1

I have heard of nuclear propulsion, however I wonder that is it possible for it to launch into space, and if so, how much fuel would it need?

Russell Borogove
  • 168,364
  • 13
  • 593
  • 699
RoylatGnail
  • 667
  • 1
  • 5
  • 15
  • 1
    Is "to space" a verb? As in, "to launch into"? Well, I like it, anyway. NERVA produced 75,000 pounds of force. SpaceX's Merlin engine produces 94,000 pounds at sea level, which is a bit higher, but comparable. So maybe, depending on the size of the rocket. But they used liquid hydrogen and were meant for upper stages and space tugs, not first stages. – Greg May 26 '19 at 00:07
  • 1
    @Greg the NERVA weighs about 15 times more than the Merlin. – Starfish Prime May 26 '19 at 09:32

1 Answers1

6

The NERVA was a fairly heavy engine, with a thrust to weight ratio of about 3:1 in flight configuration (as compared to ratios of better than 100 for liquid-fueled engines). Between that and the fact that its exhaust included radioactive material, it wouldn't have been a good choice for a lower-stage engine, but it would have been possible. Improved nuclear-thermal engine designs like Project Timberwind could have achieved 30:1 TWR, but the cost and environmental issues would still make it a poor choice for a first stage.

Fuel efficiency of a nuclear-thermal engine is about twice as good as a hydrogen-oxygen combustion rocket, so you'd need only half as much fuel mass as your hydrogen-oxygen-fueled competition as a rule of thumb, but the fines from the EPA would easily wipe out any cost savings.

Russell Borogove
  • 168,364
  • 13
  • 593
  • 699
  • Any idea about Alan Bond's Scorpion design? using a lithium loop to avoid contaminating the propellant (and generate copious amounts of electricity) removes the radioactive exhaust issue. –  May 26 '19 at 05:35