Nuclear thrusters for space ships?

Question

This might seem a very weird question, but i've been wondering for a while now , the USA managed to build a space ship / probe or whatever it's called , anyway , this new space ship has a top speed of 240 kmh or 180 mph , and according to the scientists it can reach pluto within 10 years !

so my question is :
if they could create ion thrusters to make a spaceship go that fast , why not making a nuclear one ( not sure whether nuclear and ion are the same though ), and if they can't what material can make us , humans reach the speed of light in order to teleport between different planests .

Answer 1

As early as 1930's, some one did his Ph.D. dissertation on nuclear rocket propulsion.

In 1950's, space industry had project on nuclear rocket propulsion.

Right now, it is not an active project.

Answer 2

It AINT impossible to make a reactor in space. You dont take a WHOLE reactor into space. You take the bits and assemble it there, cos a lot of the bits you need to make a reactor on the ground you dont need in space (such as shielding)



And yes - ion drives only work if you have a power source that can keep going for years - a reactor is perfect. A rocket is useless cos of the weight of fuel you would have to carry



A large magnetic field funnels any particles or gasses in space (space is NOT completely empty) through the centre of the reactor. This ionises it or creates a plasma which is expelled at much higher velocity thus creating thrust

At first the thrust is only very low, but ANY thrust accelerates the spaceship, and as the speed increases then more gasses/particles are collected so the thrust increases. Thats the beauty of an ion drive., it dont need any fuel only debris in space, and the faster it goes the more it accelerates.



(I remember a calculation a few years ago which showed that an ion drive going for several years could get to a VERY high speed, in the realm of light speed.)





"A nuclear reactor can only make electricity. As yet we can't use that to power something in a vacuum"

I REALLY do despair of the education system

The 1 thing a reactor DOES NOT DO is produce electricity.

Answer 3

240 kmh is a moderately fast train. Spacecraft need to go much faster.



Nuclear and ion are not the same thing, although hydrogen ions are in fact hydrogen nuclei which are just protons. Ion engines work by accelerating propellant electrically, giving a very high specific impulse which gives a very high possible maximum speed (from the rocket equation)





"Nuclear power" from thermoelectricity has been used for probes to the outer solar system where solar power is inefficient.



There have been studies on nuclear engines e.g. NERVA. Right now, putting a nuclear reactor in space is possible (e.g. the shuttle could lift 20 tonnes and there's a reference to a reactor weighing 15 tonnes.) But it's banned by international treaty.



A nuclear reactor could provide electricity to power an ion engine. Terrestrial ones use steam turbines which would be impractical in space. I'm not sure what would work.



We know no way to reach the speed of light, even in theory. Relativity says it's impossible.

Answer 4

A nuclear reactor by itself would not be used for propulsion. It would be used to generate electricty to power an ion engine, especially something like the proposed VASIMR engine. That said, ion engines only work in deep space. For launching into orbit (and escaping in a reasonable amount of time) you still need chemical rockets to produce enough thrust. Ion engines only work in a vaccuum, and accelerate a spacecraft to high speed over a large amount of time.



Launching a nuclear reactor and/or large amounts of fissionable material would potentially be dangerous because of the potential for an accident that could easily spread dangerous radioactive material around the world. There would also be international concerns about nuclear weapons in space. Therefore, nuclear powered spacecraft are highly controversial, as are nuclear reactors on Earth. (This is assuming by nuclear you mean fission--i.e. uranium/plutonium. We have not yet developed the technology for viable fusion reactors.) Developing a new propulsion sytem is of course also expensive and time-consuming.



By the way, for decades NASA has used Radioisotope Thermal Generators (RTGs) to power electrical systems on space probes. This is technically nuclear power, but the probes derive their energy from the natural decay of radioactive elements, not the fission of enriched nuclear fuel.

Answer 5

1. Getting a nuclear reactor into space would be near impossible.

2. If it were possible, it would be useless. you need a rocket to propel yourself in a vacuum.

3. To get to the speed of light would require so much energy that it would be easier just to use rockets.



Well you get the nuclear reactor into space you would need to take up several thousand tones of concrete and lead. Not to mention the radioactive material.

Rockets use fuel to burn. The ones used today are hydrogen and oxygen. A nuclear reactor can only make electricity. As yet we can't use that to power something in a vacuum.

Answer 6

First of all

.

The speed of a space ship has no limits

.

When on board a ship in space and

.

The main power units are fired the thrust they put out is for the space ship to feel

.

And that Power does not happen just because the speed of light has been reached

.

The travelers on that ship will not know the speed of light has been reached

.

Only an outside eye will

.

So now you see the delema of speed in space there is no maximum

.

Answer 7

each action has an equivalent and opposite reaction. the only reason planes choose the ambience is they choose the encompassing oxygen to burn the gas. Rockets carry their own oxygen grant. in fact the rocket is "pushing" against the rigidity of the nice and snug gases being expelled out the returned.