Combined Cycle Combustion/Plasma Rocket?

"Keith Willshaw" :

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message

How did you get from solid chunks of Uranium or Uraninuim Oxide to dust,
High speed impact does that nicely

No, it does not, metals deforms under impact, ceramics break up, Neither
converts much of the mass to lots of dust particles just the right size to
stay inside the lungs.

Second how do you get them to the right size.
See above

That was not an answer and you know it.

As the old bet goes, I take a tablespoon of uranunium and you take a
talbespoon of something common like nicotine and whoever lives the longest
keeps the money
But then nicotine is an alkaloid poison and nobody is launching large
quantities into space

Yes, but you are acting like uranium is some sort of super poison, but if you
took the bet I would be able to walk out alive and you would be dead. So
start treating uranium for what it really is a radioactive heavy metal toxic
subtance that must be handle with care and sealed away the best way possible.

But it is not a super posion where the little's leak will wipe half the
country and it is death to even see it. The fact is tons of uranium has been
released into the air already and we are still here. A reactor failure is
not going to wipe us out.

Considering the problems of intergrating a 'hot' reactor, it seems very
unlikely even without any cites.
In other words your guessing.

And you are doing elsewise? I don't think so.

Efficent is not the first order of bussiness, and the plan is to use
reactors so that we do have short trips. For early designs one
way only, or only one return trip may be all we want out of a unit.
Trouble is these reactors put out LESS power than triple
junction solar arrays.

Not in the outer solar system they don't.

Explain again why we should pay more and accept a higher risk
for lower power - I dont see it.

You are the one claiming higher risks. So far everyone injuried by falling
space hardware has been hit by none nuclear parts
Nuclear power gives us more speed and operates further from the sun than
solar panels.

If it had ever been done for anything more complex
than the Soviet Bouk you might have a point but
thus far it hasnt.
You do realize that is the oppisite of what you said earlier in this
messages about pre-testing reactors?
I'm conceding the POSSIBILTY the Soviets MIGHT
have done this and pointing out that even IF they
dis its largely irrelevant to high power designs.

Thanks for being flexible. But why do you say it is irrelevant?

Cassini doesnt use a reactor, its powered by 3 RTG's
As if ultra-green can tell or will acknowledge the diffirence.
I do however, and far from being an ultra green I'm
an engineer who is PRO Nuclear power and has worked
on both civil and military reactor systems.

No, sorry, sorry, sorry for the bad writting. I did not mean you were one,
sorry if it read that way. I meant the ultra-greens will protest no matter
what type of nuclear power source you are using. Really, if you were one we
could not even get this far in talking about using nukes in space Again
sorry if it read that way.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
news
"Keith Willshaw" :

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message

How did you get from solid chunks of Uranium or Uraninuim Oxide to dust,
High speed impact does that nicely

No, it does not, metals deforms under impact, ceramics break up, Neither
converts much of the mass to lots of dust particles just the right size to
stay inside the lungs.


I suggest you do some reading on how metallic Uranium
behaves on impact, here's a hint - its pyrophoric

Second how do you get them to the right size.
See above

That was not an answer and you know it.

As the old bet goes, I take a tablespoon of uranunium and you take a
talbespoon of something common like nicotine and whoever lives the
longest
keeps the money
But then nicotine is an alkaloid poison and nobody is launching large
quantities into space

Yes, but you are acting like uranium is some sort of super poison, but if
you
took the bet I would be able to walk out alive and you would be dead. So
start treating uranium for what it really is a radioactive heavy metal
toxic
subtance that must be handle with care and sealed away the best way
possible.


Actually I'm behaving as if Uranium is a heavy metal that
needs handling with care and respect

But it is not a super posion where the little's leak will wipe half the
country and it is death to even see it. The fact is tons of uranium has
been
released into the air already and we are still here. A reactor failure is
not going to wipe us out.


I dont recall claiming it would.

Considering the problems of intergrating a 'hot' reactor, it seems very
unlikely even without any cites.
In other words your guessing.

And you are doing elsewise? I don't think so.


I am not the one making the claim that its launched cold,
frankly I dont know but given the poor safety record
of Soviet designed reactors I'd need to know before
making that assumption.


Efficent is not the first order of bussiness, and the plan is to use
reactors so that we do have short trips. For early designs one
way only, or only one return trip may be all we want out of a unit.
Trouble is these reactors put out LESS power than triple
junction solar arrays.

Not in the outer solar system they don't.


Yes they do, these reactors had an operational life of less
than a year

Explain again why we should pay more and accept a higher risk
for lower power - I dont see it.

You are the one claiming higher risks. So far everyone injuried by
falling
space hardware has been hit by none nuclear parts

The cost of cleaning up the mess left by Kosmos 954 was in excess
of 14 million dollars (in 1977) and that was in a remote area

Nuclear power gives us more speed and operates further from the sun than
solar panels.


No nuclear propelled spacecraft has ever flown, there are spacecraft
propelled by solar electric drive in service. This claim fails
the reality check.

If it had ever been done for anything more complex
than the Soviet Bouk you might have a point but
thus far it hasnt.
You do realize that is the oppisite of what you said earlier in this
messages about pre-testing reactors?
I'm conceding the POSSIBILTY the Soviets MIGHT
have done this and pointing out that even IF they
dis its largely irrelevant to high power designs.

Thanks for being flexible. But why do you say it is irrelevant?


Because the Soviet designs werent suitable for
high levels of power generation or extended service.
Essentialy they were simply higher powered RTG's

They put out only 2 kw and weighed around 1200kg
Thats less than 2 watts per kg, the latest generation of
solar cells out out 100 wats per kg in near earth orbit
and 10 watts per kg at Jupiter. The ion drive on the
NASA probe Deep Space 1 was powered by a
2.5 kw solar array and the entire spacecraft weighed
less than the reactor of a Kosmos series satellite

Substantial amounts of money have been thrown
at the Topaz II reactor but it still only outputs 6kw

This is a poorer power to weight ratio than the
solar electric system adopted for the DAWN
mission which has a 10kw triple junction solar array.

This mission has a launch scheduled for June 2006
and is expected to spend the best part of a decade
exploring the asteroid belt.

The present generation of nuclear generators designed
for use in space just dont output the levels of power
that would justify their use.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" :

I suggest you do some reading on how metallic Uranium
behaves on impact, here's a hint - its pyrophoric

Good point for the metal, still means nothing if it is in oxide form - and at
no point insures the dust size is the right one to stay in the lungs.

Actually I'm behaving as if Uranium is a heavy metal that
needs handling with care and respect

You still read to me like you are handling it like it will wipe out the human
race.

I dont recall claiming it would.

No, you imply it by writting as if a nuclear reactor falling to earth must
kill large numbers of people, and that where it lands is doomed, doomed,
doomed. Basic solid lumps of radioactive material can detected and
picked/removed - the proper design/material will prevent dust production.
You write as if all thet is impossible.

I am not the one making the claim that its launched cold,
frankly I dont know but given the poor safety record
of Soviet designed reactors I'd need to know before
making that assumption.

Consider the poor safety record, I am even more sure they could not do it
with a hot reactor. But I agree with one thing, if there is anyone on the
face of this planet who would be as dumb as to intergrate a 'hot' reactor the
Soviets are by far the leading suspects.

Yes they do, these reactors had an operational life of less
than a year

Old designs, not a design planned for such a mission.

The cost of cleaning up the mess left by Kosmos 954 was in excess
of 14 million dollars (in 1977) and that was in a remote area

And as you admit, the soviets would be very unlikely to make a design with
safety in mind. A better design would have cost a lot less to clean up.

Nuclear power gives us more speed and operates further from the sun than
solar panels.

No nuclear propelled spacecraft has ever flown, there are spacecraft
propelled by solar electric drive in service. This claim fails
the reality check.

Now you are being picky, you know damn well we are talking about a new design
that has not even been built yet. The question is using what we know today
how good a design can we make using no new tech.

Because the Soviet designs werent suitable for
high levels of power generation or extended service.
Essentialy they were simply higher powered RTG's

Ok, by why does this stop us from designing better systems?

They put out only 2 kw and weighed around 1200kg
Thats less than 2 watts per kg, the latest generation of
solar cells out out 100 wats per kg in near earth orbit
and 10 watts per kg at Jupiter. The ion drive on the
NASA probe Deep Space 1 was powered by a
2.5 kw solar array and the entire spacecraft weighed
less than the reactor of a Kosmos series satellite

And you don't think that after all these years a better design can't be made?

Substantial amounts of money have been thrown
at the Topaz II reactor but it still only outputs 6kw

Sounds like a government program to me, they can't reach their goals but they
still plug away at the same ideas.

This is a poorer power to weight ratio than the
solar electric system adopted for the DAWN
mission which has a 10kw triple junction solar array.

This mission has a launch scheduled for June 2006
and is expected to spend the best part of a decade
exploring the asteroid belt.

The present generation of nuclear generators designed
for use in space just dont output the levels of power
that would justify their use.

Then it is time to design and build the next generation.

Earl Colby Pottinger
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
news
"Keith Willshaw" :

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message

How did you get from solid chunks of Uranium or Uraninuim Oxide to
dust,
High speed impact does that nicely

No, it does not, metals deforms under impact, ceramics break up, Neither
converts much of the mass to lots of dust particles just the right size
to
stay inside the lungs.


I suggest you do some reading on how metallic Uranium
behaves on impact, here's a hint - its pyrophoric

This is of course irrelvant with respect to hazards from space
nuclear reactors which use insoluble uranium ceramic fuel elements,
not metallic uranium.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
news
"Keith Willshaw" :

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message

How did you get from solid chunks of Uranium or Uraninuim Oxide to
dust,
High speed impact does that nicely

No, it does not, metals deforms under impact, ceramics break up, Neither
converts much of the mass to lots of dust particles just the right size
to
stay inside the lungs.


I suggest you do some reading on how metallic Uranium
behaves on impact, here's a hint - its pyrophoric

Second how do you get them to the right size.
See above

That was not an answer and you know it.

As the old bet goes, I take a tablespoon of uranunium and you take a
talbespoon of something common like nicotine and whoever lives the
longest
keeps the money
But then nicotine is an alkaloid poison and nobody is launching large
quantities into space

Yes, but you are acting like uranium is some sort of super poison, but if
you
took the bet I would be able to walk out alive and you would be dead. So
start treating uranium for what it really is a radioactive heavy metal
toxic
subtance that must be handle with care and sealed away the best way
possible.


Actually I'm behaving as if Uranium is a heavy metal that
needs handling with care and respect

But it is not a super posion where the little's leak will wipe half the
country and it is death to even see it. The fact is tons of uranium has
been
released into the air already and we are still here. A reactor failure
is
not going to wipe us out.


I dont recall claiming it would.

Considering the problems of intergrating a 'hot' reactor, it seems very
unlikely even without any cites.
In other words your guessing.

And you are doing elsewise? I don't think so.


I am not the one making the claim that its launched cold,
frankly I dont know but given the poor safety record
of Soviet designed reactors I'd need to know before
making that assumption.


Efficent is not the first order of bussiness, and the plan is to use
reactors so that we do have short trips. For early designs one
way only, or only one return trip may be all we want out of a unit.
Trouble is these reactors put out LESS power than triple
junction solar arrays.

Not in the outer solar system they don't.


Yes they do, these reactors had an operational life of less
than a year

Explain again why we should pay more and accept a higher risk
for lower power - I dont see it.

You are the one claiming higher risks. So far everyone injuried by
falling
space hardware has been hit by none nuclear parts

The cost of cleaning up the mess left by Kosmos 954 was in excess
of 14 million dollars (in 1977) and that was in a remote area

Nuclear power gives us more speed and operates further from the sun than
solar panels.


No nuclear propelled spacecraft has ever flown, there are spacecraft
propelled by solar electric drive in service. This claim fails
the reality check.

If it had ever been done for anything more complex
than the Soviet Bouk you might have a point but
thus far it hasnt.
You do realize that is the oppisite of what you said earlier in this
messages about pre-testing reactors?
I'm conceding the POSSIBILTY the Soviets MIGHT
have done this and pointing out that even IF they
dis its largely irrelevant to high power designs.

Thanks for being flexible. But why do you say it is irrelevant?


Because the Soviet designs werent suitable for
high levels of power generation or extended service.
Essentialy they were simply higher powered RTG's

They put out only 2 kw and weighed around 1200kg
Thats less than 2 watts per kg, the latest generation of
solar cells out out 100 wats per kg in near earth orbit
and 10 watts per kg at Jupiter.

The present generation of nuclear generators designed
for use in space just dont output the levels of power
that would justify their use.

Hmm, what would be this "present generation" of nuclear reactors? Old
Soviet designs dating from the 70s, never designed for high power output?

More reasonably the SP-100 technology would be the baseline for a new
"present generation", for which detailed design work was done in the early
90s. This gives about 80 watts/kg for the megawatt power system under
consideration, about par with the present generation of solar cells near
Earth, and an 8-1 advantage over solar cells near Jupiter. Using the
proposed thin film cells you have cited with 400 W/kg output, they have a
5-1 advantage near Earth, but a 2-1 disadvantage near Jupiter.

80 watts/kg gives a mass of 12.5 tonnes for a 1 MW power system. A manned
mission to Mars is going to weigh much more than the ISS, which is 100
tonnes at present, so this power ratio is high enough that the mass doesn't
look like a major issue.

The cost of a nuclear power system is going to be higher, both in
development costs and to produce the actual article; and the solar system
can be built and tested in smaller systems before scaling up which is not
feasible with the reactor design. On the other hand, large light weight
structures make aerobraking difficult.

The two technologies seem generally competitive in performance, but space
nuclear reactors do have a high hurdle to cross before a program will be
funded which is not true for solar cells. On the other hand, a manned
mission to Mars will be extravagantly expensive anyway so the cost factor
probably will not be critical, practical considerations of mission benefit
would be the deciding factor.

In article ,
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
I dont recall claiming it would.

No, you imply it by writting as if a nuclear reactor falling to earth must
kill large numbers of people...

Note that it has already happened: the Soviet nuclear-powered radarsat
program had two launch failures, and two unplanned reentries. The first
of the unplanned reentries, Cosmos 954, could have hurt a modest number of
people if it had hit a populated area instead of northern Canada; the
second, after design changes were made, was a non-issue.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" :

I suggest you do some reading on how metallic Uranium
behaves on impact, here's a hint - its pyrophoric

Good point for the metal, still means nothing if it is in oxide form - and
at
no point insures the dust size is the right one to stay in the lungs.


The results from testing of uranium penetrators carried
out by the British military indicates the risk is real

Actually I'm behaving as if Uranium is a heavy metal that
needs handling with care and respect

You still read to me like you are handling it like it will wipe out the
human
race.


I cant help you control your imagination
I'm afraid.

I dont recall claiming it would.

No, you imply it by writting as if a nuclear reactor falling to earth must
kill large numbers of people, and that where it lands is doomed, doomed,
doomed. Basic solid lumps of radioactive material can detected and
picked/removed - the proper design/material will prevent dust production.
You write as if all thet is impossible.


No I dont, indeed I mentioned the cost of the
Canadian cleanup operation.

I am not the one making the claim that its launched cold,
frankly I dont know but given the poor safety record
of Soviet designed reactors I'd need to know before
making that assumption.

Consider the poor safety record, I am even more sure they could not do it
with a hot reactor. But I agree with one thing, if there is anyone on the
face of this planet who would be as dumb as to intergrate a 'hot' reactor
the
Soviets are by far the leading suspects.

Yes they do, these reactors had an operational life of less
than a year

Old designs, not a design planned for such a mission.


The only designs being evaluated at present are the
follow on Topaz reactors - another Soviet design

The cost of cleaning up the mess left by Kosmos 954 was in excess
of 14 million dollars (in 1977) and that was in a remote area

And as you admit, the soviets would be very unlikely to make a design with
safety in mind. A better design would have cost a lot less to clean up.


Feel free to give details of such designs.

Nuclear power gives us more speed and operates further from the sun
than
solar panels.

No nuclear propelled spacecraft has ever flown, there are spacecraft
propelled by solar electric drive in service. This claim fails
the reality check.

Now you are being picky, you know damn well we are talking about a new
design
that has not even been built yet. The question is using what we know
today
how good a design can we make using no new tech.


No I'm being an engineer, vapourware doesnt count.
The only hardware alternative out there is Topaz 2

Because the Soviet designs werent suitable for
high levels of power generation or extended service.
Essentialy they were simply higher powered RTG's

Ok, by why does this stop us from designing better systems?


Go to it.

They put out only 2 kw and weighed around 1200kg
Thats less than 2 watts per kg, the latest generation of
solar cells out out 100 wats per kg in near earth orbit
and 10 watts per kg at Jupiter. The ion drive on the
NASA probe Deep Space 1 was powered by a
2.5 kw solar array and the entire spacecraft weighed
less than the reactor of a Kosmos series satellite

And you don't think that after all these years a better design can't be
made?

Substantial amounts of money have been thrown
at the Topaz II reactor but it still only outputs 6kw

Sounds like a government program to me, they can't reach their goals but
they
still plug away at the same ideas.

This is a poorer power to weight ratio than the
solar electric system adopted for the DAWN
mission which has a 10kw triple junction solar array.

This mission has a launch scheduled for June 2006
and is expected to spend the best part of a decade
exploring the asteroid belt.

The present generation of nuclear generators designed
for use in space just dont output the levels of power
that would justify their use.

Then it is time to design and build the next generation.


Feel free to invest your pension fund, just dont
volunteer mine OK

Keith

"Carey Sublette" wrote in message
ink.net...



I suggest you do some reading on how metallic Uranium
behaves on impact, here's a hint - its pyrophoric

This is of course irrelvant with respect to hazards from space
nuclear reactors which use insoluble uranium ceramic fuel elements,
not metallic uranium.


The Romashka reactor used in the Kosmos series used a
Uranium Carbide fuels. While Uranium Carbide, while this
has some advantages it has negative aspects too. It suffers
from serious swelling problems and can react with water.
It is not quite so insoluble as you imply, indeed the
disposal of the UC fuel for the UK Dounreay breeder
reactor is proving problematic

A true ceramic fuel would be better of course but the
radiological effects are still there and AFAIK there
is no extant design for space use that includes such fuels
The Topaz reactor also used UC2 IRC

To the best of my knowledge Uranium Cermet fuels have
not thus far been adopted for space use

Keith

"Carey Sublette" wrote in message
nk.net...



Hmm, what would be this "present generation" of nuclear reactors? Old
Soviet designs dating from the 70s, never designed for high power output?


No the Topaz 2 designs of the 1990's

More reasonably the SP-100 technology would be the baseline for a new
"present generation", for which detailed design work was done in the early
90s. This gives about 80 watts/kg for the megawatt power system under
consideration, about par with the present generation of solar cells near
Earth, and an 8-1 advantage over solar cells near Jupiter. Using the
proposed thin film cells you have cited with 400 W/kg output, they have a
5-1 advantage near Earth, but a 2-1 disadvantage near Jupiter.


The DOE has abandoned work on SP-100 - this is a dead duck

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Carey Sublette" wrote in message
nk.net...



Hmm, what would be this "present generation" of nuclear reactors? Old
Soviet designs dating from the 70s, never designed for high power output?


No the Topaz 2 designs of the 1990's

More reasonably the SP-100 technology would be the baseline for a new
"present generation", for which detailed design work was done in the
early 90s. This gives about 80 watts/kg for the megawatt power system
under consideration, about par with the present generation of solar cells
near Earth, and an 8-1 advantage over solar cells near Jupiter. Using the
proposed thin film cells you have cited with 400 W/kg output, they have a
5-1 advantage near Earth, but a 2-1 disadvantage near Jupiter.


The DOE has abandoned work on SP-100 - this is a dead duck

Keith

So?

There is also no manned mars mission program.

What is under discussion are feasible technical options for a purely
hypothetical long range program.

A next generation space reactor might even significantly improve over the
SP-100 design approach.