Will Russia’s Next Rocket be Nuclear?

by Nancy Atkinson on October 28, 2009

RD-0410 NTP Engine developed by Russia in the 1960's. Credit - Dietrich Haeseler

RD-0410 NTP Engine developed by Russia in the 1960's. Credit - Dietrich Haeseler


Russia’s space agency chief is proposing to build a new spaceship with a nuclear engine. Reportedly,
Anatoly Perminov told a government meeting Wednesday that the preliminary design could be ready by 2012. It would take about nine more years and 17 billion rubles (about $600 million or 400 million euros) to build the ship. This ambitious proposal is a stark contrast to the current state of the Russian space program.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev urged the Cabinet to consider providing the necessary funding. Russia is currently using 40-year old Soyuz booster rockets and capsules to send crews to the International Space Station.

Source: Yahoo News

Nancy Atkinson is Universe Today's Senior Editor. She also is the host of the NASA Lunar Science Institute podcast and works with the Astronomy Cast and 365 Days of Astronomy podcasts. Nancy is also a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador.

Tagged as: nuclear rocket

← Older Comments
  • damian

    :) Manu…

    Your counter analogy does not wash. (pun intended) Let me put it another way; If you wish to travel to the ocean depths, you should not fear the pressure.

    Space is filled with Radiation, yet for some strange reason people fear a propulsion system that is radioactive. A submarine is built to protect us from the Ocean Depths. A Space Craft will have to protect us from Radiation.

    The US Nuclear propulsion program was killed in the 70s. Materials science is so far ahead now that its
    worth revisiting. It still wont get us out of our gravity well, but it would make interplanetary trips much quicker. Manned or Unmanned. The Advantage Nuclear propulsion always offered was much heavier payloads into LEO as well. Liquid Hydrogen is much lighter then LOX.

    I have another comment awaiting Moderation. Perhaps this is more palatable?

    Damian

  • Manu

    Damian:
    Thanks for the answer.
    My point was mostly criticism of the all too usual “irrational fear” dismissal of dissenting views.
    It was just too funny to have these words in the same sentence with the Anderson quote, which is definitely one of the less ‘rational’ thing I ever read. My analogy is very much to the point about this, I think.

    I _don’t_ have any specific concern about nuke engines for astronaut safety, not much about launch safety either, I certainly would love more-faster-better interplanetary _robotic_ programs in my lifetime and I agree nuke is probably the shortest way to it.
    But it’s obvious that this technology _will_ be used by the military -whichever the country – and that almost certainly means SDI, sooner or later. It means you have satellites you can repeatedly move from one orbit to another, chasing each other. What military would resist toying with this? I’m absolutely convinced the world is much better without it.
    Weighing those, sorry, no planets for me.

    And since we’re on this, I think there are very rational, badly addressed issues with nuclear power plants, the main of which being spent fuel waste disposal and fissile materials hijacking. Even though the amounts of material involved in a space program would be way lesser than any power plant, the second issue can’t be ignored.

  • Jon Hanford

    Just to be clear, I’m not against nuclear power and/or propulsion in space. It’s definitely the way to go. My beef with the Russian ‘plan’ relates to their apparent laxity of safe use of atomic reactors in the first place. Chernobyl and the Kursk come to mind immediately. Poorly shielded Soviet atomic reactors on satellites have been known to ‘blind’ US satellite sensors on occasion. I’m hoping that the situation Pvt. Pantzov mentions above and this is just more empty rhetoric from their government. But on a happy note, there is a trickle of research around the world studying the feaseability of atomic propulsion and atomic power generators.

  • Hans-Peter Dollhopf

    That advance is bold!

    Meanwhile, NASA does not even know whether ‘conventionally’ driven ships are allowed by budget constrains.

    There are tremendous advantages in nuclear driven ships. Every single space faring nation should ask itself: why not exploit this concept? What are the risks? I mean, what about contaminating our very own living space by crashing ships?

    The answer is very simple: an ‘overwatch’, a supervising organization, an enforcing institution which makes sure that strict security requirements are always fulfilled.

    Because our contemporary technology is capable of ‘bullet-proof’ launches of nuclear devices. We just need to ensure flawlessness!

← Older Comments

Previous post:

Next post: