Thermal Nuclear Rocket Propulsion Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 кві 2021
- Subject Zero Patreon
/ subjectzerolaboratories
Thermal Nuclear Rocket Propulsion Explained
In late 1960s, early 1970s, nuclear thermal rockets were fully developed and tested under programs such as the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application or NERVA. This program was just one of the two categories that studied nuclear propulsion. In this project, they developed a solid core reactor based on Uranium, Zirconium carbide-graphite matrix.
There were four main configurations tested with increased thrust levels. The largest NERVA derived engine produced approximately 112.1 kN of thrust. The fuel element was a complex mix of Gadolinium Oxide (Gd2O3) and Uranium oxide (UO2) particles distributed along a Tungsten matrix. Each fuel element was hexagonal in shape with 19 coolant passages. A total of 564 fuel elements and 241 tie tube were used with a total mass of 2,645 kg, containing 36.8 kg of U-235. It delivered a thermal power of 555 MW. To contain the reactor core, a thick radial reflector wall of 14.7 cm with control drums were used.
Just like in conventional rocket engines, the nozzle is cooled by hydrogen that comes in through the inlet valve. It is then transported upwards to the outside of the reactor towards turbo-pumps that increase its pressure. At the same time, a second flow of hydrogen is pumped into the tie tubes which further increases temperature and pressure.
This flow is added to flow number one and is directed towards a second set to turbo-pumps. In this last phase, hydrogen goes back to the core passing through the fuel elements where it experiences the largest increase in temperature. From 367 K to 2,794 K with a mass flow of 12.68 kg/s.
A quick comparison with the average flow rate of the Falcon 9 rocket at 2,496 kg/s makes it easy to understand why nuclear is the best choice for space travel, not lifting large payloads into space.
Sources
NASA
5 hazards of human space flight
www.nasa.gov/hrp/5-hazards-of...
WIKI
Health threats from cosmic rays
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...
Sievert
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert...
Specific impulse
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specifi...
Web Archive
Plastics to help protect astronauts in space
web.archive.org/web/201003232...
Nuclear propulsion for space
www.osti.gov/includes/opennet...
Softwares Used:
Blender 2.8 EEVEE
Apple Motion
Final Cut Pro X - Наука та технологія
Ha. Just discovered your channel from comments telling me we uploaded the same topic at the exact same time. Nice. Great production value here!
What are the odds right? I initially thought it was a collab of some sorts
Pls do a collab vid
Same here.
I got this video recomended to me literally right after i watched yours lol
hi man juat watched tour vedio
"Space... is a hostile place..." - I think you owe it to humanity to do sci-fi and video game voice-over work on the side.
I never realised how much I missed his videos until he started posting again
I prefer Project Orion, Nukes would give a lot of Delta V.
Me too kid
same
@Keith Mann yes
nuclear propulsion has been around since the 60's
Yup
Loving the Cave Johnson style ending: "Alright, folks, we're done here...! Whooh!"
You nailed it! I was trying to figure out why I liked his videos so much but you figured it out, it reminds me of the old portal animations.
4:45 "The Nuclear Guide To The Galaxy" - that adds the cherry to your excellent graphics ^^
This video is awesome! I'll try and recreate it in modded KSP.
One thing though: you don't really bother with the mass of the engines, or the staging requirements. More upper stages means more engines, and that all adds dry mass which adds more fuel mass. Unless you have an SSTO that can refuel in orbit, you'll need to consider cold engines and full fuel tanks during ascent. If you do have an SSTO you'll need to consider the extra fuel spent lost to gravity, atmospheric drag, and lateral acceleration, as well as inefficiency from an unoptimized engine bell. Since you're taking it clear to Mars you're gonna want to make it a vacuum-efficient design, likely with a drop-down extension that deploys in vacuum.
Im writing a literature review right now on Starship vs NTP space craft and the timing of both yours and real engineering’s video is impeccable.
Thermo nuclear reactor go brrrrr
Rocket fuel companies goes bankrupt XD
@@ImieNazwiskoOK Nah. You still need to launch stuff up from the well, and nobody wants people firing nuclear rockets in Earth's atmosphere -- and it wouldn't work as well as chemical rockets, anyway.
@@thomashiggins9320 Why it wouldn't?
Also Project Orion could serve as practical use of nuclear weapons and show of peace.
@@ImieNazwiskoOK Watch the video, it explains why chemical rockets are better at getting stuff out of the gravity well.
@@Willaev This is why nuclear engines will be used for interplanetary transfer.
It's like saying that vacuum engines suck because they don't work well in atmosphere.
Dude your renders just keep getting better and better! Excellent video. Keep up the good work!
That was a really nice Evangelion reference ;)
You should show us how you make your videos or maybe do a second channel that shows us behind the scenes.
ua-cam.com/video/xWMmE2KCkxA/v-deo.html
@@SubjectZeroScience 🙂
Just a suggestion: your every rocket video gets most view. So logically you should do more rocket vid . Your render skills are really freaking good. I think just 10 vid series on how rocket work then a playlist about starship announcement and working would exponentially improve your channel. JUST A SUGGESTION. Hope you would like it and as usual best vid quality
There is one thing missing here: if you launch a core on a chemical first stage that has never been turned on, there will be no radioactive decay products in the core, making it safer than the plutonium RTGs we already launch to power the mars rovers. U238 and U235 have extremely long half lives, making them not very radioactive (it is their decay products after fission that we need to worry about!). Thus, launch your cores without turning them on on the ground first!
True though we still have to land the vessel so we need to either design it to be launched away from the planet you land on or safely land it to store the waste.
I like your funny words magic man.
hey Subject Zero, I just went through my subscribed channels list. i was subscribed to 147 channels. It was insane. I decided I was going to have to make some tough choices, and only focus on the very best content that interested in. I just wanted you to know, you made the cut. But then again, was there ever any doubt. Keep up the great work my friend.
Interesting video! I love to see all ideas for more efficient spaceflight!
I am by no means an expert, but from what i picked up over the last years (mostly through scott manley videos), the heat is apparently one of the main problems that the nerva project had. Things dont just cool naturally in the vacuum of space and nuclear reactors get very hot. There hasnt really been a solution to the cooling of engines like this as far as i know. If someone can correct me on this, please give me info!
(also you forgot the grid fins on the falcon 9 boosters, but that doesnt really matter)
well i guess expelling highly energetic fuel particles out of the ship should take care of the heat. and shielding the engine "room" from the rest of the ship with aerogel or something similar but not that fragile.
There could be large radiators like ones on ISS
@@TheZenytram At temperatures needed engine itself will get hot
Love the visuals, the subjects are well researched and presented.
I am looking forward to the next installment.
The visuals are insane. I was already interested in the topic but the video made it even better. Vreat job!
If you want to see a new fission rocket concept check out the youtube video "liquid plutonium rocket". It's process does not consume hydrogen which makes it ideal for interstellar travel. The video also has info on the constant 1g acceleration method, with this a ship can get to Alpha Centauri in 3.6 ship/7.3 Earth years(and that includes turning the ship around half way and decelerating). Not only is this by far the fastest way we can get to other worlds but the ship would have gravity the whole way. A 10 ton ship would need a mere 10 tons of continuous thrust.
This is a good video, as is usual for your channel.
Really liking the graphics. Great job
Thanks for the quality content!
I missed your videos! Great job on this one!
lovely work as always!!!
Great video as always : )
The conventional rocket comparrison at the end is a bit unfair. You're comparing a lifting stage to a transfer stage. Both are used for very different things (the transfer stage couldn't even get off the ground). An acceleration of close to 2 g already gives away that we'd be taking lots of dead engine mass for a ride across the solar system. That much acceleration in space is quite pointless, especially when it comes from engines that are optimized for thrust over efficiency. A hydrogen fueled upper stage like centaur would've been a more fitting comparrison. Nuclear would still come out on top of that of course. Go NERVA!
And although Ion engines are technically more efficient then nuclear thermal engines, their thrust (and therefore TWR) is laughable. So yeah. Nuclear FTW.
Yesss sirr, nice topic bud The animation are friking extraordinary, more like these please, like FTL stuff or even subluminal spaceship
These videos are literally amazing af
This channel is great!
It really made me doubt of Musk's legitimacy as the guy hailed for his genius, when he was asked about how's SpaceX planning to deal with cosmic radiation, and his response was "radiation ain't a big deal". Radiation is one of the BIG problems in space travel and his nonchalant answer to it is kind of concerning
He is in a scramble to get to mars asap. Developing Rockets takes a lot of time and climate change is rapidly getting worse and a self sufficient mars colony would make humanity at least survive longer IF climate change completely makes all life on earth impossible. Since water blocks it pretty well radiation sheltering can be relatively easily achived with radiation shelters inside starship with walls made of water tanks. Water is something you need to bring anyways so why not get more use out of it. The radiation levels would propably be so low, that the shelter would only be used if the sun has a big outburst of radiation that could reach hazardous levels. Starship is also made of stainless steel which also blocks a bit of radiation so Musk is technically right altough he could have answered differently. If a summed up answer makes you doubt someones legitimacy you should look at yourself. Yes radiation is a big deal but pales in comparison to other challenges a self sufficient mars colony brings so he propably spoke relatively. Kind regards
Super well done.
Perfection
That was one hell of an introduction
"Nerva - Not Nerv" Subject Zero has gained access to the Cultured Materials Archive. Recommend reassess security procedures and monitor Subject Zero's behavior for further study. Additionally, depending on Subject Zero's reaction to materials from the Cultured Materials Archive, encouragement of further and wider use of materials therein may be warranted. Will observe further.
I'll say it again: best in the world animation. Not just the rendering, but the positioning, cadence, zooms and transitions -- then there's the narration. Please, will you do one for me later this year? $$
Love the KSP reference at 5:53
Great animation.... ❤️
Please do a video on topic called "GREY GOO" like in The Expanse Series
Kyle Hill did good video about it
@@ImieNazwiskoOK yes I watched tht video... I subscribed his channel too
@@ImieNazwiskoOK Whats the title?
Your production value is unbelievable high
Animation and graphics are top quality... I mean its just amazing...
The radiation dose data your quoting only applies if you receive it all at once.
I asked the radiation medicine professors at my university how the those doses would effect you if you had gradual exposure over the whole mission. They said that there isn't any data that would predict the something like that, but still think it would pretty bad for you. : )
I LOVE YOUR CHANNEL!
2:16 Wow I've been waiting for the 'Hello everyone!' for 2 minutes... the longest suspense ever
Superb!
Again
As you have pointed out, i dont think private space companies have the expertise to use this technology in the near future
Enjoyed it
This video should have 5million views
5:53 Was that a KSP reference?
That is what I was thinking
The fastest, and therefore the correct way to send humans to Mars with extant technology is nuclear pulse propulsion. You can launch any time you want, get to Mars in under a month, and carry a small town full of scientists. And there is no need to worry about a landing site, because it will be flat when you reach the ground; although you would realistically keep the Orion carrier in a low orbit, ditch the thrust plate, and use shuttles to land.
i am a fan of you good animation
i was expecting this to be a colab with real engineering both of you posted nuclear rocket videos today
"Great minds think alike"
Thank - you .
Finally. A new video.
That's. So. Exciting.
I've only just found your channel in my feed. Subscribed.
I cannot see any sort of long distance space travel, if they cannot protect against radiation. And that, seems very unlikely. And yes, the additional effects of microgravity on humans.
Damn two big channels making a video on the same subject, lucky day
I am a big advocate for plasma propulsion technologies, could you make a video on them? This video was very well made and accurate
Plasma engines are extremely simple, as you know, the heat of a propellent dictates the exhaust speed of an engine and thus the specific impulse, plasma engines in the simplest term work like a plasma lighter, it uses high voltage current to heat up gas to crazy high temperature with an almost 100% efficiency
The issue is that the temperature gets REALLY hot, as much as 7 or 8 thousand Kelvins (or more) so material science is having issue making sure the engine itself doesnt melt
There are very intresting projects like V.A.S.I.M.I.R. being researched, though I would recommend intentionally lower quality engines with less complexity, that break down as they are being used, but would also be extremely cheap to replace, those technologies, low cost plasma engines, and microwave beamed power (putting the power plant on a planet, asteroid or space station, not on the moving craft itself) are enabling technologies that would make it very possible and cheap to have an interplanetary economy inside the solar system, where huge cargo ships can operate on planetary Hoffman transfers for penies
If you find this topic or these technologies intresting please consider making a video on these! All the best
I'm thinking of getting one for my Tercel.
thanks
I can see your channel going nuclear
Keep up the good work! Amazing videos!
Do I detect an audio upgrade? Nice 👍
very HubTropolis ... Thank You 😊
At 4:10 , did you use the equation for the flow rate and seconds of burn time or was that on on the internet?
You missed your chance to lead with "Space... the final frontier"
10:17 - highly enriched nuclear material - The issue isn't just the contamination that would result from a rocket which blows up before it reaches space. With that kind of highly enriched material you also need to take into account that it will be awfully difficult to retrieve it. If the material crashes into the sea, then it wouldn't be much of an issue since there aren't that many countries which could retrieve the material that easily from below certain depths. The bigger problem is with countries that are .. let's say less stable. Loose that kind of material in their territory and you essentially gift them one or more nuclear weapons.
-- Other than that, quite an interesting topic. Thank you.
4:18 sad second stage noises
Would a thorium+enrichment engine be a feasible replacement to Uranium-235?
To: subject zero, A few of my projects space shutle, aurora, sr 71, xb 38 flying submarine, xb 36 the tick tack. The u.s. in the old cold war days did a lot of under cover fibs. to destabalise the u.s.s.r. my bad. A faster than light drive. Paired cicular electric coils, one slave one master both have capacitor banck, about 10 sets. Aranged in four nacells, one pair forward pulse next set of one nacell fliped in the form of the slave coil on opisite side of nacell stack. This reduces mass gravity effect. Eack nacell statrs in the foreward cell with the opisite paird coil slave to master coil. In sequence. A coriolis is created above the ship, below the ship and forwared of the ship. "Mass re duction effect". All nacells have a de-ionizer spike to the rear of ship. Per-each nacell same facing paired coils are linked via capacitor bank to capacitor bank. Then looped to the opisite paired coils to the last in the sequence per nacell. This creates a pulse cascade sequence, by the de-ionizer spikes with a uni-directional flow transistor for each spike. The forward of the ship has a graviton projector. A shallow dish like cone. Made of alluminum and thorium. The thorium is spiraled from center out. two thirds alluminum one third thorium. Gravitons are produced by two counter spun like polar charge permaqnent magnets. Sandwiched under twenty five thousand pounds of pressure. A coper thick serpantine, insolated on the magnet facing side. Is set around outer center part of the magnets. The terminus is a balled coper point. On either end of the coper serpantine, with a large spark gap. An inverted stater controls the graviton reaction. The power for the ship is created by a self vibrating quartz crystal core, sonic reactor chamber. The chamber is a large capacitor. The quartz are stacks of three-d printed quartz. Inpregnated with elements that are naturaly reactive to one and other. Such as lithium and oxegen, or mathane and oxegen, or amonia and sulfer. The atraction of these reactive elements, self vibate due to the attraction. Sub sonic frequencies further exite the crystals. The reactor Is attached to its own capacitor bank. The gravitons in front of the ship create a vast coriolis effect making a warp field. Via the false singularity, that the ship perpetualy falls forwar in to and never reaches the center. In this way a round trip to alpha centauri will take one year, warp eight. Eight times the speed of light. Neglegable radiation in the wake of ship is created. The gravitons and electric field, via the coils. Will solve any radiation exposure with in norms of space. Yours JOEL RAMIREZ RAMIREZ.
Okay, I subscribe to Real Engineering, already.
I just added this to my subscription list, too. :)
Interesting AF
Haha, this was great! Now do electro-nuclear (please)!
Well I've had damned close to that many scans for what its worth
the only person who disliked was... wait
What are your thoughts with starship . You compared the falcon 9 ‘s Merlin engines to nuclear but starship is the ship being developed for Mars travel and their using cryogenic methane with liquid oxygen for the new raptor engines. Would like to hear your thoughts with this one.
So we designe a space ship that will have 6 space X raptor engines on the side that will detach once the rocket gets to space. We then have the main ship turn on the nuclear propulshion engines then use ion thrusters in space with a tight mesh cathod and anod that will give it a little push to help. We could also use the lazer propulsion system were they essentially create a nuclear explosion by heating a fuel pellet with a high poweref lazer system there for giveing an extra boost. The ship would weigh a lot but it would reach its destination within a couple of months. It would be like a yatch in space and probably only carry 30 people. Most of the weight would be used for fuel and equipment.
What temperature are the Phoebus 2a operating at?
In my mind I'm saying well you have gravity to assist with a slingshot method but also can be used as a returning method
on the possibility of it exploding. the biggest advantage of nuclear propulsion is it's longevity, which is only useful once already in space, so what if production occurred on a space station? you could bring the supplies up in bulk without worrying about it exploding, and once up there, the risks of an explosion are reduced. if there is a problem i am not seeing, please inform me.
I wonder if it would be possible to charge up energy, think CERN. Like particle going very close to the speed of light and then have a way to control the output of particles as a means of propulsion. So the tank would consist of a bunch of particles swirling around very very fast and would only need to be accelerated once per life time per engine. I bet that would have a serious amount of energy but would probably be hard to control.
I didn’t even get a hint that this exists and i have the bell active ☹️
Going to Mars ain't as hard as my dad's trip to school
This comment is underated!
The best choice and the only for now.
5:53 Get in the f****n rocket Shinji! :D
Subject Zero Science
What about magnetoplasma thrusters like the VASIMR ? A spaceship could be powered by small modular fission nuclear reactors to power a magnetoplasma thruster, could you cover that topic please ?
yo what the hell i didn't get notified, turned out my bell wasn't clicked
When you accelerate in Outer Space, the acceleration continues. If you plan on Stopping anywhere, your Deceleration REQUIRES More Energy than the Acceleration.
The dreamers forget that.
Mars: desolate, toxic atmosphere, no plant life, risk of death...but no people. Where do I sign?
Alguém poderia me dizer mais sobre esse vídeo? Porque está em inglês e estudo o inglês, entendo bem pouco. Foi por recomendação de um amigo.
What worries me about that engine is if somehow the hydrogen flowing around (not through) the reactor were to somehow cause some kind of pressure explosion then it could some bits of the U-235 weapons grade fuel together, I don’t know what would precipitate such an explosion, but considering the reactor would have reflectors then the core could at the very least make a nuclear fizzle which, while not as bad as a nuclear explosion, would still damage the engine beyond repair.
Good opening intro😂👍
Hmm... Suspicious.
Both Subject Zero and Real Engineering posted the same thing in few hours of interval. Is this a collab? But nice work!👍
Nah they both did it based on the same news reports so assuming they both are fairly efficient I could see people doing the same topic.
Great video!
Have you ever considered doing a video on the Fusion Drive? If we figure out a way to expel a magnetically confined fusion exhaust (Helium) with a temperature of 150 million degrees we would achieve much higher exhaust velocities, probably on par with the fictional Epstein Drive depicted in the show "The Expanse". You should look into it.
You could also make Project Orion like space craft but with fusion bombs
@@ImieNazwiskoOK
The difference between Project Orion and the Fusion Drive is that the latter is a controlled burn and not a series of explosions.
It’s next topic
@@xokelis0015 Explosions can also be controlled by amount of bombs and time of detonation
@@SubjectZeroScience
Awesome!
They will have to rework the laws for the nuclear spaceship. They aren’t allowed to lift off with nuclear engines is what I understand.
They need to start using some of that secret UFO technology.
Now we need a hyperdrive
DARPA’s DRACO in Phase 1, thanks to SPD-6, giving General Atomic, LMT & Blue Origin till 2025 to demonstrate above low orbit performance. By then, NASA will have demonstrated a Plasma Drive by Magnetic Reconnection powered by Lattice Confined Fusion.
We diffidently need to start working on artificial gravity if we want to accomplish anything
Just spinning a drum would be enough to simulate gravity. And while that only works on relatively large spacecraft, you need a large craft anyway to get anywhere beyond low earth orbit
@@destroyer1667 no, these scientists talk about Alcubierre warp but how will this work with no gravity, imagine spinning whist going 3-4x the speed of light maybe faster
@@RandomGamer-qy6ys an alcubierre drive, if even possible, wouldnt move the ship anywhere near the speed of light, it would just bend spacetime so that it seems like it on the outside. The ship itsself moves at the same speed as it did before activating the drive.
@@destroyer1667 im not stupid, not the actual Alcubierre i mean the off shots that have a 80% possibility of success like the solitons and the white Judy and the whole warp bubble thing that can push you at infinite speeds by contacting space in front
What if we used a different heat source?
Some guy in nasa: "ima make Apollo 11 look like a gender reveal"
Conclusion: we can better start saving our own planet first before we try to go to mars
Or better way of saying it "you can't go out into the neighborhood till you've cleaned your own lawn".
Consider what can be learned from the absolute need to use every resource, and recycle all waste as much as possible in space, mars or the moon ,and how that knowledge can help when used on earth. Technology from space exploration has already contributed much.
@@davidhenry5128 turn it around: consider what can be learnt from saving our planet to what is needed on a journey to another planet. Saving our own and only planet is imminent, exploring other planets is not.
Hola love all tank you
47 min ago.. im early and im happy
Yas
oh, u mean the nerv engine from KSP?