Of course their best use is lifting things out of a gravity well but blowing up a hundred nukes on Earth produces fallout :ooooooooooooooh: What we really need are pure fusion mini hydrogen bombs but who's gonna invent that? Militaries want to be able to poison millions, defeating the purpose of clean nukes!
I think I'll make some posts on absolutely ridiculous space concepts
There's a clean thermal nuclear fission drive concept called the "nuclear lightbulb". All fission products are contained in the reactor, except for radiation which is allowed to escape through a special "window" where it heats a propellant like ammonia that then escapes from a conventional nozzle for thrust. The fictional Discovery from 2001: A Space Odyssey used this. Some designs have other windows which are used to allow photovoltaic panels to provide electricity from the reactor radiation.
It's less efficient than just blasting fission products NERVA style out the back, but far safer. It's too low thrust to be used to get off a planetary surface but would be great for deep space usage.
Ah yeah I have heard of the nuclear lightbulb - the design is very pleasing to the eye. Nuclear thermal rockets are cool but definitely a couple tiers below pulse propulsion. Speaking of blasting fission products out the back, you gotta look up nuclear salt water rockets and fission fragment rockets. Anyway, do you know if NASA or other scientists ever addressed the possibility of nuclear thermal rockets blowing up? Everything I've read kinda glossed over the potential environmental issues...
NERVA doesn't blast fission products out the back, it's a closed-cycle nuclear fission rocket. All the fission products are contained. NASA has tested it a bunch of times on the ground and it works just fine.
You are correct that open-cycle (blasting radiation everywhere) designs are often more efficient.
Of course their best use is lifting things out of a gravity well but blowing up a hundred nukes on Earth produces fallout :ooooooooooooooh: What we really need are pure fusion mini hydrogen bombs but who's gonna invent that? Militaries want to be able to poison millions, defeating the purpose of clean nukes!
I think I'll make some posts on absolutely ridiculous space concepts
There's a clean thermal nuclear fission drive concept called the "nuclear lightbulb". All fission products are contained in the reactor, except for radiation which is allowed to escape through a special "window" where it heats a propellant like ammonia that then escapes from a conventional nozzle for thrust. The fictional Discovery from 2001: A Space Odyssey used this. Some designs have other windows which are used to allow photovoltaic panels to provide electricity from the reactor radiation.
It's less efficient than just blasting fission products NERVA style out the back, but far safer. It's too low thrust to be used to get off a planetary surface but would be great for deep space usage.
Ah yeah I have heard of the nuclear lightbulb - the design is very pleasing to the eye. Nuclear thermal rockets are cool but definitely a couple tiers below pulse propulsion. Speaking of blasting fission products out the back, you gotta look up nuclear salt water rockets and fission fragment rockets. Anyway, do you know if NASA or other scientists ever addressed the possibility of nuclear thermal rockets blowing up? Everything I've read kinda glossed over the potential environmental issues...
NERVA doesn't blast fission products out the back, it's a closed-cycle nuclear fission rocket. All the fission products are contained. NASA has tested it a bunch of times on the ground and it works just fine.
You are correct that open-cycle (blasting radiation everywhere) designs are often more efficient.