digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at wired.com

Russia Leads Nuclear Propulsion Space Race After U.S. Drops

wired.com — The Russian space agency may build a nuclear-powered spacecraft with the blessing of the country's leader, Russian and international media reported Thursday.

Who dugg this? Made popular 29 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

64 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • BookaShade, on 11/04/2009, -4/+14It's great that Russia is pursuing these feats in nuclear engineering. But honestly they are still kind of behind NASA when it comes deep space exploration. New Horizons is almost half way to Pluto. =D Expected to reach Pluto in 2015.
  • chang3, on 11/04/2009, -2/+11Chernobyl wasn't a freak accident so much as basically forced to happen by shutting down many of the reactor's safety systems and attempting to force it to operate under very undesirable conditions. Not exactly the smartest move but basically not a situation that would occur in a situation where people weren't actively ***** with the system.
  • sgerwel1985, on 11/04/2009, -4/+11You do realize Chernobyl was a freak accident, correct? There are always accidents, but when it comes to nuclear power these accidents become much more severe. Now with today's technology and understanding of nuclear power, these accidents have a less than 1% chance of even happening.

  • toxicshok, on 11/04/2009, -2/+9chang3 is right. Combine poor soviet design, stupid technicians, a dangerous test that should have never been run, and massive time delays and you get Chernobyl. Freak accident it was not.
  • inactive, on 11/04/2009, -2/+8the title says "russia leads NUCLEAR PROPULSION SPACE RACE after US drops"

    do they not teach people to read in kansas?
  • sanman, on 11/04/2009, -0/+6others have demonstrated ion propulsion, too

    ESA Smart-1

    ISRO GSAT-4
  • appleseed1234, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5I wish this was Project Orion-style nuclear propulsion, but this is still great nonetheless. NASA should have just gone all out with that, no politician would have had an excuse to call them out for making the most out of the pathetically small sum of money they have.
  • PlatnumPlatypus, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5'“Until we commit to going back to Mars, we’re not going to have a nuclear rocket,” McDaniel said."

    In the meantime, does anyone know what measures NASA has taken to meet with both the Obama adminstrations take on "Going Green" and the depleting fossil fuels?

    I don't. Which is why I'm confused why they've rejected nuclear technology. Especially when quoting the article:

    "It’s not hard to see why engineers would want to use nuclear power. Fission reactors provide a lot of power for their size, which is a key attribute in designing space systems. One engineer claims nuclear rockets are inherently twice as efficient as their chemical brethren. Their attributes could have increased the exploration range of the space program, nuclear propulsion advocates argue, allowing us to get to more interesting places.

    'We could have done a lot more things in space. We could have gone more places,” McDaniel said of nuclear rocket research. “It’s highly likely we would have gone to Mars.'"
  • Pinkertinkle, on 11/04/2009, -4/+9Russia also leads in vodka-ism.
  • katana0182, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4There are other forms of nuclear propulsion that don't require large weapon detonations and can be used to leave the atmosphere without leaving excess radiation lying around. They're also like many times more efficient than liquid and solid fuel rockets; for example, single stage to orbit is feasible with nuclear thermal engines.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_propu ...
    Once you're in space, though, you need an electrical drive, as nuclear thermal shoots large amounts of gas off the back of your space vehicle somewhat slowly, which isn't an efficient use of mass, while an electrical (ion/VASIMR/plasma) drive shoots small amounts of mass off the back end of the ship very quickly like near the speed of light, which is very efficient. A nuclear reactor is an ideal power source, especially when you're not near the sun.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR
    Your friendly anti-nuclear dupes (who are also responsible for hindering the only real solution to global warming - nuclear power - which doesn't produce any CO2) are why NASA doesn't do more research of this type. The US used to do lots of nuclear space propulsion research. Thank the anti-nuclear movement for killing it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus
    Thus, the Russians are the world leaders. Instead, NASA only has one destination for humans - low Earth orbit. Maybe the Moon, in like 20 years. Maybe Mars, in a century.
  • sgerwel1985, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5wow i need to stop talking to my polish cousins... I meant to say "you do realize Chernobyl was a freak accident, right?"

    Time to go to bed...
  • inactive, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5yeah, like the ones that consistently and safetly launch astronauts and supplies from all over the world to and from iss. not to mention all those satellites they orbit every other week.

    how does someone so stupid find themselves in cali anyway? did you move there from alabama or something? damn white trash... like ***** cockroaches.
  • tsotha, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3They're not even proposing a NERVA-style nuclear thermal rocket. They simply intend to power an ion thruster with the electricity from a nuclear reactor. Ion thrusters have been done before. Nuclear reactors in space have been done before. The only new part is powering ion thrusters with a nuclear reactor.
  • tsotha, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3It's not Orion or even NERVA. They're just proposing the use of a nuclear reactor to power an ion thruster. Ion thrusters have been done before using solar cells and RTGs.
  • Yage2006, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3Good!.
    Chemical rockets are getting boring.
  • 408train, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3what does iran think of this?
  • inactive, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4it's a shame that ukraine did not have access to 18 year olds from florida to tell them how to run the station.
  • InfinitySnatch, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4It would be pretty ironic if it was the Orion-style propulsion since the U.S. wanted that as an exception to the Partial Test Ban Treaty, but the Russians specifically shot that part down.
    Wait, is irony the right word?
    Hypothetical hypocrisy?
  • katana0182, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4Nuclear spacecraft don't explode, because the nuclear materials (unlike hydrogen and oxygen) don't explode, they just generate heat, to push out gas, enough to take off.
  • inactive, on 11/04/2009, -3/+6hehe, rednecks really get riled up quick when they hear that russia one-upped them somehow. they quickly look to something, ANYTHING to rag on. the white trash can't really appreciate a new idea or technology unless it comes directly from US.
  • tsotha, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2We've been launching RTGs, which contain plutonium, into space for years. We've even had failed launches. The people at NASA aren't stupid - they plan for this sort of thing. The RTGs are designed to be pretty tough, so even if they fall to earth from 100 miles up they don't break up.

    Now, the Russians did have a nuclear powered satellite fall in Canada in 1978. But it's not that they couldn't have made the thing tougher, they just... didn't. Well, that was the Soviets for you. I think today's Russians would be a bit more careful.
  • MercenarySlick, on 11/04/2009, -3/+5For real. The US has landed probes on Mars and discovered water there. The US landed men on the moon 4 times. The US has a space telescope that discovered galaxies and mapped the cosmos, including dark matter and dark energy. The US has sent probes to survey the outer solar system.

    Neither Russia or anyone else has even sent a probe outside the asteroid belt. Now all of a sudden people are gloating that Russia is ahead of the US simply because they have simply PROPOSED a nuclear propulsion system for space travel? Interesting.
  • DeskFlyer, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Did Apollo 16 and 17 not make it or something? ;)
  • XPEHBAM, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3You watch too much television.
  • falconear, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2This is great news! Nuclear powered ships are without a doubt the true next step in human space exploration that will get us to Mars and beyond. I'm very excited by what the Russians (and Chinese, and Indians) are doing here...maybe it'll give us a kick in the ass to get some more money to NASA. New space race, anyone?
  • katana0182, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2Dugg for science.
    You have an excellent point - structural failure is an issue, tolerances are very low, and velocities and accelerations are high. Re-entry is a particularly risky time.

    But there are acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk. Overall, if I was an astronaut, I would prefer being aboard a nuclear thermal rocket, because the equipment is much simpler and there's less to go wrong. The main risk is to the population, and that is minimal, if proper materials are used, that stick together rather than falling apart in the event of a launch failure and not being used in re-entry until the concept is very mature.

    There are ways of reducing that risk, too. One way to minimize it is to use a spacecraft that takes off either with regular jet engines or aboard a carrier plane, goes to a high altitude over the ocean, then fires up the nuclear thermal drive. Or using a launch pad on Kwajalein.

    At least initially, I could see nuclear thermal rockets being used as recoverable boosters, as that ensures that re-entry contingencies are eliminated, where the major danger is. If used in a launch, and the launch terminated due to vehicle failure, the boosters could eject and parachute down.
  • inactive, on 11/04/2009, -2/+4mercenaryslick just proved my point. with white trash, it's always about US. you mention something about space and another country, especially one that started space travel with first human being in space, and you'll get attacked with a wall of text full of assumptions, quotes of things you didn't say, and wild accusations.
  • Deetman, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2This makes me go "hmmm...." and think a bit.

    Current safety policies for anything unmanned (not sure on the manned policies) are such that if telemetry from the rocket does not match the designated flight profile indicating something is wrong with the electronics or with the guidance systems a button (presumably red) is pressed and the whole rocket goes "boom". Something tells me that this can't exactly be the policy for a rocket with radioactive matter in it. I realize that it won't be an "atomic bomb-like" explosion but there are still radioactive components that will rain down from the air and, in the case of most US launches, into the ocean.
  • Long189, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2DDRRAAGGOO!!
  • inactive, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2what headline are you reading?
  • jazduck, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2You require a gas to heat to expel for the thrust, in previous iterations of this concept hydrogen was used, probably due to weight. If it is going to be manned it will require oxygen. You still have all the ingredients for a nice fireball.

    Even if we used an inert gas and had no oxygen onboard, your suggesting that nothing could go wrong with such high velocities and low margins for error as encountered with rocket launches, or reentry.
  • MercenarySlick, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2What about the literally dozens of nuclear meltdowns in Russian nuclear-powered submarines during the Cold War?
  • inactive, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2it's not really a race...
  • BookaShade, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2uummm nooo.

    lol Are you serious.
    What does nuclear power give their probe super speed? Is that what you think? lol ok.

    Nuclear power will be used to power the probe. It will take the SAME amount of time. To get there.

    Dont be such a idiot.

    And everyone can bury me as long as I got my point across to this kid.
  • BabyWookie, on 11/07/2009, -0/+1@MercenarySlick:

    Dozens of "nuclear meltdowns"? Wasn't there only one major reactor problem with a Soviet submarine? Didn't they make a Harrison Ford movie about it?
  • rebrad, on 11/04/2009, -2/+3Don't worry then. You might as well take the US out of any race, certainly the space race. Unless the Chinese will finance more bad debt, we shot our wad on bailing out failed businesses and politically manipulated markets. All that's left of NASA are ghosts of past successes as they disassemble infrastructure in preparation of shipment to it's new owners. At least there are some that got their wish; we are rapidly gaining economic equity with the third world.
  • MercenarySlick, on 11/04/2009, -4/+5The US has landed probes on Mars and discovered water there. The US landed men on the moon more than once. The US has a space telescope that discovered galaxies and mapped the cosmos, including dark matter and dark energy. The US has sent probes to survey the outer solar system. The US has sent probes that have EXITED the solar system. Neither Russia or anyone else has even sent a probe outside the asteroid belt. Now all of a sudden people are gloating that Russia is ahead of the US simply because they have PROPOSED a nuclear propulsion system for space travel?

    It seems people are desperate for any way to take a jab at the US.

    It's funny how the US has already demonstrated ion-propulsion which was a far more recent concept than nuclear propulsion for spacecraft, and leads in almost every single aspect of space exploration, yet all Russia has to do is talk big and all of a sudden "The US is getting whooped in the space race!!! lolzomg".
  • InfinitySnatch, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1That's why he said,"I wish this was Project Orion-style nuclear propulsion."
  • BabyWookie, on 11/07/2009, -0/+1The space industry is part of its "***** economy", Bubba. Also, their "***** economy" was down to the Third World levels after the Soviet collapse in the 90's. It is now among the top ten economies in the world. Not a bad recovery.
  • Sanjei, on 11/07/2009, -0/+12toxicshok. Poor soviet design, stupid technicians, dangerous test. If so why american astronauts fly to space using Russian rockets and stations. Do you know that in all world esp Europe, Ams are considered to be stupid. I think it is consistent pattern. Your comment only confirms this.
  • rebrad, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Funding doesn't help if it is in American dollars that are worth less and buy less everyday.
  • chang3, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Don't try too hard to be witty americanoboy. Go read some literature on the topic and you'll quickly learn that even this eighteen year old from Florida would never be so bold as to shutdown so many safety systems in a situation where massive failure would be devastating, as it would be in a rocket.
  • MatzahMan, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1I "WILL" break you.
  • tsotha, on 11/04/2009, -0/+0NASA still gets more money than any other space program in the world. And that doesn't even include what we spend on military space operations.

    The problem isn't money. The problem is the main goal at NASA has become to maintain the bureaucracy. This happens to every large organization of people eventually. The only solution is to eliminate the agency and create another one from the ground up with clear technical goals. We will flounder until that happens.
  • BabyWookie, on 11/07/2009, -1/+1Don't take it so personally, Captain Amurrka.
  • MercenarySlick, on 11/04/2009, -4/+4Russia didn't one-up the US. Are you serious? Russia hasn't even developed the technology yet, it's all about concepts and proposals, nothing even coming close to an actual technology.

    Meanwhile the US has probes that have actually past the asteroid belt. The US has probes on Mars right now that recently discovered water. The US has actually sent a human being outside of earth orbit and onto a foreign body.

    And you're trying to pretend Russia has got us beat? Lol, you talk about rednecks being angry that Russia supposedly one-upped the US (which they didn't), but what about the anti-american idiots like you who completely ignore the fact the US has the most high-achieving space program in the world and has reached dozens of mile stones nobody else in the world has even come close to reaching?
  • jazduck, on 11/04/2009, -5/+5Im all for nuclear power, it's an efficient method of producing energy, however using it to power a spacecraft doesn't fill me with great confidence. Spacecraft have a tendency to pretty much explode if something goes wrong, if that happened with a nuclear material on board your going to have a lot of fallout in the atmosphere that could spread radioactive material over thousands of miles.
  • sonofabiscuit, on 11/04/2009, -3/+3Not to mention all of Russia's failed rocket launches.
  • burrdugg, on 11/04/2009, -0/+0Sure about that?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygQvB6OjHOU
  • inactive, on 11/04/2009, -3/+3chernobyl is in ukraine.

    you lose! good day, sir.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.