would be
flight ready by 1965, and promoted the cautious guy who said he
thought NERVA would NEVER be ready in the time frame of interest - for
lunar or Mars exploration - as director at the same time.

Recall that vonBraun was sidelined at this time as well, being removed
from his team in Huntsville and moved to Washington DC far from his
lab and those who worked for him getting things done.

vonBraun and others were also forbidden at this time from talking to
the press or publishing their ideas without prior NASA approval.
vonBraun was working on a book before he retired. He died only a few
months after he retired. The book has never been published.

The new guy in the NERVA program spent a lot of time and energy
containing radioactive debris at the lab site and studying this
problem and talking about it. There also arose in 1964 a public
outcry about radioactive waste at Jackass Flats at this time. The
only nuclear site to have such a group operating to bring this sort of
attention to it.

So this left everyone with the impression that flying reactors were
just a crazy idea - something the new director agreed with.

Rather than accept that nuclear rockets must be operated within a
specific range of temperatures and pressures and carefully controlled
to achieve that end, the new director's first act as director was to
cause a destructive test of the core to be done - destroying the
reactor core.

This test intended to cause abject destruction of the core by
purposely operating it beyond the known limits. This against the
objections of the people who built it. The new director then used the
fact that radioactive material was spewed across the desert and the
public outcry about that to spend inordinate amounts of money on
containment systems that wouldn't have been needed had the earlier
program track been followed. This caused budget to skyrocket and
further testing to be delayed.

The new director also publicized the 'problems' the nuclear program
had with radiation while calling for more money for research of the
problem - stating on many occasions that he didn't think the nuclear
rocket was a very good idea if we were interested in practical space
flight systems in this time frame (1960s and 70s) and also stating he
thought it totally unsuitable for launch vehicles since power levels
were too dangerous to be considered by reasonable people. He
promoted the idea that smaller nuclear rockets or nuclear electric
rockets operated solely in space were really the only practical things
to do with this technology. This program caused Carter to eventually
cancel the program after Nixon gutted it, reducing it to only paper
studies.

On Feb 14, 11:18*pm, " wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:53*pm, wrote:



http://www.astronautix.com/props/nucarlh2.htm

The US test fired a nuclear thermal rocket, and ram jet, in the
1950s. *Things slowed down after LBJ took over after JFKs death.
Nixon gutted the program. *Carter canceled it.

Too bad.

I remember reading about the Helios B in Scientific American and other
publications back in the day.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/heliosb.htm

81 tonnes to Earth escape. *I recall a winged reusable version that
would fly to Mars, aerobrake and land, then take off to return to an
airstrip landing on Earth - 18 months after launch. *Then, 26 months
after the first launch, the system would be launched again -
delivering 22 tons on a round trip to Mars and back every Synodic
period. *A fleet of 20 vehicles would deliver 200 tons to Mars a year
on average - and build up cities there within a decade and within two
decades establish self sustaining culture.

Finding water, and refueling on Mars - with a 20 ton return payload -
allows up to 60 tons to be flown. *Upping the size of the reactor from
14 GW to 140 GW increases vehicle size by 10x - and payloads as
well. * *So, 20 larger vehicles deliver 6,000 tons to Mars a year -
enough to sustain 100,000s of people tied to Earth - more when not
dependent of Earth.

the radioactive exhaust in our atmosphere might have been a issue

Very high temperature solids used in NERVA's engines lead naturally to
very high temperature nuclear reactors. Since the cost of a watt of
nuclear power is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the
operating temperature, nuclear reactor cores the temperature of
incandescent light bulb filaments are extremely low cost. This was
the basis for Lewis Strauss' 1950s comment about nuclear energy being
too cheap to meter by 1970.

That statement got Strauss in trouble with Eisenhower, since both
ROVER and PLUTO programs were classified at that time.

Marion King Hubbert, then chief geologist for Shell, had predicted in
the 1950s that oil output in the USA would peak by 1970 and peak in
the world sometime during the first decade of the 21st century.
That's why reporters asked Dr. Strauss about the cost of energy in
1970s. The development of very high temperature ceramics with the
appropriate nucleonic structure for reactor operation and its use in
reactors of very low cost in the future was cited by Senator Kennedy
in the 1950s as a reason for his continuing support of the atomic
airplane and atomic rocket programs. It was also his rationale to
declassify ROVER and NERVA programs after becoming president.

High temperature high power nuclear reactors, operated safely with
high through put of chemicals like hydrogen or water allow the bulk
chemical conversion of sea water into fresh water as well as the bulk
conversion of fresh water into hydrogen and oxygen.

Let's say we had a 14 GW power plant used for the Helios B in 1960s.
These were to be made for $70 million each. That's 1/2 cent per peak
watt. These operated at a temperature that would efficiently convert
water into hydrogen and oxygen.

It takes 2.6 MJ to boil a liter of water. A multi-stage evaporator
recovers some of this and reduces the amount to 0.2 MJ per liter. So
a 14 GW thermal source would convert 70 kilo-liters per second.
252,000 kiloliters per hour. 6.04 million kiloliters per day - enough
to supply 1 million people with fresh water - including all
agricultural and recreational uses.

The cost - $70 per person over the life of the equipment producing
water bill that are extremely low. In fact, when the salt and other
products like magnesium is sold from the seawater, the fresh water is
free.

That water when fed to another 80 systems - each 14 GW - configured to
thermolytically reduce that water to hydrogen and oxygen - produce
hydrogen at a rate of 7.77 metric tons per second, that's 28,000
tonnes per hour, 672,000 tonnes per day. When that hydrogen is burned
it produces 15.7 million barrels per day equivalent oil. Enough for
61.5 million Americans. The cost? $91 over the life of the
equipment!

These sorts of calculations were the basis of a study done in 1961 for
JFK by Brookhaven National Labs - completed by 1963. Basically, at
$10 billion each an industrial floating center supplies fresh water,
fertilizer, salt, metals, electricity and fuel for 30 million people.
Five of them are located along the West Coast, East Coast, South Coast
and North Coast of the USA to provide for all its needs. Built at the
shipyards of the great shipbuilders that made aircraft carriers in
World War Two and supported by US heavy industry, once we built these
five by 1970 - we would continue to build eight systems per year and
by 2000 we would be able to support 7.2 billion people at US living
standards - while placing the USA in a geopolitically dominant
position against the Soviets. Of course, the Soviets could copy this
program and supply their own systems to the third world - to remain
competitive. This was considered a good thing. Converting our
weapons programs and geopolitical competition into something
beneficial to the world.

Along with the production of 320 of these 14 GW units per year, there
would be another dozen or so, that would be built to support
interplanetary travel and the expansion of the human race across the
inner solar system and asteroid belt.

Where would we get all the uranium needed to operate?

The oceans! Something others have rediscovered recently;

http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/11/two...n-for-720.html
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05...um-miner-ship/

On Feb 14, 8:18*pm, " wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:53*pm, wrote:



http://www.astronautix.com/props/nucarlh2.htm

The US test fired a nuclear thermal rocket, and ram jet, in the
1950s. *Things slowed down after LBJ took over after JFKs death.
Nixon gutted the program. *Carter canceled it.

Too bad.

I remember reading about the Helios B in Scientific American and other
publications back in the day.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/heliosb.htm

81 tonnes to Earth escape. *I recall a winged reusable version that
would fly to Mars, aerobrake and land, then take off to return to an
airstrip landing on Earth - 18 months after launch. *Then, 26 months
after the first launch, the system would be launched again -
delivering 22 tons on a round trip to Mars and back every Synodic
period. *A fleet of 20 vehicles would deliver 200 tons to Mars a year
on average - and build up cities there within a decade and within two
decades establish self sustaining culture.

Finding water, and refueling on Mars - with a 20 ton return payload -
allows up to 60 tons to be flown. *Upping the size of the reactor from
14 GW to 140 GW increases vehicle size by 10x - and payloads as
well. * *So, 20 larger vehicles deliver 6,000 tons to Mars a year -
enough to sustain 100,000s of people tied to Earth - more when not
dependent of Earth.

the radioactive exhaust in our atmosphere might have been a issue

Actually, 100% nuclear reactions are environmentally green. Problem
is that most usage of radioactive elements is seldom if ever 100%.
However, once above the first conventional and usually nasty boost
stage (such as represented by those toxic SRBs or F1 engines) where
the winds carry and disperse everything for thousands of square miles,
if not globally, the potentially dirty rocket engine exhaust would not
be any worse off than living downwind or downstream from a typical
coal fired power plant or steel foundry for a given year, or possibly
a decade if its a very newish and thus extremely clean hydrocarbon
operation.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”