Russia Proposes Nuclear Spaceship for Manned Mars Mission: Mimics 1960's NASA Project Orion (VIDEO)

Anatoly Perminov, Russia's space chief, in a replay of the early 1960's NASA Orion Project,  proposes building a nuclear-powered ship with a megawatt-class nuclear reactor at a government meeting Wednesday but didn't explain its purpose. President Dmitry Medvedev backed the project and urged the government to find the money.

The 1960s Project Orion project was a nuclear-pulse rocket the size of the Empire State building fueled by atomic bombs with the power to destroy half of Planet Earth. The mission was to take us to Saturn in five years. The project lives today in limbo at NASA possibly to be activated should an asteroid arrive with our name on it.

The propulsion system advocated for the Orion spacecraft was based on an idea first put forward by Stanislaw Ulam and Cornelius Everett in a classified paper in 1955. Ulam and Everett suggested releasing atomic bombs behind a spacecraft, followed by disks made of solid propellant. The bombs would explode, vaporizing the material of the disks and converting it into hot plasma. As this plasma rushed out in all directions, some of it would catch up with the spacecraft, impinge upon a pusher plate, and so drive the vehicle forward. 

Fast forward to Moscow, 2009: Perminov said the nuclear spaceship should be used for human flights to Mars and other planets. He said the project is challenging technologically, but could capitalize on the Soviet and Russian experience in the field, with a preliminary design ready by 2012.

"The project is aimed at implementing large-scale space exploration programs, including a manned mission to Mars, interplanetary travel, the creation and operation of planetary outposts," Perminov's Web statement said. Associated Press reports that "the ambitious plans contrast with Russia's slow progress on building a replacement to its mainstay spacecraft - the Soyuz.

Russia is using Soyuz booster rockets and capsules, developed 40 years ago, to send crews to the International Space Station." 

Despite its continuing reliance on the old technology, Russia stands to take a greater role in space exploration in the coming years. NASA's plan to retire its shuttle fleet next year will force the United States and other nations to rely on the Russian spacecraft to ferry their astronauts to and from the International Space Station until NASA's new manned ship becomes available.

Igor Lisov, a Moscow-based expert on Russian space program, said the prospective ship would use a nuclear reactor to run an electric rocket engine. "It will be quite efficient for flight to Mars," he told The Associated Press on Thursday. Lisov said Soviet work on a nuclear-powered electric rocket engine dates back to the 1960s when Soviet engineers began developing plans for a manned flight to Mars.

Stanley Borowski, a senior engineer at NASA specializing in nuclear rocket engines, said they have many advantages for deep space missions, such as to take astronauts and gear to Mars. In deep space, nuclear rockets are twice as fuel-efficient as conventional rockets, he said.

NASA has used small amounts of plutonium in deep space probes, including those to Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto and heading out of the solar system.

The only planetary mission currently considered by Russia is a plan to send a probe to one of Mars' twin moons, Phobos. It was set to launch this year, but was delayed.

Casey Kazan

Sources: Associated Press and Physorg.com

Comments

[Dredd]

We really do need a new physics to deal with the realities of space travel which is the reality of the survival or the extinction of the human species.

This tired Russian and U.S. "take a chunk of the earth with us as fuel" technique will never work long term.

[alan]

It's too bad that we as a species created currency. It is really the only thing holding us back from great things. We have so much potential and we could have achieved so much more then we have now in the if we didn't depend so much on cold hard cash. Why haven't we expanded to mars and beyond? its because we don't have enough of the money that we've created to build the things we need. ridiculous. We are so self destructive that we'll never achieve greatness.. we are doomed and our time on this earth is almost pointless

[Frank Glover]

It seems pretty safe to say that the Russians are looking at some kind of nuclear thermal rocket, though it's not so clear if it's solid core (which the US once did much development and ground-based testing) or gas core (which no one's really done, yet) but this doesn't look at all as if it's going to be nuclear pulse...

And Alan, civilization needs *some* medium of exchange. Even less would happen if we had to rely completely on barter (or volunteerism). How much or how little we've done isn't the fault of the concept of money itself. It's our own decisions on the importance and priority we give something, and on how much we are willing to commit resources (which money merely *represents*) to that something.

(AND how wisely we spend that money...or if that's even the most relevant part. Some problems have little to do with how much money, time and effort you throw at them.)

[derwin15]

Humankind seems bound to return to space. Here is a cool timeline that lists all achievements in space exploration since the Russian Sputnik 1 first orbited the earth. http://bit.ly/4tS2MH

[derwin15]

Here is show called "Are we bound for Space?" recorded at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics during Quantum to Cosmos Festival. http://bit.ly/3LONjE

[EvilCosmicMonkeyfrom Knoxville]

Why is it that if one of our allies uses nuclear energy ( even RTG's ) in a space probe or space craft or satellite, it's cool, & it's no big deal, but if we in the U.S. do it, the evironmentalists, especially the really hard - core " tree - hugger " variety ( & I'm NOT anti - enviromentalist, BTW. ) go totally off the wall & denounce the space program ?

What's the Mars Mission's purpose, besides finding water & life ?

[Frank Glover]

"... but if we in the U.S. do it..."

I'm not aware of any country other than the the U.S. and the Soviet Union/Russia that has used nuclear power in space so far. And the Russians (especially during the Cold War) never were in the habit of announcing their intentions in any great detail. That, coupled with their tendency to suppress dissent (again, especially during the Cold War), means that environmentalists of any stripe don't get to say much. (Imagine anti-nuclear protests in North Korea or Iran...if you can.)

In other words, you hear objections here, because it's the only place they *can* be heard.

If the Russians actually get to the hardware-building stage of serious nuclear propulsion though (right now, it's too early to take seriously...no one complained about Galileo or Cassini on day one, either), it *could* be a different story. Even groups outside the country *might* make some noise, though the Russians may be little moved by it...

[EvilCosmicMonkeyfrom Knoxville]

Perhaps China incorporates nuclear RTG's in their satellites, but you don't hear about IT much. Other space - going countries use the ESA launch facility in French Guiana, as well as Russian & U.S. facilities.

BTW: There were a few environmental extremists that protested at the Galileo launch, on the premise that if the rocket & probe exploded during said launch, that we would be subjected to a radioactive, carcinogenic rain of toxic material, never mind that the RTG's were well - protected.

You hear more noise about the use of nuclear power in space - craft here precisely because we ARE a FREE society.

Anyway it's a shame that NASA never really embraced Project Orion, because it seems like a great way to beat " swords into plowshares / pruning - hooks ".