US Air Force wants to see some atomic motors for future spacecraft Lockheed Martin has been awarded $33.7 million by the US Air Force Research Laboratory to develop nuclear-powered electric propulsion systems for spacecraft. Under the military lab's Joint Emergent Technology Supplying On-Orbit Nuclear (JETSON) High Power program, Lockheed Martin will work with Space Nuclear Power Corp and BWX …
The interesting thing is that these ideas have been around for the better part of sixty years. I have several versions of spacey books for kids, back to 1969 (the moon landing was just about in it!). And especially the early books are full of enthusiasm about interplanetary travel and nuclear powered warships spaceships. Basically "yeah, we'll reach Mars within the next decade". Fun stuff!
I am so used to unit abuse with respect to power I don't even notice it. Pays the bills though when they confuse themselves and I have to untangle it for them.
But it is likely unknown how much energy storage they plan now or in the future to have available. Probably not much at the start and more later--depending on payload configuration.
Looked into actually building a power core (technically a miniature nuclear power plant) but using a quantum field based reaction.
In theory I could build it for a tenth of that cost, but need materials not currently found in nature.
All feasible with terrestrial technology otherwise, if someone can get me even a few grams of this I can use existing materials
and generate a torsional field using dark matter flux at altitude.
Think warp nacelles though it would be limited to a fraction of light speed, this would get me to the Moon and back without
the need for conventional rockets though RCS thrusters would be a useful and necessary backup.
The slight snag is generating a >44T sustained field inside the central core to control the reaction and help regulate, though
can further throttle it using external X-ray emitter tubes of my own design and other methods.
Think of it as a radiometric downconverter that uses intense static magnetic fields to align the spins allowing a reaction to
take place without criticality which allows for a far more compact device.
Also need to build two of them in case one goes bad, with cross connectivity so in an emergency situation the craft is
still controllable.
Interestingly it would work best above 55K feet so can test this simply using a high altitude balloon, this is an approach
I believe pioneered by NASA.
Sharing here in the hope that others had the same ideas.
You need unobtainium. I don’t have several pounds of the stuff
Simple - you just need to start with 3x the weight of powdered unicorn horn, slaked with dragons' blood. And no, you can't use the African Assault Unicorn - must be the proper equine-adjacent version.
As to dragons blood - I'm an ideas man, not an engineer. You'll just have to find your own. I did read something about running, a halfling and an angry dragon recently so I'd make sure that your expedition team is thoroughly stocked with surplus halflings..
"using dark matter flux at altitude"
What's that? Dark matter and dark energy are still only hypothetical so any design relying on something we can't actually prove even exists yet, let alone understand it's properties is a bit pie in the sky. I'm sure the cosmologists and astrophysicists and/or the people at CERN would love to listen to your analyses of "dark matter flux".
Well at least theoretically, there may well be a dark matter flow through Earth. Its got an apparent seasonal fluctuation and may or may not affect certain types of radioactive decay very slightly. Only for some isotopes with a very specific structure within the nucleus though.
In this case, the heavier isotopes may react more so extrapolating based on the known data https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-64497-0 a hypothetical isotope of Laforgium aka Unhexquadium (atomic mass 164) with optimal neutron number may be significantly affected. Think of it like the quantum version of a particle accelerator driven sub-critical reactor.
Due to Newton's first law if you can get a unidirectional effect then absolutely the device should produce thrust in the opposite direction.
Might not be significant on the ground but certainly measurable if not useful in space.
I actually did contact CERN not so long ago but think they are waiting on a physics paper before getting back to me.
Not yet having enough of the specific isotope to even test it in the laboratory is inconvenient.
Did look into 'cold fusion' of plutonium 239 and lutetium 184 layered in an ultracentrifuge under high energy pulsed electrical discharge via superconducting energy transfer, yielding Element 165, which might decay into metastable 164.
Would only get a very small (as in a few dozen atoms) quantity per run but enough for testing at least.
Another method might be to use an ion multipactor with 239Pu and a beam of 184Lu produced externally as its got a very short half life, again the problem is tuning that reaction to not break up the newly formed element as fast at it is formed.
Perhaps focus a laser beam on each axis and a WB8 like arrangement to boost reaction efficiency by adding energy to the system?
-
>>> "Interestingly enough, Lockheed Martin stressed in its announcement of the funding that we won't have anything to worry about regarding strapping a nuclear reactor to a rocket to lift it up into space:"
Guaranteed by greedy vendor.
>>>The rocket blows up, which they sometimes do, we assume that uranium will be distributed so far and wide, it won't be a problem,
Nowhere to hide, people.
And of course, no diplomatic backfire to fear. Foreign countries will be spared. Remember Fukushima tritium release row?
>>> or crash back as a lump in a way that doesn't ruin someone's year.
It can avoid populated areas, presumably
Fascination of immature nerds for all things atomic is... fascinating.
Surely "catastrophising eco-nuts" don't have a point.
Fukushima’s Final Costs Will Approach A Trillion Dollars Just For Nuclear Disaster
FALLACY. This is part of the noise radiation of our environments. Same as radon from granitic rock for instance. No irreparable DNA damage is incurred.
Nuclear disaster are on a different scale. WHEN DID WE EVACUATE 160 000 people because a coal power station released radioactive material.
Nonsense. The result is the same whether a gamma ray comes from an all natural, organic, grass fed, farm-to-table isotope or one cooked up in a reactor. Radon, as per your example, can and does cause lung cancer:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068370/
The reason no one has been evacuated due to radioactive pollution from coal is because it pollutes the planet so comprehensively that there's no safe place to escape from it.
1. caricaturing opponent's point of view
How disingenuous. Of course the origin of exposure is irrelevant. But the accumulated quantity is NOT (let alone peak values).
2/ Avoiding to answer the opponent's objection
DNA damage to proto oncogens is much more probable (and reliably measurable) when exposure increases.
3/ Avoiding quantitative arguments
- The global average natural radiation exposure for humans is around 2.5 mSv/yr (that's how impactful your ubiquitous radiation from coal power plants is - LOL).
- In the nuclear industry, the maximum annual dose acceptable for radiation workers ranges from 20 mSv/yr upwards.
- Fukushima disaster resulted in exposures of up to 400 mSv PER HOUR (not per year) near unit 3.
So stop digging. The hazards of radiation from coal power plants, are nothing more than a talking point from the nuke bros, pathetically attempting to downplay the tangible dangers of nuclear energy.
Piffle. Did you even look at the paper on radon-induced cancers? You're also confusing maximum permitted exposures with received exposures and highly localised readings; this may be base ignorance but I'm not entirely ready to dismiss it being either deliberately misleading or simple regurgitation of scaremongering. It's reminiscent of those morons at Greenpeace* pointing a thermal camera at a waste cask and showing off a picture of the 'scary' (thermal) radiation.
*who thanks to their anti-nuclear claptrap are every bit as much to blame for climate change as fossil fuel companies
I *did*, as a matter of intellectual honesty, take the time to go through your reference. There was NOTHING new in it.
What you might want to look into, instead, is Richardson et al 2023 which is looking into the excess of cancers among workers of the nuclear industry in France, UK, and the US.
If it's too arid for you, El Pais has this title "A study with 300,000 workers in the nuclear industry suggests an increased risk of death from cancer".
And this subtitle, that might enlighten you: "The analysis shows that prolonged exposure to low doses of radiation can be just as harmful as the same amount received all at once".
Which means that your arrogant assumption "You're also confusing maximum permitted exposures with received exposures and highly localised readings" is not supported by science. Said otherwise, "ignorance" is your side. Though Richardson et al's observation would have seemed logical enough if one looks into the mechanistic MoA of ionising radiations on DNA (e.g.proto oncogens) with a statistical approach and assume stoichiometric cumulated exposure.
I leave you with your hatred of Greenpeace, without the action of which we would probably still be dumping your nuclear wastes in the English Channel. It would be interesting to study the effect of dumping wastes into the pelagic zone for the last 50 years.
Results of the cited study: The study included 103 553 deaths, of which 28 089 were due to solid cancers. The estimated rate of mortality due to solid cancer increased with cumulative dose by 52% (90% confidence interval 27% to 77%) per Gy, lagged by 10 years. Restricting the analysis to the low cumulative dose range (0-100 mGy) approximately doubled the estimate of association (and increased the width of its confidence interval), as did restricting the analysis to workers hired in the more recent years of operations when estimates of occupational external penetrating radiation dose were recorded more accurately. Exclusion of deaths from lung cancer and pleural cancer had a modest effect on the estimated magnitude of association, providing indirect evidence that the association was not substantially confounded by smoking or occupational exposure to asbestos.
You're misunderstanding (or perhaps deliberately misrepresenting) the study. They're using data from a cohort that has extremely well monitored external exposure to explore the overall risk from radiation. Earlier, you asserted that "No irreparable DNA damage is incurred." but, by definition, if a cancer develops (i.e. from exposure to radon), that cannot be the case. Whether this radiation comes from the isotopes vomited into the atmosphere through coal or from accidental releases, the outcome is the same. Indeed, at some locations on Earth, background exposures occur that are an order higher than what would be permitted for a radiation worker.
>>> Greenpeace*
>>> *who thanks to their anti-nuclear claptrap are every bit as much to blame for climate change as fossil fuel companies
Another ill-thought statement. There is ZERO chance that global warming can be addressed by expanding civil nuclear for power generation. For the obvious reason that most of developing countries are totally unable to afford, let alone maintain for decades, an over-complicated, risky, dirty technique with LCOEs north of 100$/MWh. Whereas renewable are now approaching a tenth of this. You can thank Germany and China for the drop in the LCOE of solar energy BELOW that of thermal power generation. This is the REAL game changer, that makes the economic business case match the environmental objectives. That's it for now, nuke bro. You will not concede. But here are the hard facts.
You can thank Greenpeace and other fearmongers for halting development that would have dropped the price of nuclear further, thanks to future designs not based around plutonium manufacture. I'll save my thanks for China and Germany due to the intense heavy metals and nanocomposites spewed into the environment from their solar and wind generator manufacture which, ironically, is subsidised. This is to say nothing of the cost per Wh not taking into account the unreliability of those sources.
I knew you would not concede. Nuke bros never do. It's like a religion.
Greenpeace is so strong in China, right!? LOL. Yet around than 4% of electricity in China comes from nuclear, and 17% from renewable (not counting hydro). More than 50% capacity is renewable over there.
Nobody needs Greenpeace to grok the difference of complexity between a 1GW nuclear power plant and and a 1GW solar farm. Nobody needs Greenpeace to understand that this complexity has a cost. Claiming that Greenpeace prevented capital to be invested in the nuclear industry is just ludicrous. There is simply no business case.
>>> "Ah, I didn't realise you saw China as a good example of environmental responsibility."
How so? With so many nuclear power stations, and therefore so much nuclear waste to deal with for millennia, how can anyone sensible perceive them "as a good example of environmental responsibility".
A fresh out of the box reactor, assuming it's not using MOX or reprocessed (as opposed to enriched) uranium fuel, isn't a terribly dangerous thing. The primary danger, other than some nasty person hoovering it up for nefarious fission antics, is similar to other heavy metals. It's much more of a problem when the reactor has been running and re-enters the atmosphere because, by that point, it's full of much nastier isotopes.
... and incidentally, no one can hear you scream
Heat is work and work's a curse
And all the heat in the Universe
Is gonna cooool down 'cos it can't increase
Then there'll be no more work and there'll be perfect peace
Really?
Yeah - that's entropy, man!
And all because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which lays down:
That you can't pass heat from the cooler to the hotter
Try it if you like but you far better notter
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
'Cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler
(Flanders and Swann: First And Second Law Of Thermodynamics)
to the 2 ignoramuses who voted this down : you should have observed the icon of my message. "Space" is not cold, it's actually quite hot, especially if exposed to the solar wind. Also, "space" is not a "source" of hot or cold, it's in vacuum therefore well isolated. The only way to cool something down in space is by radiation with a huge surface turned towards the void ... which will be heated on it's other side by the sun. Just look at what the JWST has to do to keep the telescope cool, even though it's in Earth's shadow, and it doesn't have any particular heat source, unlike such a nuclear reactor.
Geeeeze, doesn't nobody learn hard physics anymore ?
>Just look at what the JWST has to do to keep the telescope cool,
Although JWST is trying to keep the telescope at 30-50K
This just has to keep the cold side of the engine colder than the hot side of the engine - although the bigger the delta-T the more efficient it is.
>even though it's in Earth's shadow,
L2 isn't in Earth's shadow. It needs to be in sunlight, otherwise its solar panels wouldn't work.
...MUST COME DOWN.
Then what? The effect of a dirty bomb?
That would be bad. We've known that would be bad for many decades.
So why stupidity now?
"The rocket blows up, which they sometimes do, we assume that uranium will be distributed so far and wide, it won't be a problem, or crash back as a lump in a way that doesn't ruin someone's year."
√ Right. Assuming makes radiation victims out of you and me. Don't do that. Obviously.
Things in orbit are continuously 'coming down'. The question is when drag (and gravitational perturbations if we're talking centuries) plays enough of a role to get them into the atmosphere proper. If it's after a few thousand years then there's little to worry about. If orbital reactors take off in a big way then we can consider returning them safely to avoid orbital clogging as re-entry without baking the contents of a capsule is a solved problem.
The new spicy-rocks are pretty safe, they are likely to be moderately enriched so not really an issue (don't use for piercings) if they blow-up on the way up.
It's only once they've been used for a few years do they get that interesting aged flavour that you really don't want to get on you.
So you really need a good deorbit (or ideally a don't deorbit) plan beyond - "aim for the Pacifc and hope"
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
