test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Ten Forward

VASIMR - Plasma Engine - Space propulsion technology

raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
edited October 2012 in Ten Forward
Hi all this is a continuation thread of "Vasimr Engine - Space propulsion technology" thread.

http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=271928&highlight=Vasimr



Just an update here,

http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/News

Why can't they use a nuclear reactor from a submarine to power to Vasimr to Mars, since they can generator Megawatts of energy?


Your thoughts and Opinions are always welcome.

Please post. :)
Post edited by raj011 on
«134

Comments

  • deadspacex64deadspacex64 Member Posts: 565 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    raj011 wrote: »

    Why can't they use a nuclear reactor from a submarine to power to Vasimr to Mars, since they can generator Megawatts of energy?


    Your thoughts and Opinions are always welcome.

    Please post. :)

    because anti-nuclear nuts would be up in arms...remember the cassenni launch? all the protesters because it had a nuclear device aboard to generate power? add plasma to that and the anti-nuke nuts would go crazy...2 things (among many) that they don't understand.

    and really, they have to adapt a reactor to use in any case. earth based ones take gravity into account (cooling and general design) so any reactor would have to be redesigned for zero g and moderate to high g from acceleration/deceleration. multiple RTG's, SRG's or variants would be more likely choices.

    been following it's development for abit. one very cool engine with tons of potential.
    Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
    Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    deadspacex64 wrote: »
    because anti-nuclear nuts would be up in arms...remember the cassenni launch? all the protesters because it had a nuclear device aboard to generate power? add plasma to that and the anti-nuke nuts would go crazy...2 things (among many) that they don't understand.

    and really, they have to adapt a reactor to use in any case. earth based ones take gravity into account (cooling and general design) so any reactor would have to be redesigned for zero g and moderate to high g from acceleration/deceleration. multiple RTG's, SRG's or variants would be more likely choices.

    been following it's development for abit. one very cool engine with tons of potential.

    interesting. What about a nuclear reactor called SAFE 400 and the Project Prometheus? I also read in an article that they have already test and ion engine with a nuclear reactor. I know this looks like we're one step closer. Its amazing
  • deadspacex64deadspacex64 Member Posts: 565 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    hadn't heard of SAFE 400, that does seem a better choice, except in weight. little over a ton. for a manned mission that would be the most logical. power requirements would be far higher than just electronics and engines for an unmanned probe.

    Project Prometheus seems to be DOA, funding's been slashed from what i can find. that still leaves 3 very good options for powering a VASIMR engine in manned or unmanned payload configurations.

    the more i read about SAFE the more i like it. nice acronym on nasa's part trying to defuse anti-nuke nuts ^_^
    Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
    Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    deadspacex64 wrote: »
    hadn't heard of SAFE 400, that does seem a better choice, except in weight. little over a ton. for a manned mission that would be the most logical. power requirements would be far higher than just electronics and engines for an unmanned probe.

    Project Prometheus seems to be DOA, funding's been slashed from what i can find. that still leaves 3 very good options for powering a VASIMR engine in manned or unmanned payload configurations.

    the more i read about SAFE the more i like it. nice acronym on nasa's part trying to defuse anti-nuke nuts ^_^

    Also I read in New Scientist magazine we get here in the the UK from about a month or 2 ago. It said that the new 21st century, new generation reactors will use Thorium instead of Uranium. Apparently its more environmentally safer by using the waste it produces to be recycled and produces less waste I think and there is more of Thorium then Uranium. Plus it can't be used to make weapons. I think we have enough nuke weapons atm.

    http://www.newscientist.com/search?query=thorium&fromdate=&todate=&rbauthors=&rbissueno=
  • deadspacex64deadspacex64 Member Posts: 565 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    raj011 wrote: »
    Also I read in New Scientist magazine we get here in the the UK from about a month or 2 ago. It said that the new 21st century, new generation reactors will use Thorium instead of Uranium. Apparently its more environmentally safer by using the waste it produces to be recycled and produces less waste I think and there is more of Thorium then Uranium. Plus it can't be used to make weapons. I think we have enough nuke weapons atm.

    http://www.newscientist.com/search?query=thorium&fromdate=&todate=&rbauthors=&rbissueno=

    yep that's been around for awhile, just less wattage per $$$ than conventional reactors BWR's and PWR's. companies make a killing building those too, small footprint+high output and cheaper than alternatives vs output. they might start replacing older reactor types with the safer ones...hopefully...but still have to get past the paranoid fanatics that hear 'nuclear' or 'radioactive' and go ape sh*t.

    and ya, more than enough nukes by far. serve no other purpose than being a big stick and an economy drain. any nuclear material can be made into a weapon sadly, even just using it as a casing for a conventional warhead....spreading radioactive debris :( while not as destructive as multi megaton nuclear weapon...it will still kill, incapacitate, and make an area hazardous until cleanup can be performed.
    Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
    Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Interesting, what I don't get is why not in the mean time they test the engine with a nuclear reactor for further tests? I for one would like to know if it can handle the power and how fast it could make the ship move, how much thrust it produces, how long can it last etc.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    It's not nuclear activists that are the problem.... the UN wants to control nuclear energy for fear of a terrorist turning a nuclear reactor into a nuclear bomb.

    THAT is the real problem with nuclear energy today.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • captrayvenwingcaptrayvenwing Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    raj011 wrote: »
    Hi all this is a continuation thread of "Vasimr Engine - Space propulsion technology" thread.

    http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=271928&highlight=Vasimr



    Just an update here,

    http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/News

    Why can't they use a nuclear reactor from a submarine to power to Vasimr to Mars, since they can generator Megawatts of energy?


    Your thoughts and Opinions are always welcome.

    Please post. :)

    because to generate the megawatts of energy a nuclear reactor uses super heated water to convert other water into steam to turn turbins that generate electricy. thats how a nuke subs engines work. thats a LOT of mass to lift into space.
    The Account formally known as Rayvenwing
    Actual Join Date : Feb 2010

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    The Russians came up with a way to use NaK, but it's not much lighter. Current reactors are just too heavy in general.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    but is there a way to generator megwatts of energy from nuclear reactors that are lighter and compact. I swear that nasa has built and experimented on a nuclear reactor with an ion engine that is more compact? But still this does not explain why in the mean time they cant use a current nuclear reactor with the VASIMR engine for further testing.
  • januhulljanuhull Member Posts: 154 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    deadspacex64 wrote: »
    yep that's been around for awhile, just less wattage per $$$ than conventional reactors BWR's and PWR's. companies make a killing building those too, small footprint+high output and cheaper than alternatives vs output. they might start replacing older reactor types with the safer ones...hopefully...but still have to get past the paranoid fanatics that hear 'nuclear' or 'radioactive' and go ape sh*t.

    and ya, more than enough nukes by far. serve no other purpose than being a big stick and an economy drain. any nuclear material can be made into a weapon sadly, even just using it as a casing for a conventional warhead....spreading radioactive debris :( while not as destructive as multi megaton nuclear weapon...it will still kill, incapacitate, and make an area hazardous until cleanup can be performed.

    A lot of the nuclear material once housed in warheads is being repurposed for nuclear power plants. Several US nuclear power plants are using fuel rods that were once aimed at them in the head of a missile housed in Russia.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    raj011 wrote: »
    but is there a way to generator megwatts of energy from nuclear reactors that are lighter and compact. I swear that nasa has built and experimented on a nuclear reactor with an ion engine that is more compact? But still this does not explain why in the mean time they cant use a current nuclear reactor with the VASIMR engine for further testing.
    The question isn't really whether it's POSSIBLE but whether it's practical.... or politically convenient.... and again... governments get paranoid when they hear "nuclear"...
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    markhawkman wrote: »
    The question isn't really whether it's POSSIBLE but whether it's practical.... or politically convenient.... and again... governments get paranoid when they hear "nuclear"...

    Well Dr franklin chang diaz, the leader behind the VASIMR has gone on record of stating to get to Mars in a month or 2 you will need a Nuclear reactor to power the engine. At least they are still going ahead to put the engine on the ISS.
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited August 2012
    This content has been removed.
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    1. Cooling in space is a nightmare.
    2. Getting the stuff into orbit is expensive and dangerous. Because rocket launchs sometimes go wrong. It's rocket science, after all.
    3. NASA seems to work on LENR-based power sources, which are apparently much more promising.

    1) Cooling in space is a nightmare! you are joking right!?
    2) Expensive yes, how is it more dangerous?, they will most likely construct the thing and the rest of the ship in space.
    3) LENR based power sources? unfortunately i don't know what that means.
  • deadspacex64deadspacex64 Member Posts: 565 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    1. Cooling in space is a nightmare.
    ...

    no, it isn't.
    raj011 wrote: »
    Well Dr franklin chang diaz, the leader behind the VASIMR has gone on record of stating to get to Mars in a month or 2 you will need a Nuclear reactor to power the engine. At least they are still going ahead to put the engine on the ISS.

    just need power, lots of it. various nethods could be used as have been noted that aren't the standard reactor types. LENR is essentially a nuclear thermal battery. unstable as of yet, and they're still not sure why or exactly how it works. they do know it can have thermal runaway explosions. it's potential once they get it sorted is enormous.

    it's also quite scary for corporations that deal in energy resources the world over...it can be made simply (one high school does it annually) with non restricted materials. (palladium, deuterium) it still has a ways to go however. nice thing is if there was an accident at launch using a LENR power source, no worries.
    Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
    Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited August 2012
    This content has been removed.
  • deadspacex64deadspacex64 Member Posts: 565 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Okay, tell me: How do you cool a spacecraft? I am not an expert, but without any medium to transport the heat to, it seems rather complicated to get rid of unwanted waste heat. Of which you will have lots with any type of nuclear reactor, fission, fusion, LENR, antimatter, or otherwise.



    That is not a very good description. It seems to be a way of using a clean nuclear reaction (beta-decay) as power source. In essence, it seems as if it could allow fusion-rocket level specific impulse with no radiation and no dangerous waste.



    "Enormous" indeed.

    heat is radiated from all surfaces into space unless that surface is facing the sun and being heated. space is not the insulator, not the same as a vacuum bottle. if it was planets would never have cooled >.> nor would the apollo 13 astronauts risked being frozen to death due to heat losses. the capsules were actually designed with those losses in mind...heaters and the electronics themselves covered the losses. impressive engineering balancing act for the era, among many.

    old bad sci-fi claimed space was a perfect insulator. in space objects radiate heat, as the surrounding vacuum is considered cold. the transfer is by radiation, not conduction or convection. from hot to cold.

    and thermal is more accurate than anything else, short form. that's all it does is produce heat. that's all any nuclear reaction does in varying degrees (at least what we use from it). we use the heat produced. so at present, it's a thermal battery. it will have a finite life span (hence the battery part) and produces an abundance of heat.

    once the kinks are worked out you'll most likely see them wrapped in gases or liquids that will be heated to drive generators. cooled, then fed back to the LENR device for reheating.
    Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
    Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited August 2012
    This content has been removed.
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    wow been away for a few days and this is still going on :D Anway back on topic. Space is what -300 degrees right wouldn't that be more than enough to cool the reactor? How much heat can a nuclear reactor produce these days?
  • dalolorndalolorn Member Posts: 3,655 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Oh, there are various reasons why. As sophlogimo said, heat is only radiated at a certain rate from an object of a set size. You cannot exceed that rate, and it is quite obvious that a nuclear reactor would by far exceed the cooling provided by the surrounding space.
    Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.p3OEBPD6HU3QI.jpg
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    But heat is radiated only at a certain pace, right? Once the energy density of the reactor in the spaceship is too high, the available radiation surface should not be able to keep up. Only question: What speed is it allowed to be?

    (Besides, the sun is a problem, too, as it is rarely absent in our solar system...)



    Well, put this way, any nuclear reactor is a battery. :)
    raj011 wrote: »
    wow been away for a few days and this is still going on :D Anway back on topic. Space is what -300 degrees right wouldn't that be more than enough to cool the reactor? How much heat can a nuclear reactor produce these days?

    Also found an article about E-Cat being real cold fusion reactor. could this be the future power source for us?
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited August 2012
    This content has been removed.
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited August 2012
    This content has been removed.
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-1EvJK5PQ another vid, from some articles and vids i have watched they have said this may be out in a couple of years!!!!! I wonder how much power cold fusion can produce, hopefully it will be enough for the Vasimr engine.

    and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zgmdo4C1VQ
  • dalolorndalolorn Member Posts: 3,655 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    That may, by the way, be a reason to make spaceships in all kinds of shapes to increase their surface area, particularily around the engines...warp nacelles, anyone? :D

    That, and transfer the heat throughout the ENTIRE ship... we now instantly have an internal heater!
    Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.p3OEBPD6HU3QI.jpg
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    can't they just eject the heat out into space or find a way to channel the heat out in to space or recycle it?
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited August 2012
    This content has been removed.
  • kamiyama317kamiyama317 Member Posts: 1,295 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    From what I understand heat can't be transferred through a vacuum unless it is carried via some form of radiation.
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    In order to eject the heat, it would be required to have something that carries that heat, which then can be ejected. That would mean yet another resource that is required and consumed during the operation of the vessel.

    The solution that has been proposed instead are radiators - large, antennae- or solar-panel-like structures on the surface of the spacecraft that radiate the heat away. Of course, with a very big reactor, very big radiator "forests" would be needed, or materials which are able to radiate the heat away much faster than the materials that are known today. ("Thermal superconductors"?)

    I imagine some spaceships might look quite weird because of all those radiators.

    can't there be just an exhaust like a car has where the heat escapes in to space? What would the material of these radiators that radiate the heat away be made off?
Sign In or Register to comment.