Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: vannrox
Well one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this article takes a rocket scientist to figure it out.
2 posted on 04/26/2002 8:18:02 AM PDT by DSHambone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DSHambone
"Zactly. I got tiredhead in the first sentence. Please, Freeper Engineers, explain this mess!
4 posted on 04/26/2002 8:26:25 AM PDT by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: DSHambone
Allow a rocket scientist to comment:

Nuclear thermal rockets are indeed a great idea. However, keep this in mind: each pound of thrust requires about 20 kilowatts (thermal) of power. To equal the SSME, that works out to 9400 megawatts. That is a BIG reactor. SSME has a thrust-to-weight of about 70:1. The best nuclear thermal rocket has a thrust-to-weight of possibly 30 (assuming values given in this article).

Nuclear thermal rockets are thus not useful (or politically possible) as boosters launching from the ground.

A space engine, with a thrust of 20000 to 50000 pounds, is a better match.

I once read a wonderful article in 1969, entitled, To Mars and Back in 30 Days by Gas-Core Nuclear Rocket. Never forgot it. But gas-core nuclear rockets are way in the future--if ever.

--Boris

11 posted on 04/26/2002 8:30:56 AM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson