By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press Writer – Thu Oct 29, 9:21 am ET
MOSCOW – Russia should build a new nuclear-powered spaceship for prospective manned missions to Mars and other planets, the nation's space chief said Thursday.
Anatoly Perminov first proposed building the ship at a government meeting Wednesday but didn't explain its purpose. President Dmitry Medvedev backed the project and urged the government to find the money.
In remarks posted Thursday on his agency's Web site, Perminov said the nuclear spaceship should be used for human flights to Mars and other planets. He said the project is challenging technologically, but could capitalize on the Soviet and Russian experience in the field.
Perminov said the preliminary design could be ready by 2012, and then it would take nine more years and cost 17 billion rubles (about $600 million, or euro400 million) to build the ship.
"The project is aimed at implementing large-scale space exploration programs, including a manned mission to Mars, interplanetary travel, the creation and operation of planetary outposts," Perminov's Web statement said.
The ambitious plans contrast with Russia's slow progress on building a replacement to its mainstay spacecraft — the Soyuz.
Russia is using Soyuz booster rockets and capsules, developed 40 years ago, to send crews to the International Space Station. The development of a replacement rocket and a prospective spaceship with a conventional propellant has dragged on with no end in sight.
Despite its continuing reliance on the old technology, Russia stands to take a greater role in space exploration in the coming years. NASA's plan to retire its shuttle fleet next year will force the United States and other nations to rely on the Russian spacecraft to ferry their astronauts to and from the International Space Station until NASA's new manned ship becomes available.
Perminov said the new nuclear-powered ship should have a megawatt-class nuclear reactor, as opposed to small nuclear reactors that powered some Soviet military satellites. The Cold War-era Soviet spy satellites had reactors that produced just a few kilowatts of power and had a life span of about a year.
Igor Lisov, a Moscow-based expert on Russian space program, said the prospective ship would use a nuclear reactor to run an electric rocket engine.
"It will be quite efficient for flight to Mars," he told The Associated Press on Thursday.
Lisov said Soviet work on a nuclear-powered electric rocket engine dates back to the 1960s when Soviet engineers began developing plans for a manned flight to Mars.
He said Russia's experience in building nuclear-powered satellites would also help develop the new spaceship. "It will require a significantly more powerful nuclear reactor, but the task is quite realistic," Lisov said.
Stanley Borowski, a senior engineer at NASA specializing in nuclear rocket engines, said they have many advantages for deep space missions, such as to take astronauts and gear to Mars. In deep space, nuclear rockets are twice as fuel-efficient as conventional rockets, he said.
NASA has used small amounts of plutonium in deep space probes, including those to Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto and heading out of the solar system.
The only planetary mission currently considered by Russia is a plan to send a probe to one of Mars' twin moons, Phobos. It was set to launch this year, but was delayed.
____
AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein contributed to this report.
Too bad it's apparently not an Orion-ski. But we can always count on the Chinese and Iranians, hopefully. Dictatorships with bad environmental records have to be good for something.
Turns out that a five way cross over between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the Ali G Show, Fargo, Idiocracy and Veep is a lot less funny when you're actually living in it.
What type of nuclear space craft? I recall a bunch of designs but none of them going much beyond blueprint-level.
Personally, I think this might be hot air. For about 600 million a bunch of new technology with all associated infrastructure? Hot damn, either NASA can't save a dime or something is off, if they had to scrap ye-oldie chemical-based SSTO Venture Star for about 2/3 of that money.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
Orion-ski is still banned by international treaties regarding detonating nuclear warheads in space, as I recall. NEP has a lot of selling points, I think.
Zixinus wrote:What type of nuclear space craft? I recall a bunch of designs but none of them going much beyond blueprint-level.
Personally, I think this might be hot air. For about 600 million a bunch of new technology with all associated infrastructure? Hot damn, either NASA can't save a dime or something is off, if they had to scrap ye-oldie chemical-based SSTO Venture Star for about 2/3 of that money.
Technically we already have nuclear power space craft. Their called RTG's (radioisotope thermionic generators) and Voyager 2 had three of them on board. Granted they suck but then not alot of research been put into them recently. Make these better than attach an Ion engine to it and you have a decent start.
Voyager 2 uses three of these radioisotope thermionic generators. In them, the heat from decaying plutonium, applied to metal strips, generates a flow of electrons. The device has with no moving parts, no flow of fluids and no turbines.
Zixinus wrote:What type of nuclear space craft? I recall a bunch of designs but none of them going much beyond blueprint-level.
Personally, I think this might be hot air. For about 600 million a bunch of new technology with all associated infrastructure? Hot damn, either NASA can't save a dime or something is off, if they had to scrap ye-oldie chemical-based SSTO Venture Star for about 2/3 of that money.
I was wondering if the 600 million was a typo. It should cost at least 10 billion. Or maybe they're starting off the project with 600 million.
Turns out that a five way cross over between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the Ali G Show, Fargo, Idiocracy and Veep is a lot less funny when you're actually living in it.
dragon wrote:
Technically we already have nuclear power space craft. Their called RTG's (radioisotope thermionic generators) and Voyager 2 had three of them on board. Granted they suck but then not alot of research been put into them recently. Make these better than attach an Ion engine to it and you have a decent start.
As the article briefly mentions, the Soviets orbited fully functional nuclear reactors during the Cold War to power radar ocean reconnaissance satellites. These satellites flew so low and used so much power solar panels would not work as they’d cause too much drag. When the radar satellites operational lifespan expired most equipment was blown off and a rocket motor pushed the reactor core into a very high orbit. However in several cases this system failed and caused the reactor to crash, one of them into Canada in the 1970s.
This site has quite a bit of information on the program
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
dragon wrote:
Technically we already have nuclear power space craft. Their called RTG's (radioisotope thermionic generators) and Voyager 2 had three of them on board. Granted they suck but then not alot of research been put into them recently. Make these better than attach an Ion engine to it and you have a decent start.
As the article briefly mentions, the Soviets orbited fully functional nuclear reactors during the Cold War to power radar ocean reconnaissance satellites. These satellites flew so low and used so much power solar panels would not work as they’d cause too much drag. When the radar satellites operational lifespan expired most equipment was blown off and a rocket motor pushed the reactor core into a very high orbit. However in several cases this system failed and caused the reactor to crash, one of them into Canada in the 1970s.
Cosmos 954. I do remember that incident.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
I was wondering if the 600 million was a typo. It should cost at least 10 billion. Or maybe they're starting off the project with 600 million.
I don't think so, unless the took the wrong beginning value or completely misunderstood something. I've checked: 17 billion Russian Ruppes is indeed 578,530,418.68 USD .
Oh, and minor correction: the x-33 had 4/3 of the money than the conversion given to it. It had 912 million dollars for its budget plus an additional 357 from Lockheed (that is making similar if even smaller-scale craft, I think).
It is possible that this is simply the allocated budget to the project and they're still in the R&D phase of making a big enough reactor that would be space-worthy.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
I was wondering if the 600 million was a typo. It should cost at least 10 billion. Or maybe they're starting off the project with 600 million.
I don't think so, unless the took the wrong beginning value or completely misunderstood something. I've checked: 17 billion Russian Ruppes is indeed 578,530,418.68 USD .
Oh, and minor correction: the x-33 had 4/3 of the money than the conversion given to it. It had 912 million dollars for its budget plus an additional 357 from Lockheed (that is making similar if even smaller-scale craft, I think).
It is possible that this is simply the allocated budget to the project and they're still in the R&D phase of making a big enough reactor that would be space-worthy.
That would make sense. Or they're sucking up money from another part of the Russian government budget.
Turns out that a five way cross over between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the Ali G Show, Fargo, Idiocracy and Veep is a lot less funny when you're actually living in it.
Not every project will get all its cash in one lump sum. It's often actually better to fund it in phases rather than to devote it all and then have it wasted in one great wasteful extravaganza.
STGOD: Byzantine Empire Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
Riiightt. What are they going to do, use the Soyuz boosters to loft a reactor and a fuckton of fuel to LEO, assemble the pieces, then test the "atomic rocket" in orbit? The only feasible ways of getting to Mars, the goal stated in the article, are via a heat engine (nuke vaporizing propellant material) and modest life support, or a Typhoon style steam turbine sub-in-space feeding electricity to a low-thrust ion rocket, with a shitload of life support.
And $600 million? In three years? Hell, Russia's GDP is $2.2 trillion. Are they really going to spend 9% of GDP over three years for this program? Color me skeptical.
The kicker, of course, is this word from Anatoly Perminov: "should."
(sniff, sniff) I smell vaporware.
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant
Wups, let me check my notes. Yep, turns out I was calcing against billions. Make that .9% EDIT goddamn Windows Calculator, per OpenOffice Calc we're looking at .03%, rounding up to 1%. Financially more feasible. Technically, well....I guess we'll have to wait and see.
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant
How do you build a mars going nuclear powered spaceship for less money than a squadron of new fighter jets ? Even the ISS required many billions of dollars to construct.
I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.
How do you build a mars going nuclear powered spaceship for less money than a squadron of new fighter jets ? Even the ISS required many billions of dollars to construct.
This is all bluster.
The Russian Space Agency does this every six months to a year. Proclaims "WE WILL DO (land on Mars, the Moon, make a spacecraft to replace Soyuz)!" when they have no chance of following through...or making a statement that bashes NASA/states the RSA doesn't need them in some way. The Russians have a good base-lined system for supporting Soyuz, ISS and satellite launches, however, they can't seem to get any shiney new stuff. They just launched their first new module to ISS since 2001, and have been able to double the number of Soyuz launches per year, now that ISS is supporting six-man crews.
-A.L.
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence...Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race." - Calvin Coolidge
"If you're falling off a cliff you may as well try to fly, you've got nothing to lose." - John Sheridan (Babylon 5)
"Sometimes you got to roll the hard six." - William Adama (Battlestar Galactica)
I don't suppose there's any chance of them cooperating with the Chinese or Indians on this?
Turns out that a five way cross over between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the Ali G Show, Fargo, Idiocracy and Veep is a lot less funny when you're actually living in it.
