Hi all this is a continuation thread of "Vasimr Engine - Space propulsion technology" thread.

http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...ghlight=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 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

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?q...rs=&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.

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.

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.

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 Russians came up with a way to use NaK, but it's not much lighter. Current reactors are just too heavy in general.