Earth to Mars In 100 days might be possible with a nuclear rocket

We need to go faster.

It turns out NASA has been thinking about what comes next after chemical rockets for almost 50 years.

Nuclear thermal rockets. They definitely speed up the journey, but they’re not without their own risks, which is why you haven’t seen them. But maybe their time is here.

Earth To Mars In 100 Days? The Power Of Nuclear Rockets

NASA has been testing Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) propulsion technology since the 1960's.

A NERVA solid-core design

The Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) was a U.S. nuclear thermal rocket engine development program that ran for roughly two decades.

NERVA demonstrated that nuclear thermal rocket engines were a feasible and reliable tool for space exploration, and at the end of 1968 SNPO certified that the latest NERVA engine, the NRX/XE, met the requirements for a human mission to Mars.

NASA has the technology right now to drastically cut down the trip time to Mars. It is not only Mars that is possible with nuclear rocket engines, we could send humans to the moons of Saturn and Jupiter.

There is nothing stopping NASA from using nuclear rockets right now besides safety concerns. That may be about to change. Russia is experimenting with nuclear rockets also and actually has a nuclear powered missile. The nuclear powered space race has been heating up quietly without notice of the public for several years.

Since at least 2009, Russian space and atomic engineers have been developing a special space propulsion system, which uses a 1 megawatt nuclear fusion reactor as source of energy. According to a work competition report, published on a website tracing public spending in Russia and reviewed by the news agency, one of the crucial elements of the system, which is responsible for cooling down the reactor, has been successfully tested.

Russia tests key piece of nuclear space engine; aims to revolutionize long-range missions

Safety is one concern. The other is cost-benefit. We've had the technology to go to the moon for 50 years, and to Mars for a large portion of that as well. Nobody wants to fund such an expedition though, because it has little prospect of being financially beneficial. We couldn't even keep our launch capability in place because it's not a high priority for most voters when it comes to funding, which means it's not a high priority for Congress.

I'd personally love to see it, but it's probably gonna haveta wait until someone finds a way to make it profitable so the private sector will do it.

a reply to: face23785

There are ways right now to make it profitable, it will take a big investment of time and money though.

Nasa is headed for a giant asteroid that contains enough gold to make everyone on Earth a billionaire

Tow that sucker into Mars orbit and mine it

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

We need to go faster.

It turns out NASA has been thinking about what comes next after chemical rockets for almost 50 years.

Nuclear thermal rockets. They definitely speed up the journey, but they’re not without their own risks, which is why you haven’t seen them. But maybe their time is here.

Earth To Mars In 100 Days? The Power Of Nuclear Rockets

NASA has been testing Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) propulsion technology since the 1960's.

A NERVA solid-core design

The Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) was a U.S. nuclear thermal rocket engine development program that ran for roughly two decades.

NERVA demonstrated that nuclear thermal rocket engines were a feasible and reliable tool for space exploration, and at the end of 1968 SNPO certified that the latest NERVA engine, the NRX/XE, met the requirements for a human mission to Mars.

NASA has the technology right now to drastically cut down the trip time to Mars. It is not only Mars that is possible with nuclear rocket engines, we could send humans to the moons of Saturn and Jupiter.

There is nothing stopping NASA from using nuclear rockets right now besides safety concerns. That may be about to change. Russia is experimenting with nuclear rockets also and actually has a nuclear powered missile. The nuclear powered space race has been heating up quietly without notice of the public for several years.

Since at least 2009, Russian space and atomic engineers have been developing a special space propulsion system, which uses a 1 megawatt nuclear fusion reactor as source of energy. According to a work competition report, published on a website tracing public spending in Russia and reviewed by the news agency, one of the crucial elements of the system, which is responsible for cooling down the reactor, has been successfully tested.

Russia tests key piece of nuclear space engine; aims to revolutionize long-range missions

"Rockets" and "propelling" metal crafts thru space is not gonna get us there ..need a new way.

Targeted magnetic repulse and attract may be the way. Gravity.

Same with lights on UFOs. Don't think they need them...that's would be "ours".

a reply to: LookingAtMars

No thanks. Next technology please.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

6.5 days at closest approach using a slo-poke reactor and an inertial drive at 1g acceleration to maintain normal gravity :-)

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: LookingAtMars

What about Ad Astra's Vasmir rocket? Isn't it still in development? Isn't it a better, faster, and more reliable tech than Nerva?

a reply to: lostbook

As far as I know it is still being developed. Nerva is one of the first ones tested by NASA. There are newer nuclear rockets engines that we know of and probable some that are secret.

Just get on with the show NASA.. you are wasting time and tax payers money.
Last I heard you where planing a drone mission to Titan, in .. wait for it..... 6 years time !!
Stop talking and start building

Getting a spaceship to mars is the easy part.
Humans surviving the trip is a bigger problem.
Living on mars is an even bigger problem.

Try the moon first.
Recovering bodies from the moon will be easier.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Great OP! S&F!

I tend to agree with Bluntone; getting "to" Mars is probably the easy part. Landing successfully on Mars is a whole other story. Mars presents some really unique re-entry and landing challenges. Much more difficult than Earth or the Moon. Landing a few small probes is one thing, but landing people inside of a fairly massive spacecraft is exponentially more difficult. To date, nothing of the size required to land humans on the surface has even been attempted (or anywhere even close).

ETA - The relationship between Mars' mass / gravitational force coupled with Mars' thin atmosphere make for a pretty perilous challenge to de-orbit, slow down and land a spacecraft with any significant mass. This is an often overlooked reality of Mars exploration.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: face23785

There are ways right now to make it profitable, it will take a big investment of time and money though.

Nasa is headed for a giant asteroid that contains enough gold to make everyone on Earth a billionaire

Tow that sucker into Mars orbit and mine it

DId you read that article? If they brought the resources down from that thing, it would cause economic chaos. The value of many of those minerals is based on their rarity.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Getting there fast would reduce the dangers of being fried by radiation on the way but there is very little to stop the effects after they get there.

And yeah, they better figure out the landing thing first.
Just enough atmosphere to burn up.
Too thin for parachutes to be very useful.

a reply to: face23785

It would take thousands of years to bring it all down to Earth. You could make billions by only bringing down what you could mine.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: face23785

It would take thousands of years to bring it all down to Earth. You could make billions by only bringing down what you could mine.

The fact that you can't get it all down at once changes nothing. It would completely upend the entire supply-demand system. You could get more gold down from it in one year of mining than all the gold that has been mined on Earth in human history. You realize what that would do to gold prices right? Even if you didn't bring much down, the fact that there's so much of it sitting in orbit, readily available, would drastically affect the value. That's just one example. By the way, this isn't me claiming this, the article you linked said that.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Nasa is headed for a giant asteroid that contains enough gold to make everyone on Earth a billionaire

Sounds like a great book/movie idea! Ha
Anyone do the maths on how fast this craft would be traveling?
What happens to nuclear waste or spill in space? Does it still linger for 1000's of years or would it dissipate quicker..for whatever reason(s)....?
No I am not a physicist

One could say we should not risk polluting the galaxy and other's could say it is vast enough to make the pollution insignificant..hmmm.

Even if they do create a rocket that goes that fast, would people be able to go that fast or would it effect their bodies, mind, or metabolism negatively. They would have to send some test animals on a trip there, then on the return, they could put the rocket in orbit and somehow transport the animals by shuttle to the space station. I do not know how they could supply two hundred days of food for animals though, it almost seems impossible, mold grows in the space station, The grain would probably go bad, and the feces and urine from the animals would be floating everywhere.

I do not think we need to send people to Mars, it is hard enough on taxpayers and consumers as it is without tacking on more cost of living on people. Doesn't matter if a cereal company foots the bill, they will raise the cost of all their products to pay for the trip. The consumer or taxpayer always pays.

a reply to: rickymouse

We could do shorter term high speed tests with the animals possibly. The smell is still going to be bad

I question what the world would be like today if we didn't have the tech that evolved from the space race to the moon. You may be right, maybe we shouldn't go. It is hard to tell what tech would evolve from the Mars missions.

originally posted by: waftist
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Anyone do the maths on how fast this craft would be traveling?
What happens to nuclear waste or spill in space? Does it still linger for 1000's of years or would it dissipate quicker..for whatever reason(s)....?
No I am not a physicist

One could say we should not risk polluting the galaxy and other's could say it is vast enough to make the pollution insignificant..hmmm.

It's not only the speed that cuts down the travel time, it's also the power. You can go to your destination in a straight line. You don't have to use fuel saving flight routes.

The ones they are working on now are a lot cleaner, but it is still something to consider.

But recent advances in technology have made nuclear thermal propulsion more appealing. Back in the 1960s, the only fuel source they could use was highly enriched uranium. But now engineers think they can get by with low-enriched uranium.

This would be safer to work with, and would allow more rocket facilities to run tests. It would also be easier to capture the radioactive particles in the exhaust and properly dispose of them. That would bring the overall costs of working with the technology down.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Even if they do create a rocket that goes that fast, would people be able to go that fast or would it effect their bodies, mind, or metabolism negatively. They would have to send some test animals on a trip there, then on the return, they could put the rocket in orbit and somehow transport the animals by shuttle to the space station. I do not know how they could supply two hundred days of food for animals though, it almost seems impossible, mold grows in the space station, The grain would probably go bad, and the feces and urine from the animals would be floating everywhere.

I do not think we need to send people to Mars, it is hard enough on taxpayers and consumers as it is without tacking on more cost of living on people. Doesn't matter if a cereal company foots the bill, they will raise the cost of all their products to pay for the trip. The consumer or taxpayer always pays.

A constant 1 G acceleration would be better on any earth body than floating in near zero "G" for 6 months. Not to mention the less radiation and cosmic ray exposure. The only time a crew would feel no gravity is when the ship is spun around so its' butt faces the destination for slow down.. The 1950s movies and scientist had that figured out

As Picard once said, "Make it so Number One".