Jump to content

Thorium Based "NERV" open-cycle Engine possible?


Recommended Posts

From what i understand, the KSP NERV functions very much like a Solid-Core Nuclear (Uranium) thermal rocket and thus has all of it's limitations as well. (primarily weight) Wouldn't a Liquid-Core Thermal engine using Thorium be "simpler" and thus be potentially lighter while having a higher specific impulse? 

Furthermore, the current NERV design is a closed-cycle engine requiring additional reactive material (liquid-fuel) to produce thrust. Yet, In the 1950's there was a U.S. program to develop a nuclear powered bomber testing both a Direct and Indirect "Air" cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36 This capability meant that the Bomber could theoretically fly as long as it's Nuclear fuel source produced heat. (5-10 yrs) However, the biggest problem program encountered was the extreme weight of the Reactor and it's associated radiation shielding made flight pretty much impossible. The Soviet's program was only able to get off the ground by sacrificing the shielding needed to protect the crew from Radiation exposure. (Yes they all died)

All that being said I'd think a Thorium based open-cycle engine should be possible.

Your suggestions and creative comments are welcome.

 

1SB

 

Edited by 1Smug_Bastard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 1Smug_stand-up guy said:

From what i understand, the KSP NERV functions very much like a Solid-Core Nuclear (Uranium) thermal rocket and thus has all of it's limitations as well. (primarily weight) Wouldn't a Liquid-Core Thermal engine using Thorium be "simpler" and thus be potentially lighter while having a higher specific impulse? 

Furthermore, the current NERV design is a closed-cycle engine requiring additional reactive material (liquid-fuel) to produce thrust. Yet, In the 1950's there was a U.S. program to develop a nuclear powered bomber testing both a Direct and Indirect "Air" cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36 This capability meant that the Bomber could theoretically fly as long as it's Nuclear fuel source produced heat. (5-10 yrs) However, the biggest problem program encountered was the extreme weight of the Reactor and it's associated radiation shielding made flight pretty much impossible. The Soviet's program was only able to get off the ground by sacrificing the shielding needed to protect the crew from Radiation exposure. (Yes they all died)

All that being said I'd think a Thorium based open-cycle engine should be possible.

Your suggestions and creative comments are welcome.

 

1SB

 

Well of course it's possible, it's a video game, anything is possible; an engine could run on anything you want, and produce any amount of thrust at any wieght you desire. You can even edit all this yourself in the part .cfgs. But, let me get this straight; you want to make the NERV (already one of the best engines in the game) lighter and more efficient? Are you under the impression that the NERV works the way it does in game because of "real life logic?"

I'd like to introduce you to my friend "game balance."

Also, welcome to the forums.

Edited by Rocket In My Pocket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2019 at 8:18 AM, 1Smug_stand-up guy said:

From what i understand, the KSP NERV functions very much like a Solid-Core Nuclear (Uranium) thermal rocket and thus has all of it's limitations as well. (primarily weight) Wouldn't a Liquid-Core Thermal engine using Thorium be "simpler" and thus be potentially lighter while having a higher specific impulse?

3

The biggest problem of thorium reactors is that they are not "simple" because if they were, they would have been used instead of highly enriched uranium. First, of, thorium is not a Fissile material, it is Fertile material, which can be turned into Uranium 233 which has potentially better performance than Enriched Uranium but its conversion takes time and requires a high-intensity neutron source, which can be fission or fusion reactor. Also it production produces neutron poisons with needs to be removed before it is ready for business. Combined we will probably not see thorium reactor unless it is combined with a secondary another reactor.

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

The biggest problem of thorium reactors is that they are not "simple" because if they were, they would have been used instead of highly enriched uranium.

I thought that focus on highly enriched uranium reactors over molten salt had a lot more to do with politics and the cold war than with engineering or "simplicity"

Originally Uranium reactors were chosen because they could produce plutonium which was needed to make bombs - this was more important at the time than safety or simplicity. Later on Uranium continued to be used because so much R&D had gone into it and there was a wealth of experience on how to build them. so it was less expensive to keep using those designs rather than switch even if the alternative offered advantages.

Here's a great article from Forbes that talks about it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium-why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/#10ffa2871d80

I'm not an expert and I could just be the victim of thorium propaganda....happy to be corrected if I'm wrong

 

Edited by Tyko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tyko said:

I thought that focus on highly enriched uranium reactors over molten salt had a lot more to do with politics and the cold war than with engineering or "simplicity"

Originally Uranium reactors were chosen because they could produce plutonium which was needed to make bombs - this was more important at the time than safety or simplicity. Later on Uranium continued to be used because so much R&D had gone into it and there was a wealth of experience on how to build them. so it was less expensive to keep using those designs rather than switch even if the alternative offered advantages.

Here's a great article from Forbes that talks about it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium-why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/#10ffa2871d80

I'm not an expert and I could just be the victim of thorium propaganda....happy to be corrected if I'm wrong

 

Yes given that we have an existing nuclear industry to produce enriched uranium, enriched uranium power nuclear engine is they way to go but if you instead have access to a thorium fuel cycle nuclear industry, a Uranium 233 fueled nuclear engine would indeed be superior in every respect

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Thorium? the reaction is more complicated, and requires breeding fissile isotopes.. .it has to be a more complex "breeder reactor"... sure there are molten breeder reactors, but its still more complex.

A liquid core of Uranium enriched in 235 or Plutonium 239 would be simpler.

I'd prefer a "nuclear lightbulb" closed cycle gas core engine though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Why Thorium? the reaction is more complicated, and requires breeding fissile isotopes.. .it has to be a more complex "breeder reactor"... sure there are molten breeder reactors, but its still more complex.

A liquid core of Uranium enriched in 235 or Plutonium 239 would be simpler.

I'd prefer a "nuclear lightbulb" closed cycle gas core engine though

Yes it is simpler but it is wasteful  and has a lower nuclear cross section then Uranium 233 requiring less reflector mass to achieve a self sustain chain reaction. This is especially relevant for an open cycle fission reactor which requires a high level of fission to achieve high temperatures. And in space every gram counts!

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...