Numbers starting to add up for nuclear-powered spacecraft

There are some tough calls to be made. Chemical-powered spacecraft are uneconomic. Payloads are low, and the fuels expensive. Solar doesn’t deliver enough power. The two main players in nuclear spacecraft are the United States and Russia.

Rockets and solar have some real problems as power sources. The payloads for rockets are almost absurd. The further away from the Sun, the less efficient the solar sails get. Chemical fuels take up a lot of storage, and in return they give limited maneuverability and stamina. Solar power uses up a lot of space for a much lower power return. Nuclear power, however, could reduce flight time to Mars by up to two thirds. Reactors take up a lot less space, and provide a lot more thrust. Russia has launched 40 spacecraft, satellites, with nuclear power plants. The United States has only launched one. Ironically, according to the writer of this Space Daily article, Russia is now the only country with the ability to create nuclear powered spacecraft. The writer of the article is Russian, and writing on behalf of RIA Novosti. The information is therefore possibly a bit colored. However, even if he’s half right, the fact is that rocket power is not the way to explore the universe. It’s slow, it’s dangerous, it’s costly, and these days it’s the equivalent of the Zeppelin. NASA has persisted with the technology, and seems to have hit the limit with the Tiles R Us scenario. It’s not the only show in town, either. Ion powered spacecraft are another option, using ion pulse engines which provide cumulative thrust. That idea is languishing while the rockets red glare is coming from the balance books rather than the engines. To be effective, ion pulse engines require as much power as they can get. Nuclear power can deliver that. Like it or not, that’s where this is going. The economics of space travel are extremely demanding. Spending years in space isn’t a great idea for astronauts, or robots. It adds cost, and adds time lags. Arguably, the longer in space, the more possibility of things going wrong. With rockets, “off course” can mean “lost, with no possibility of recovery”. Even satellites can just vanish because of a miscalculation. Rockets are pretty much committed to their courses, and have very little ability to correct mistakes. Anything that allows some actual piloting and situation management has to be better than that. Have to say, though, that what worries me isn’t the nukes. It’s the mentalities using them.