Russians make breakthrough in interplanetary space travel, prototypes by 2014
90 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Careld;35428477]RT, is it worthy news?[/QUOTE]
yeah
It's a shame really, once the Cold War ended, everyone kinda pushed aside space exploration. It's nice to see it revitalized.
Nuclear explosion in space isn't really an issue - there's enough of that shit up there anyway.
My only concern is if the ship has a Challenger-esque moment and decides to explode in the upper atmosphere. A nuclear blast that high up has the potential to devastate.
Also; the engine lasts for 3 years? However, the only time you really need to fire it is if you're interacting with a planet's gravitational pull. So if you're only using it for a day or two at a time, that beast would last for quite a while
[QUOTE=Maloof?;35430769]Nuclear explosion in space isn't really an issue - there's enough of that shit up there anyway.
My only concern is if the ship has a Challenger-esque moment and decides to explode in the upper atmosphere. A nuclear blast that high up has the potential to devastate.
Also; the engine lasts for 3 years? However, the only time you really need to fire it is if you're interacting with a planet's gravitational pull. So if you're only using it for a day or two at a time, that beast would last for quite a while[/QUOTE]
The thing would be built in orbit anyway, it wouldn't have the thrust to launch under its own power.
So Russia's upgraded their ion drives? Sounds neat; i've heard that ion drives are more fuel-efficient and more powerful than conventional chemical rockets.
[QUOTE=Radley;35426377]now... we proco find prothean ruins on mars, mass-relays and the citadel just to discover that an all-female race got there before us.
darn.[/QUOTE]
But it ends in a technicolor lightshow and everyone is worse off
[QUOTE=_jesterk;35426527]Anyone else remember that news article about how there would be no interplanetary travel within this lifetime?
It was predicted that it would not be until the year 3000 or something, it was a 2011 article.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like a way too long timescale. 1000 years from now our technology will have advanced so much it looks like magic. I always thought a century or two would be a more reasonable timespan.
Why not use the nuclear reactor to power the nuclear reactor?
:v:
[QUOTE=Heli;35419258]These engines will be safer then conventionally fueled rocket engines.[/QUOTE]
I doubt that they'd use Ion engines for liftoff though. The strength of Ion engines is that they can propel the craft for a great period of time over long distances on relatively little fuel. I don't think they have the power to achieve escape velocity. Otherwise yeah I think you're right.
[QUOTE=inconspicious;35431979]The thing would be built in orbit anyway, it wouldn't have the thrust to launch under its own power.[/QUOTE]
You'd still need to get the nuclear material into orbit, no?
As much as I'd love to see commercial space flight, I fear that it won't advance far enough in my life time too allow all kinds of people aboard, as bodily maintenance changes when you're in zero gravity.
[QUOTE=inconspicious;35431979]The thing would be built in orbit anyway, it wouldn't have the thrust to launch under its own power.[/QUOTE]
That, or mounted on the Russian equivalent of a Saturn V.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;35432459]You'd still need to get the nuclear material into orbit, no?[/QUOTE]
I'm sure a nuclear fuel cell will probably be the most resiliant section of the craft. I doubt an explosion in midair would damage it enough for a leak.
I hope SPACE RACE 2, QUASAR BOOGALOO is like Rocky IV. Americans against the soviets again, minus the box....and the soviets...still can't understand what they're saying though because i'm not an aerospace engineer; BUT STILL!
[quote]The Russian government began the ambitious project in 2010 with an investment of approximately $17 million dollars and is expected to shell out $247 million over the next five years to complete the engine.[/quote]
Why can't NASA do this kind of stuff with that small of a budget?
[editline]4th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Impact1986;35425932]I thought there was a treaty which prohibits any nation on earth launching anything thermonuclear into earth orbit just in case something goes wrong and kills every one around it?[/QUOTE]
Good thing Russia's huge.
Newt Gringrich moon base go go!
Lots of misconceptions in here
First off, I wouldn't trust anything Russia is trying to send to Mars, every single probe they have ever tried to send there has failed, or barely made telemetry before failing. This isn't an article for magic Russian propulsion, either, its for a new space nuclear reactor that get about 10-15x more yield than its predecessor (the Soviet Topaz).
Russia hasn't demonstrated a substantially new manned spacecraft design since the 1980's with their Soyuz TM, everything really fell apart after 1991 (I seem to remember a somethingawful ask/tell thread from some guy who worked at mission control in Russia, and he said that Russia doesn't have the variety of people they need to make anything new, or something like that.) Russia also usually makes their things for less because their scientists and engineers are payed far less than in the US or in the EU, and they test everything less.
It's a nice reactor for sure, and will make good use when solar panels don't suffice, but don't get your hopes up for a sudden space race or manned mars landing coming out of this.
tl;dr Article is communist propaganda.
[QUOTE=Del91;35436441]Why can't NASA do this kind of stuff with that small of a budget?[/QUOTE]
Because they're too busy managing a [url=http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html]massive network of flying scientific laboratories[/url] spread around the solar system (and in [url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/index.html]one case[/url], beyond even that), doing long-term projects like the [url=http://www.100yss.org/]100-Year Starship Study[/url], dealing with the arbitrary shit that Congress sends their way, and [url=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401744,00.asp]seeding the growth of an American commercial spaceflight industry[/url] ALONGSIDE doing research like this that the Russians are doing.
we should fund this instead [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-particle_field_extraction_thruster[/url]
It could accelerate spacecraft to 90% the speed of light
I'm excited.
[QUOTE=Porkychop~;35437146]Lots of misconceptions in here
First off, I wouldn't trust anything Russia is trying to send to Mars, every single probe they have ever tried to send there has failed, or barely made telemetry before failing. This isn't an article for magic Russian propulsion, either, its for a new space nuclear reactor that get about 10-15x more yield than its predecessor (the Soviet Topaz).
Russia hasn't demonstrated a substantially new manned spacecraft design since the 1980's with their Soyuz TM, everything really fell apart after 1991 (I seem to remember a somethingawful ask/tell thread from some guy who worked at mission control in Russia, and he said that Russia doesn't have the variety of people they need to make anything new, or something like that.) Russia also usually makes their things for less because their scientists and engineers are payed far less than in the US or in the EU, and they test everything less.
It's a nice reactor for sure, and will make good use when solar panels don't suffice, but don't get your hopes up for a sudden space race or manned mars landing coming out of this.
tl;dr Article is communist propaganda.[/QUOTE]
The Communists don't rule Russia anymore...
Not since the early 90's.
[QUOTE]Nuclear power has generally been considered a valid alternative to [B]fossil fuels[/B] to power space craft, as it is the only energy source capable of producing the enormous thrust needed for interplanetary travel.[/QUOTE]
Spaceships run on fossil fuels apparently.
Edit:
My friends response to this was: "isnt nuclear power a fossil fuel"
We gotta get to Pluto already and find the Mass Relay.
Jokes aside this is great. I want a new space race to shake things up.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35441770]we should fund this instead [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-particle_field_extraction_thruster[/URL]
It could accelerate spacecraft to 90% the speed of light[/QUOTE]
That claim is pretty much an asspull (note lack of citation), you can work out the equations yourself but getting anything to even .1C requires an unfeasibly large amount of reaction mass even with 100% efficiency. Short of physics-breaking warp drive nonsense like the Alcubierre drive suddenly becoming possible, relativistic space travel just isn't remotely practical.
OP is pretty interesting, it's not a new drive but rather using a nuclear reactor to provide power to a more conventional ion drive. Current experimental ion drives have a very high specific impulse (efficiency) but low thrust (power), which makes them very limited for transorbital operation. A nuclear reactor for power could allow the development of a high-thrust high-impulse drive, without the messiness and engineering problems of the Orion drive.
[QUOTE=JesterUK;35419604]Can't wait until we discover the Prothean ruins on Mars[/QUOTE]
Fuck that reaper shit. I want a station around Jupiter so that Blasky Yao Hsiang doesn't end up dropping into the planet when he discovers nodespace and a real space presence so that we can tell that bitch Obsidian Crown to fuck off when she blows through.
[img]http://smotheredinhugs.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/monocle-man.jpg[/img]
Great Scott! I must inform Her Majesty that the QE3 needs to launch immediately! Hoist the main-sail!
USA are crying.
considering russia has killed like 30 cosmonauts and at least 2 space dogs, should i be worried of them sending up a nuclear rocket?
still, i'd like it if we had space race 2 electric boogaloo where russia and the us were TOGETHER
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.