| |
|
|
|
 |
Posted 2006-03-17, 02:01 PM
in reply to sciencekid's post starting "except for every other living creature..."
|
|
|
|
 It could do.
Quote:
|
Advocates of nuclear powered rocket engines point out that at the time of launch, there is almost no radiation released from the nuclear reactors. The nuclear-powered rockets aren't used to get off the ground, just to get to and from Mars, to generate power during the trip, and to brake into Mars and eventually Earth orbit on the return trip.
|
A little thing I've just found in an article.
Quote:
Nuclear-reactor rockets, like the ones that would be used in the Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket, conduct nuclear fission reactions -- the same kind employed at nuclear power plants -- in which uranium atoms are split apart, releasing tremendous volumes of energy. In a nuclear thermal rocket, this energy is used to heat hydrogen propellant, which is stored aboard the rocket as liquid in supercooled fuel tanks.
The strength of nuclear propulsion is that it is more efficient than traditional chemically-propelled rockets. "It is the next step evolutionary step in chemical propulsion and it has twice the propellant mileage of the chemical rockets that we currently use," Borowski said.
All rockets require fuel. Chemical rocket engines burn it, heating up the fuel and accelerating the combustion byproducts out a rocket nozzle. Nuclear thermal engines employ a very compact mass of nuclear fuel to release tremendous amounts of energy. That energy is used to heat lightweight hydrogen gas, and shoot it through a nozzle to get thrust. The nuclear reaction heats the hydrogen to much higher velocities than chemical combustion can.
"For a given amount of propellant then, we can either carry a lot more payload, or we can - for the same amount of payload - travel faster to our destination," Borowski said. "Or we can just decide to travel at the same speed as the chemical with the same payload and just require a lot less mass and maybe a smaller vehicle."
|
And that's how it works.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...rs_000521.html
I haven't entirely read the article (skipped the last section), but what I have read sounds VERY interesting.
I hate it when people start spouting about the dangers of radiation from Nuclear Fission reactors and what not. Modern day designs cut out a lot of radiation...and if you look at figures and statistics, the Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons industries contribute to about 8% of deaths to Radiation. We get more radiation from Radon gas and the rocks around us for heavens sake!
And that's me all red in the face.  We ought to all these NIMBY's to the reactor and watch it go critical.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|