Author Topic: Nuclear pulsed propulsion  (Read 38335 times)

Offline lamontagne

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4500
  • Otterburn Park, Quebec,Canada
  • Liked: 3909
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #200 on: 06/05/2024 04:08 pm »
Here is my argument that a few wheels of cheese (ie pretty much anything) can reflect and direct the plasma of a nuclear blast.

The key is that they don't reflect the momentum of the blast. Rather, the momentum of the plasma gets transferred to the reaction mass... a bit like a Newtons Cradle.

A key assumption is that the ionised fissile particles do not have much penetration. They quickly begin compressing the reaction mass and transferring kinetic energy. Also, despite the vast momentum of the plasma, in the reference frame of the plasma, the wall of cheese has the same mindboggling momentum, but more mass.

The 1-d case of (a)-(c) can then be generalised to the 2d case depicted in (d) where a parabolic reflector directs the fissile plasma in a single direction while the now superheated reaction mass flies in all directions.
That's a really cheesy picture. ;D

I don't think this works.  Here is my view of it:
The exploding material is a plasma. It's a ball, and not a plate, or front, of uniformly hot plasma.  In the ball all the particles are moving randomly in an expanding sphere of uniform pressure.  The individual particles that first hit the outer wall of cheese will angle off, but almost immediately bounce off another particle in the plasma, and take off at a random direction.  So the net result will not be a jet, but an expanding sphere of (more or less) equal pressure plasma, mixing bits of melted cheese and nuclear material in an expanding ball.
If the mixture of cheese and nuclear material hits an indestructible nozzle, then it will be redirected into a jet, but a jet of everything together.  The better the mix, the better the jet.
I think that for the nuclear material to behave as described in your image, you would need to have indestructible cheese. 
« Last Edit: 06/05/2024 04:40 pm by lamontagne »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4310
  • Liked: 888
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #201 on: 06/06/2024 01:46 am »
I don't think this works.  Here is my view of it:
The exploding material is a plasma. It's a ball, and not a plate, or front, of uniformly hot plasma.  In the ball all the particles are moving randomly in an expanding sphere of uniform pressure.  The individual particles that first hit the outer wall of cheese will angle off, but almost immediately bounce off another particle in the plasma, and take off at a random direction.  So the net result will not be a jet, but an expanding sphere of (more or less) equal pressure plasma, mixing bits of melted cheese and nuclear material in an expanding ball.
If the mixture of cheese and nuclear material hits an indestructible nozzle, then it will be redirected into a jet, but a jet of everything together.  The better the mix, the better the jet.
I think that for the nuclear material to behave as described in your image, you would need to have indestructible cheese.
The depiction of the plasma being a single wall and bouncing like a ray is a simplification. The physics is probably more like a nozzle, and the success in directing the expanding plasma is only about as good as a nozzle.. which could be good enough.

Also a reminder this is not meant to do anything to contain the momentum, it is mainly just aiming to transfer most of the momentum to the reaction mass.

My handwavy simulation relies on some key assumptions.. but if they are true, it sort of has to work

1. The ionised unspent fissile nuclei have low penetration through the reaction mass and immediately begin transferring momentum. This seems to be true from discussion of fissile fragment rockets. They can only pass through like a paper-thick sheet before being stopped and converted to thermal energy. Im assuming it is also fairly true of the ionised fissile material, eg uranium. It may be a false assumption that ionised cheese has the same stopping power as un-ionised though. It still might work, since by the time the cheese has absorbed the energy to become ionised it may already have absorbed the momentum required.

2. The cheese/cheese-plasma (a) remains a connected surface, and (b) that surface is sufficiently nozzle-like, long enough for most of the fissile ions to have interacted with it and exchanged momentum.

For (b) I would just point out that reaction mass is multiple times the mass of the fissile material. it will expand during the period that the fissile plasma is interacting it, but multiple times less, depending on what we choose that multiple to be. Just eyeballing it I think the curve would remain fairly nozzle like.

For (a), remaining connected, I argue this has to be true from symmetry. Otherwise, we are proposing that it clumps. This would require uneven forces from the nuclear blast. I think we are both assuming it is very smooth and symmetrical.

//--------------------------------

btw, I searched and found a bunch of youtube simulations of shaped charges. I wonder if there is free software that could simulate something like this.

Offline lamontagne

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4500
  • Otterburn Park, Quebec,Canada
  • Liked: 3909
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #202 on: 06/06/2024 04:17 am »
I'll try another explanation.  In elastic collisions, the nuclear materials, although much lighter than the cheese, has much higher velocity. When they collide, the center of mass of the cheese and of the nuclear material will be in expansion, i.e. the nuclear particles will bounce back a little, but as the center of mass is moving away, there will be a continuous motion of expansion in the overall frame of reference. So the particles will not be redirected, they will be slowed a bit, but will keep expanding. 
I think we could check this with the joined elastic collision equation, after determining the velocity of the nuclear materials from the kinetic energy equation and the initial energy of the explosion. 

Otherwise we will be intuiting away at one another till the end of time ;D

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10450
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2496
  • Likes Given: 13785
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #203 on: 06/06/2024 12:32 pm »
No, it's a direct comparison to the state of the art of lowest viable fissile masses demonstrated.  If you think the USSR (or anyone else) has demonstrated a sub-gram (or even sub-kilogram) fission-fusion freestanding device, then cite your sources.

And for reference, that means actual citations, not just a link to your own forum post making unsourced claims again.
I do, but it's a bit suspicious.  :(

In 1982 Orbis in the UK published a book called "Weapons of Tomorrow" by Brian Beckett. Page 21 has an illustration of a "Bi-conical Mini-nuke" which is claimed to deliver compression ratios of 5-7 (AIUI most implosion designs deliver about 2) which it is claimed would reduce critical mass below 100g. The cite is for an "S.Kalinsky Journal of Technical Physics, Warsaw, Vol 19, 4 1968"

Which is described as "Journal of Technical Physics (formerly Proceedings of Vibration Problems) is a refereed international journal founded in 1959. The journal is devoted to the application of the phenomenological and continuum physics idea in: mechanics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, coupled mechanical, electromagnetic and thermal fields, plasma physics, superconductivity and many others."
Founder listed as "S. KALISKi" Copyright by "Institute of Fundamental Technological Research,Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland"

The publication seems to have a fairly broad remit, so mini-nuke design could be within scope for them.

I'll caution "Might be possible," is a long way from actually tested, and that degree of compression is a big jump from what seems to be in common use.

I think the idea of a fairly obscure Polish physics journal which seemed to be published in English made me a bit suspicious.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline lamontagne

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4500
  • Otterburn Park, Quebec,Canada
  • Liked: 3909
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #204 on: 06/06/2024 03:53 pm »
No, it's a direct comparison to the state of the art of lowest viable fissile masses demonstrated.  If you think the USSR (or anyone else) has demonstrated a sub-gram (or even sub-kilogram) fission-fusion freestanding device, then cite your sources.

And for reference, that means actual citations, not just a link to your own forum post making unsourced claims again.
I do, but it's a bit suspicious.  :(

In 1982 Orbis in the UK published a book called "Weapons of Tomorrow" by Brian Beckett. Page 21 has an illustration of a "Bi-conical Mini-nuke" which is claimed to deliver compression ratios of 5-7 (AIUI most implosion designs deliver about 2) which it is claimed would reduce critical mass below 100g. The cite is for an "S.Kalinsky Journal of Technical Physics, Warsaw, Vol 19, 4 1968"

Which is described as "Journal of Technical Physics (formerly Proceedings of Vibration Problems) is a refereed international journal founded in 1959. The journal is devoted to the application of the phenomenological and continuum physics idea in: mechanics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, coupled mechanical, electromagnetic and thermal fields, plasma physics, superconductivity and many others."
Founder listed as "S. KALISKi" Copyright by "Institute of Fundamental Technological Research,Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland"

The publication seems to have a fairly broad remit, so mini-nuke design could be within scope for them.

I'll caution "Might be possible," is a long way from actually tested, and that degree of compression is a big jump from what seems to be in common use.

I think the idea of a fairly obscure Polish physics journal which seemed to be published in English made me a bit suspicious.
Interesting, thanks! I guest that if they could get better compression, the weapon designers would?  Or perhaps nuclear weapons are a case of 'good enough' with little point in going smaller.

Nuclear propulsion really suffers when you bring the notions of cost and reusability into the equation.  At least Winterberg's proposal offers the possibility of relatively low fuel costs.  And perhaps even low nozzle costs, if a physical nozzle can survive the really short exposure to the plasma.  Although the boost times are quite long for large vehicles, and that might mean that the temperature in the nozzle structure goes up to the point significant cooling is required?

Can an equivalence be drawn between the plasma at re-entry as seen in Starship flight 4 and the plasma in a physical nozzle for a nuclear pulsed engine?  I expect the plasma at re-entry is significantly hotter than the ship surface, so there is significant resistivity there?  Or is the plasma from the explosion so hot that no analogy holds?  could the Orion 'trick' of adding/spraying an ablative layer between each explosion be used?

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4310
  • Liked: 888
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #205 on: 06/07/2024 03:40 am »
(edit) deleted my previous reply that was too wordy.. it just pointed out we need to balance not just momentum but also kinetic energy, listed a bunch of examples showing fast incoming matter hitting heaver matter often result in a fraction bouncing back: a ball bearing hitting a tank, a laser hitting some hull plating. but really just underlined I dont know the precise inelacity to choose, thus this post which might point to the answer.
-----------------------------------

I wonder if revisiting the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle would answer this..

I have a vague memory that it put an absolute upper limit on the amount of useful work that could be extracted from an expanding gas.

This might answer how inelastic the collision is, ie when the massively hot cheese expands, how much push it can give and how much energy is wasted and does no useful work. The fundamental physics is probably the same as steam pushing a piston.

(It has been a looong time since I looked at that though)

I will leave this here until I think I can produce something that isnt just handwaving.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2024 09:26 pm by KelvinZero »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10450
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2496
  • Likes Given: 13785
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #206 on: 06/08/2024 06:28 am »
Interesting, thanks! I guest that if they could get better compression, the weapon designers would?  Or perhaps nuclear weapons are a case of 'good enough' with little point in going smaller.
Good question. My instinct is that compression has historically proved sooo hard that "Good enough" has been the way to go. Weapons developed by governments always have issues about political acceptability. Just because a design might be possible that doesn't necessarily mean it will be or if developed deployed. Nuclear armed torpedoes and depth charges were developed but I don't think anyone uses them any more.
Quote from: lamontagne
Nuclear propulsion really suffers when you bring the notions of cost and reusability into the equation.  At least Winterberg's proposal offers the possibility of relatively low fuel costs.  And perhaps even low nozzle costs, if a physical nozzle can survive the really short exposure to the plasma.  Although the boost times are quite long for large vehicles, and that might mean that the temperature in the nozzle structure goes up to the point significant cooling is required?
The cost/benefit trades change quite a bit in space with nuclear. A large-ish nozzle that gets very hot could radiate that heat quickly in space. It would then all depend on how frequently it was cycled and the thermal stresses placed on the material during that cycling. Obviously the goal is low enough to keep the stress level down while high enough to be substantially better than chemical (because the R&D bill for this is also going to be substantial).
Quote from: lamontagne
Can an equivalence be drawn between the plasma at re-entry as seen in Starship flight 4 and the plasma in a physical nozzle for a nuclear pulsed engine?  I expect the plasma at re-entry is significantly hotter than the ship surface, so there is significant resistivity there?  Or is the plasma from the explosion so hot that no analogy holds?  could the Orion 'trick' of adding/spraying an ablative layer between each explosion be used?
This is where common notions about temperature get confusing.  :(

"Temperature" is really a shorthand for "average velocity of particles." If  it's a gas mixture and individual gase atomic masses are relatively close together that still works. If you've got diatomic gases and some of them are being split into single atoms you've now got a proportion of molecules that are 1/2 the mass of others. If some of those ionise as well you've now got a population of particles less than 1/20000 (electron is about 1/1800 of a single proton) the mass of those single nitrogen or oxygen atoms.

Plasma is also very low density so once molecules are split, or ionised they have fairly low collisions frequencies (relative to regular gas pressures) so whatever state they are in they are likely to retain for some time, possibly long enough to move past the vehicle entirely (but unlikely with something as big as say starship).

When people talk about "Real gas effects" this is what they mean. Each population has a different "temperature." It's why simple calculations can generate temperatures high enough to melt Tungsten, yet it doesn't actually happen in a real wind tunnel.

This stuff was identified in the late 60's by Chul Park at NASA Ames but it was way too late to affect design of the Apollo capsule.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10450
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2496
  • Likes Given: 13785
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #207 on: 06/09/2024 12:25 pm »
Another completely random and unrelated idea :) :

Instead of messing with superconducting magnet tech, perhaps we could combine
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_plasma_thruster
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator
.. to use the flash of a nuclear explosion to directly generate the intense magnetic field that directs its fission fragments away from a very large slightly ablative nozzle that has a merely moderate current running around its inner surface at that instant.

If this worked, it could also be useful for increasing the effectiveness for some inertial-containment fusion concepts.
Sort of OT but one of the National Labs (Sandia?) did some work on a mine detection approach using an explosively pumped generator to discharge into a coil that would saturate the area with a high level field to improve detection of modern (mostly plastic) mines.

But the idea of setting up a  fairly weak field that the field the pulse package reacts against did ring a bell.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1068
  • UK
  • Liked: 1832
  • Likes Given: 217
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #208 on: 06/10/2024 11:53 pm »
There's an upcoming NASA workshop on August 20th-22nd to 'advance Space Nuclear Propulsion (SNP) technologies'; might get a pulsed plasma update.
« Last Edit: 06/15/2024 08:13 pm by StraumliBlight »

Offline lamontagne

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4500
  • Otterburn Park, Quebec,Canada
  • Liked: 3909
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #209 on: 06/11/2024 12:32 am »
(edit) deleted my previous reply that was too wordy.. it just pointed out we need to balance not just momentum but also kinetic energy, listed a bunch of examples showing fast incoming matter hitting heaver matter often result in a fraction bouncing back: a ball bearing hitting a tank, a laser hitting some hull plating. but really just underlined I dont know the precise inelacity to choose, thus this post which might point to the answer.
-----------------------------------

I wonder if revisiting the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle would answer this..

I have a vague memory that it put an absolute upper limit on the amount of useful work that could be extracted from an expanding gas.

This might answer how inelastic the collision is, ie when the massively hot cheese expands, how much push it can give and how much energy is wasted and does no useful work. The fundamental physics is probably the same as steam pushing a piston.

(It has been a looong time since I looked at that though)

I will leave this here until I think I can produce something that isnt just handwaving.
When I think of it, the expanding plasma is actually, at an atomic level, both extremely energetic and extremely heavy.  Nothing much beats a uranium atom as far as mass goes, and I expect these will tend to crash into the cheese pretty deeply, hitting atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen by the score and exchanging with them both heat and momentum, rather than bouncing out again.  So the uranium boils the cheese as it mixes with it. And the first layer of cheeze boils the rest of the cheese... with very little, if any, reflection towards any specific direction.

The Carnot cycle limits the amount of work you can extract from a gas, or increases the amount of work required to cool a gas depending on the teperature spread between the hot side and the cold side.

This would set a limit on the amount of energy you could extract from a hot exhaust (or a gas burner) but doesn't limit how much heat you can add to a gas.  After all an exhaust is an open cycle by definition.

I guess you could have a reflector layer, but only for neutrons, really.  Graphite would be cheap, beryllium painfully expensive (and a cancerigen).  I expect, (but don't really know) that there will be more energy in the uranium debris than in the neutrons in any case?
« Last Edit: 06/11/2024 12:35 am by lamontagne »

Offline lamontagne

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4500
  • Otterburn Park, Quebec,Canada
  • Liked: 3909
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #210 on: 06/11/2024 12:41 am »
There's an upcoming NASA workshop on August 20th-22nd to 'advance Space Nuclear Propulsion (SNP) technologies'; might get a pulsed plasma update.
Interesting, but my guess is that at 40 kWe, this is not for large payloads?   Or perhaps not for very great speeds.  We've been discussing systems in the GW range, mostly.  Eventually, of course, the Watts add up.  :)
« Last Edit: 06/11/2024 12:42 am by lamontagne »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10450
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2496
  • Likes Given: 13785
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #211 on: 06/12/2024 04:45 pm »
Interesting, but my guess is that at 40 kWe, this is not for large payloads?   Or perhaps not for very great speeds.  We've been discussing systems in the GW range, mostly.  Eventually, of course, the Watts add up.  :)
40Kwe is a big ion thruster, but nothing near enough to take off from the moon, let alone a planet.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1068
  • UK
  • Liked: 1832
  • Likes Given: 217
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #212 on: 07/04/2024 05:37 pm »
The 2024 NIAC Symposium, held in Pasadena and live streamed here.

Quote
Wednesday, September 11, 1:50 PM PST

2024 Phase II (5) Brianna Clements, Howe Industries, Pulsed Plasma Rocket (PPR): Shielded, Fast Transits for Humans to Mars

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2577
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 432
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #213 on: 07/08/2024 05:43 pm »
Winterberg's proposal offers the possibility of relatively low fuel costs.  And perhaps even low nozzle costs, if a physical nozzle can survive the really short exposure to the plasma.  Although the boost times are quite long for large vehicles, and that might mean that the temperature in the nozzle structure goes up to the point significant cooling is required?

The cost/benefit trades change quite a bit in space with nuclear. A large-ish nozzle that gets very hot could radiate that heat quickly in space. It would then all depend on how frequently it was cycled and the thermal stresses placed on the material during that cycling.

His magnetic mirror prevents nozzle overheating.  Little plasma touches.

With DT, cost hinges on tritium breeding. 

As for stress, type-II GC layers can manage multi-GPa blasts.  Hence, notional GC reinforcement -- also, GC breeder radiator, GC neutron reflector, etc., in an integrated GC 3F drive concept.

Where can improvements be found?
« Last Edit: 07/08/2024 05:44 pm by LMT »

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2577
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 432
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #214 on: 07/29/2024 03:24 pm »
Marathon Fusion is making progress on streamlined, commercialized tritium recovery.  Here plasma filters through a metal membrane, to extract tritium quickly via "superpermeation".

Commercial tritium recovery should improve pulsed D-T drive economics, by closing the necessary breeding cycle efficiently.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2024 04:33 am by LMT »

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2577
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 432
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #215 on: 08/01/2024 05:46 pm »
Marathon Fusion is making progress on streamlined, commercialized tritium recovery.  Here plasma filters through a metal membrane, to extract tritium quickly via "superpermeation".

Commercial tritium recovery should improve pulsed D-T drive economics, by closing the necessary breeding cycle efficiently.

Marathon is partnered with INL, which collaborated on Li et al. 2023.  The paper details tritium recovery via superpermeation.

Refs.

Li, C., Job, A.J., Fuerst, T.F., Shimada, M., Way, J.D. and Wolden, C.A., 2023. Low temperature hydrogen plasma permeation in palladium and its alloys for fuel recycling in fusion systems. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 582, p.154484.

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2577
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 432
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #216 on: 08/28/2024 04:21 pm »
re: commercial tritium recovery

Marathon Fusion secures DOE INFUSE Award to advance metal foil pump
23 Aug 2024

Quote
Marathon Fusion, a startup developing fuel processing technology for the fusion industry, has won an award from the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Innovation Network for Fusion Energy (INFUSE) program to advance its metal foil pump technology for fusion energy.

With the award, Marathon Fusion aims to advance the development of commercially viable fuel processing solutions on a timeline consistent with the decadal vision for the first pilot plants on the grid.

The award will be used to fund work with Professor Colin Wolden at the Colorado School of Mines on engineered membranes used to recycle deuterium and tritium fuel from vessel exhaust. Professor Wolden was previously funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) for research into efficient tritium processing with membranes "engineered for high performance, stability, and environmental compatibility"...

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1068
  • UK
  • Liked: 1832
  • Likes Given: 217
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #217 on: 09/23/2024 06:21 pm »
PPR presentation at the 2024 NIAC Symposium starts at 5:01:00.

Phase II:
 • Optimising engine design to reduce mass and improve ISP.
 • Performing proof of concept experiments of some major components.
 • Completing ship design for human mission to Mars.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2024 07:07 pm by StraumliBlight »

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1068
  • UK
  • Liked: 1832
  • Likes Given: 217
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #218 on: 10/18/2024 08:22 pm »
Not specifically space related, DOE Selects 4 Vendors for $2.7B Uranium Enrichment Contract [Oct 18]

Quote
The Department of Energy has awarded four companies spots on a potential 10-year, $2.7 billion contract to procure uranium enrichment services to help establish a domestic supply chain of high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, used for deploying advanced nuclear reactors.

According to award notices published Wednesday, the HALEU Enrichment contract awardees are American Centrifuge Operating, General Matter, Louisiana Energy Services and Orano Federal Services.

HALEU Enrichment RFP
In January, DOE issued a solicitation for the HALEU Enrichment indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, which covers the production, storage and transportation of enriched uranium hexafluoride to deconversion facilities.

Enrichment and storage activities must be performed in the continental U.S. in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

The department noted that establishing a domestic HALEU supply chain supports President Joe Biden’s Investing in America agenda by helping meet net-zero emissions goal by 2050, creating jobs, strengthening U.S. competitiveness and improving energy security.

Offline lamontagne

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4500
  • Otterburn Park, Quebec,Canada
  • Liked: 3909
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Nuclear pulsed propulsion
« Reply #219 on: 10/18/2024 08:28 pm »
Not specifically space related, DOE Selects 4 Vendors for $2.7B Uranium Enrichment Contract [Oct 18]

Quote
The Department of Energy has awarded four companies spots on a potential 10-year, $2.7 billion contract to procure uranium enrichment services to help establish a domestic supply chain of high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, used for deploying advanced nuclear reactors.

According to award notices published Wednesday, the HALEU Enrichment contract awardees are American Centrifuge Operating, General Matter, Louisiana Energy Services and Orano Federal Services.

HALEU Enrichment RFP
In January, DOE issued a solicitation for the HALEU Enrichment indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, which covers the production, storage and transportation of enriched uranium hexafluoride to deconversion facilities.

Enrichment and storage activities must be performed in the continental U.S. in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

The department noted that establishing a domestic HALEU supply chain supports President Joe Biden’s Investing in America agenda by helping meet net-zero emissions goal by 2050, creating jobs, strengthening U.S. competitiveness and improving energy security.
Thanks for the information!
And it's very space related, as the only way the nuclear pulsed rocket design that started this thread can exist and be fueled is if there is a lot more enriched uranium available!  At this time my understanding is that a single one way trip to Mars would burn up pretty much all the available HALEU in the US.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1