/sci/ - Science & Math

you still need reaction mass. you are replacing a lightweight engine using fuel with a shitton heavier engine using reaction mass which just has the same weight as the chemical propellant had, for a smaller impulse. yeah, no. maybe with starship this will get feasible, when you can take the pile, and the reaction mass tank to space in pieces and assemble them there for a fraction of the money, oh wait, why not just take starship and skip the nuclear engine all together? its not like we need a nuclear engine for those short hops to mars anyways.

>>12706161
>short hops
yeah, if you want to go to the asteroid belt, jupiter or even saturn that nuclear flow heater engine makes sense

>>12706161
Being 2x as propellant efficient is very good. Also there are further designs for a nuclear rocket that make them even better, but perfecting NTP is the starting point for all of that.

The increased isp isn't worth the heavier engines and un-dense hydrogen propellant.

>>12705202
combined nuclear power+propulsion is the superior reactor since you can also use electric based propulsion like plasma sails in conjunction with it
>>12706318
You don't need hydrogen, any noncorrosive fluid would work
Water fueled shuttles mining ice from Jovian moons would be far better than having to process or acquire shitty hydrogen