Difference between revisions of "Nuclear thermal propulsion"
m (→Types) |
m (→Types) |
||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
*Solid core | *Solid core | ||
*Gas core | *Gas core | ||
| − | *Nuclear light bulb, open and closed | + | *Nuclear light bulb, open and closed<ref>https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690014077.pdf</ref> |
*Nuclear salt water rockets<ref>http://www.path-2.narod.ru/design/base_e/nswr.pdf</ref> | *Nuclear salt water rockets<ref>http://www.path-2.narod.ru/design/base_e/nswr.pdf</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
Revision as of 01:44, 27 July 2020
Nuclear thermal propulsion uses a nuclear core to heat a propellant and provide propulsion to a space vehicle.
Liquid hydrogen is usually used as the propellant as it has a higher velocity for the same input power, and therefore produces a faster final velocity according to the rocket equation.
History of nuclear thermal propulsion
American
Nerva[1]
| Propellant | Liquid hydrogen |
|---|---|
| Performance | |
| Thrust (vac.) | 246,663 N (55,452 lbf) |
| Chamber pressure | 3,861 kPa (560.0 psi) |
| Isp (vac.) | 841 seconds (8.25 km/s) |
| Isp (SL) | 710 seconds (7.0 km/s) |
| Burn time | 1,680 seconds |
| Thrust to weigh ratio | 1.36 |
| Restarts | 24 |
| Dimensions | |
| Length | 6.9 meters (23 ft) |
| Diameter | 2.59 meters (8 ft 6 in) |
| Dry weight | 18,144 kilograms (40,001 lb) |
Russian
Analysis of use
Advantages
- Higher ISP than chemical
- Higher power energy source
- Shorter travel time
- Oberth effect
- Self cooling
Disadvantages
- Cost
- Cost of development
- Risk of accident
- Lower ISP than electric
- Low public trust
- Thrust to weight ratio close to 1 (cannot take off from Earth with a significant payload)
