Talk:NERVA

Exhaust velocity contradiction

From a NASA website article... [NERVA]"...demonstrated an effective exhaust velocity of 24,450 ft/sec, far more than any chemically-fueled rocket could achieve." This is in complete contradiction to this article. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch3.htm

As I understand it, exhaust velocity != thrust. Thrust is baiscally mass / time * velocity of the exhaust. That would give me the idea, that the throughput of NERVA was not big enough. Regards -- M

Exhaust velocity and thrust have nothing to do with one another. Exhaust velocity does, however, scale with efficiency. Nuclear rockets are far more efficient than chemical rockets; they get more thrust per pound of propellant ejected by achieving much higher exhaust velocities. Check out the Wikipedia page on specific impulse.

"Throughput" is not a term seen in rocket circles, but you might be referring to "thrust" or "total impulse". In theoretical terms, a nuclear rocket may be built to any size; in practical terms, NERVA was actually scaled down by a factor of 4 as its efficiency and reliability increased. Need to go faster (Mars)? Run a smaller NERVA engine longer.

Also in practical terms, many people feel that a chemical rocket visit to Mars or even logistical support by chemical rockets of an extended lunar mission are (again, practically speaking) unfeasible. Chemical rockets have to grow so big that they become both unwieldy and unfundable. As chemical mission durations increase, so must radiation shielding and supplies, but then the vehicle size again increases, etc. etc. The chemical bond doesn't have enough energy to even logistically support an extended lunar mission, much less anything beyond. Voronwae (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Kiwi technology?

From the article:

"The NERVA rocket engine was based on Kiwi nuclear reactor technology."

What does this mean? Was Kiwi the name of a project? Or is this referring to New Zealanders? Cite, please? -- Karada 16:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From the Nuclear thermal rocket Article "The reactor was not intended for flight, hence the naming of the rocket after a flightless bird". It has nothing to do with the slang term for New Zealanders. I have re-inserted this back into the NERVA article with the clarification. -- Roidroid 07:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Baxters Voyage - Apollo/NERVA & Apollo 6

I've just finished reading Stephen Baxters Voyage and would like to throw something into the mix here. What no-one seems to have noticed (or at least commented on) is that the Apollo-N mission event sequence is taken straight from Apollo 6. Not sure where he got his NERVA stage design from though. He describes a third stage with gimballed(sic) engines, the designs I have seen for Saturn NERVA stages however all use vernier engines for trajectory control. Graham1973 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

At the time Baxter wrote the novel I'm guessing good sources on NERVA were not available. Voronwae (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Potential sources/references

• NUCLEAR ROCKETS FOR SPACEFLIGHT — page by page PDFs at flightglobal.com, from 1967
  • pt. II of above
• An Historical Perspective of the NERVA Nuclear Rocket Engine Technology Program, PDF, 1991, 1.1MB.
• NUCLEAR ROCKETS BASED ON GRAPHITE REACTOR TECHNOLOGY, PDF, 1963, 93.4MB.

— jhf (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

...also proposed a Manned Mars Mission using...

Should "Manned Mars Mission" be capitalized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.130.52 (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

40%?

Where does the 40% figure come from? Is there a reference? vttoth (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the whole paragraph is strange. What does mean «very» expensive ? What was the information delivered to the public and its reaction ? What theorical thrust (the designed thrust was 330 kN and was obtained) ?

This addition from IP needs to be sourced or removed. Duckysmokton ^blabla 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad specifications from Astronautix

At some point I'm going to replace the erroneous specs at the page bottom from Astronautix, as soon as I have proper figures to replace them. I do know that according to the contractor report I cite throughout the page (written by Ben Finger) the stated thrust for NERVA was 75,000 pounds. I guess it's possible that efficiency increased and thrust went way, way up; I'll check that out, too. Voronwae (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

NERVA-like nuclear rocket on Discovery in 2001: A Space Odyssey

Didn't the Discovery spacecraft use nuclear thermal rocket propulsion? Should it be added to the list of fictional references in this article? Or is this list limited to direct fictional references to the NERVA engine as developed? Karn (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(from memory) I remember that in 2001, the propulsion system is a nuclear fission - hydrogen propellant engine, and in 2010, Clarke corrected it to nuclear fission - ammonia (or methane ?) propellant so that the propellant supply could have survived the long interval between the missions.

But there is no details about how the heat transfer is done, it could be a NERVA solid graphite core or any other variant such as cermet, wire core, tungsten-water moderation, particle bed ... etc

So, any reference to 2001 Discovery should be in the nuclear thermal rocket article (BTW, many informations from the sections Progams & Test firings of this article should be moved in the NERVA article) Duckysmokton ^blabla 10:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the article Discovery One, the engine is a « Cavradyne » gaseous core engine, thus not a NTR engine. Duckysmokton ^blabla 11:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on NERVA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040904233822/http://www.astronautix.com/engines/nerva.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/engines/nerva.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329081838/http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/spacecraft/nerva/reactor.html to http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/spacecraft/nerva/reactor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Availability of hydrogen

The article says:

Hydrogen was theoretically the best possible propellant, but in the 1950s it was expensive, and available only in small quantities.[17]

This is sourced, but is it really correct? It sounds surprising to me. Large quantities of hydrogen had been produced decades earlier for airships, for example. 2A00:23C5:4B91:AB00:7CAF:AD1C:FAC6:A702 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no. The text has been corrected to "liquid hydrogen", which was only available in litre quantities in the 1950s. Thanks to Projects NERVA and Apollo, this bchanged dramatically in the 1960s. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Aha, I see, that makes much more sense now. Thanks for you reply. 2A00:23C5:4B91:AB00:7CAF:AD1C:FAC6:A702 (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:NERVA/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 05:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• File:NERVA.jpg Source is broken
  • I fixed it

Image review done. Kees08 (Talk) 01:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Haven't read the article yet, but found this nice looking image in case it would be useful. If not, no worries. Kees08 (Talk) 01:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Y Added.

• Considered using, considered the use of, etc they considered the using atomic bombs as a means of rocket propulsion.

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• A young physicist In 1953, Robert W. Bussard, young physicist working

  Y Changed "young" to "a" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Construct test facilities feasibility studies and construct of test facilities.

  Y Changed to "construction of test facilities" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Page 1 to 1 Haslett 1995, pp. 1–1, 2-1–2-5.

  Y Changed ndash to hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Does the title start with a hyphen? "-Nuclear Rockets: To Mars and Beyond"

  Y No. Deleted hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe change the second 'from' to 'due to' the electronic instrumentation from radiation from the reactor

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Plume or jet? A plume is driven by buoyancy, a jet is driven by momentum. My guess is a jet The reactor was test fired with its plume in the air so that radioactive products could be safely dissipated.

  It's a plume. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  At least in all the sources, including the primary ones (of which NASA and LANL have published quite a lot if you're interested in the technical details); but you're the aeronautical engineer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  If you don't want to read pointless drivel, ignore this (not going to make you change plume to jet). When I was in school I learned it was a plume and always a plume (never was questioned, nor was there a plume v jet discussion). I worked in industry for however long, at multiple companies, and used 'plume' during that time. Then at some point I was editing some article on Wiki, and someone changed my 'plume' to 'jet'. Aha! I have a Master's degree in this, definitely going to show this editor!...oh. Turns out the standard rocket terminology is the wrong terminology. Ever since, my local groups of rocket folk I talk to switch to jet after we have the same brief discussion about plume v jet, but overall the rest of the world uses plume. So it would be pointy of me to make you switch it, and I will have to just convince the world to switch to jet first, then we can switch it on Wiki. There, told you it was a pointless story :). Kees08 (Talk) 15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Sounds like a plan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• What date formatting are we going with on this article? On 2 October 1957,

  The article was in dmy when I first started working on it, so I retained its existing format, per MOS:DATERET. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  That's fine; it maybe should be MDY since it is a US centric article, but I don't really care. Kees08 (Talk)

  Me neither. I have a script to convert articles if need be. It appears that this article went without any dates for a long time. Then some Aussie seems to have added the links from TROVE, which are auto-formatted to dmy by the National Library. This then became the original date format of the article. NASA uses dmy so it matched the secondary sources, which always makes it easier to write. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Consistency on DC vs D.C.

  Y Used "DC", which matches the other acronyms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Should Kelvin have a convert template? Not sure non-scientific minded folks understand the scale. below 20 K.

  Y Naturally. It must have been missed on the first pass due to the link. Added a convert, with a link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Could rephrase The first was that a means had to be found of controlling reactor temperature and power output. to The first was controlling reactor temperature and power output.

  Don't see that working. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Saving weight by being the lowest mass, or saving weight because it would require the lowest system mass? ranium-233 held the prospect of saving weight, but was not readily available.

  It weighs 1% less than U-235. Produces 10% less power per kg, but I guess we could just crank up up the control drums. Sounds like a loser of an idea really. But when you're building a reactor the big choices are fuel, moderator and coolant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  Is there any way to word it to say it was the lightest fuel and not necessarily the lightest engine? Sort of the same with liquid rockets, where sometimes LH2 can make the lightest system, but sometimes can make it the heaviest. Kees08 (Talk) 15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Y Added "in fuel". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Once, or often? Not sure it warrants inclusion unless it caused a big delay. Open to changing my mind. The plastic coating on the control cables was chewed by burrowing rodents and had to be replaced.

  Y Oh very well. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• We lead with metric units in some areas and imperial in others, probably best to be consistent It was exceptional only for its size: 250 feet (76 m) long, 140 feet (43 m) and 63 feet (19 m) high.

  Should be metric everywhere. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Add (NACA) at the end absorbed the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.

  Y Changed to NACA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• is Solar System normally capitalized? flights further into the Solar System

  NASA doesn't, but apparently we do. (MOS:CELESTIALBODIES) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Change to neither of which had the administration committed. to to neither of which the administration had committed.

  Correct as it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Same solar system question perhaps to the very end of the Solar system

  See above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Should it be could instead of would? Would seems like they designed it to fail exactly three times.. meaning that the engine would fail to perform as designed only three times in every thousand starts.

  Y Changed to "no more than" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Metric first 393 feet (120 m)

  Y Damn. I though I had got them all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Minus 'the' boosting the it to 480

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• The tense of cooling sounds wrong here, do I just have bad ears? and the reactor cooling before impacting

  Y Changed tense. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

• Currently using both kilometers and kilometres water at several thousand kilometers

  Y Sprinkled the article with US spelling tags. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Could this be phrased better, it sounds incomplete: In particular, whether it would go critical or explode when flooded with sea water, a neutron moderator.

  Sounds alright to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I read a tooltip on your userpage that said U.S. is preferred, I believe so Kennedy resumed US testing

  It's just that all the other acronyms (NERVA, NASA, LASL, etc don't use the full stops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  Looks like I am wrong (and the tooltip could either be reworded or I could use reading comprehension skills..not that you are in charge of said tooltip). Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#US, for anyone watching. Kees08 (Talk) 15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• The internet has made me dislike the football field analogy, but it can stay if you wish It was larger than a football field,

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Crewed? included early manned planetary interplanetary

  Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sounds a bit odd, maybe "reactivity measurements were taken"? Maybe not. and measurements taken of reactivity.

  Y Meh. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Kelvin, converted to C to its design maximum of 2,000 C

  Y Added conversion template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• I test engines, and am unfamiliar with the scram term..is it an abort/terminate? A scram was ordered, but a coolant line became clogged.

  Y It's a technical term for an emergency shutdown of a reactor. Liked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Probably Test Cell, though I may campaign for a Rest Cell at work now. therefore the last test to use Rest Cell A.

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Lot o' afters After shutdown on 7 December 1966 after 75 seconds caused by a faulty electrical component,

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hyphen in follow-on? Not sure cancelled planned follow on tests

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Vacuum chamber, or a diffuser? The second seems more likely, but I do not have the source. See page 24 for an example of a diffuser in a setup like this. downward into a reduced-pressure compartment to (reading the rest of the page, I see it is a diffuser; is there an appropriate wikilink for that?)

  Err the sources don't mention the word "diffuser" anywhere, they just talk of simulating the vacuum of space. Is this what you are talking about? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  I do not believe it is the same thing, I looked for a Wikipedia articles on the topic and did not find one. Here is a highly technical literature example of one, it should roughly match what your sources say about the vacuum source in these tests. If it is a diffuser in this article, you can just remove the wiklink to the vacuum chamber in this article. If I am misreading the situation, let me know. Kees08 (Talk) 06:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  Y Already removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like the target article is 'low Earth orbit' from Low Earth Orbit (LEO)

  Y De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Cue Imperial March up to 340,000 lb (150,000 kg)

  Y Added parameter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe something like 'NERVA had plenty of planned missions' 'scheduled missions' 'proposed missions' or similar (based on whichever is true) NERVA had plenty of missions.

  Y "proposed". Although some got to the planning stage, none were scheduled. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure where we ended up on solar system but I see a couple instances of 'Solar system' and one instance of 'Solar System' (I know you mentioned the correct one above; just noting the inconsistency)

  Y De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• In 1969? Richard Nixon replaced Johnson as president 1969,

  On 20 January 1969 to be exact. See First inauguration of Richard Nixon. Added the full date. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ageing or Aging?

  Y The spell checker says ageing, but American and British English spelling differences says "aging" is the American spelling, so changed to that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Mind changing this to a footnote? (With the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Congress would strip him of this ability.)

  Y Moved to a footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Remove 'that'? from rockets that more powerful than chemical rockets

  Y Inserted "are" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Combine these sentences: The SNTP program was terminated in January 1994.[108] About $200 million was spent.[109]

• Y Combined. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Reviewed down to Space Nuclear Propulsion Office Kees08 (Talk) 05:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Side note, Scott Manley talks about NERVA briefly in his newest video (about the Russian explosion). Kees08 (Talk) 16:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• Presume that the endash should be a hyphen for 1-1? Haslett 1995, pp. 1–1, 2-1–2-5.

  Y Looks like I missed that one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Is AAP a press agency? It is in print in this citation: "Moon Rocket Flight 'In Decade'". The Canberra Times. 35, (9, 934). Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 9 June 1961. p. 11. Retrieved 12 August 2017 – via National Library of Australia.

  Y Australian Associated Press? Yes, it is. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like this is from a Kennedy speech; our citation could be made clearer to indicate that: "Excerpt from the 'Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs'". NASA. 24 May 2004. Retrieved 10 July 2019.

  Yes, it's his famous speech where he called for a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. That he went on to call for nuclear-powered rockets tends to be forgotten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think they might go by Los Alamos Monitor "Los Alamos remembers visit by JFK". LA Monitor. 22 November 2013. Retrieved 15 July 2019.

  Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Same AAP question: "$24,000m for trip to Mars". The Canberra Times. 43, (12, 381). Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 4 August 1969. p. 4. Retrieved 12 August 2017 – via National Library of Australia.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Think it should be Universe Today as the publisher and phys.org as a via parameter: Cain, Fraser (1 July 2019). "Earth to Mars in 100 days: The Power of Nuclear Rockets". phys.org. Retrieved 10 July 2019.

  Y Added publisher Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endash for the page range Sloop, John L. (1978). Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 1945-1959

  Y Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I am almost incapable of doing lightweight GA reviews at this point. That's the end of the review though; I think I owe you a reply above, but I will not be generating any new bullet points to address. Kees08 (Talk) 06:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Pinging in case you did not see the last comments. Kees08 (Talk) 06:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Added a couple replies above, could you address diffuser vs vacuum chamber and the fuel weight point I brought up? Kees08 (Talk) 15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Added "of fuel" after "weight", and the link to vacuum chamber has already been removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect power rating?

The article states: “By 1955, it had settled on a 1,500 MW design called Old Black Joe. In 1956, this became the basis of 2,700 MW design intended to be the upper stage of an ICBM.”

These MW figures look high to me. Asubmarine reactor may be 150 MW. A commercial nuclear reactor might be as big as 1,000 MW. —40.142.140.74 (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@40.142.140.74 yet, KIWI-B for NERVA was already at "above 1000 MW", so those figures are probably correct. running a steam plant based on a nuclear reactor is very different from running a rocket exhaust, none the least in the temperatures that are "allowed". 46.15.193.159 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback

Hello. I enjoyed reading this article, but I feel there is a small gap: If NEVA was "flight-certified" and "the engine was deemed ready for integration into a spacecraft", how come in May 2019, $125 million were authorized to rediscover the wheel? It does not say it will continue the project, so that implies the start of a new [unrelated] project. Is this correct? Also, any indication that such engine is being considered for the Deep Space Transport (Orion + propelled Habitat)? Thanks Rowan Forest (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think they are improving the wheel rather than redeveloping it. According to a recent article [1], they want to continue the development work that Project Rover did on materials with new "cermet" (ceramic metallic) fuel rods, and they want to study options for liquid hydrogen storage employing new insulating materials developed since the 1970s. I suspect that most of the money will go on construction of new test facilities so the new engine can be ground tested without releasing radioactive fission products. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. Then I think you can add something to the effect that it is a continuation of the development/technology or so. Thanks. The article flows well, considering it is a complex topic. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Strange dollar sign

I have noticed this sentence in the NERVA NRX section ".. resulting in about $2.20 of reactivity lost, the engine could still have been restarted, but the engineers wanted to examine the core." Should this be % ?

No, reactivity is measured in dollars and cents. See Dollar (reactivity). I have added a duplicate link, although it is already linked above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

(I would like to congratulate all the editors who have written this wonderful article on an amazing piece of technology. I can remember reading about Nerva in my "Peter Farley's Space Annual" in the early 1970s, so this article really takes me back) KreyszigB (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Nearly all of what you see was written by me. If your interested in the subject, I recommend Dewar, James (2007), To The End of the Solar System: The Story Of The Nuclear Rocket. He wrote his PhD on the nuclear rocket. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

A source of confusion for readers: There are two Andersons

Senator Clinton P. Anderson and Lieutenant Colonel G. M. Anderson are both shortened to "Anderson" multiple times during the text, and it may not consistently be obvious which of them is intended. In my opinion, some clarification is needed. Perhaps including titles in the shorthands. "Senator Anderson" and "Chairman Anderson"? Elias (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The colonel is mentioned only once. Added some disambiguation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

Italic text

117.20.116.114 (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotAGenious (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

An atomic make-over

To be clear, why is there no mention of nuclear rockets in relation to 'Atoms for Peace' and other attempts at giving atomic power a public relations make-over? Also, given how US space rockets at the time had a nasty habit of blowing up - why is there no mention about the wisdom of attempting to place nuclear materials in space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.5 (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2023 (2)

{{subst:trim|1=

nuh uh 193.40.227.94 (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotAGenious (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Radiation emissions discussion

I assume the NERVA isn't radiation free. Shouldn't a section be added that discusses radiation emissions in the exhaust and any radiation hazards presented to the payloads being propelled? P Todd (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph on the radiation shield. The exhaust was of less concern since irradiation of hydrogen only produces deuterium and tritium. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Needs much more coverage on environmental and health hazards

In addition to the call for a Radiation emissions discussion, the article needs discussion of environmental and health hazards, including the possibility of an unplanned re-entry or explosion of the launch vehicle causing a catastrophe; and what was the impact on workers and the locations of manufacture and testing; the article reads like typical pro-science rah rah; discussion of these and other risks should be prominent, not buried at the end. Skydog0x (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This is discussed in the fifth paragraph of the Towards Reactor In-Flight Tests section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Comparisons

A fine piece as usual, but what I don't grasp is context. If the engine was done, how did it compare to contemporary engines, capability and costwise? How about to today's? That kind of context would make it easier to understand if canceling it was prudent or foolish.

This scholarship may not exist. I know I grew up assuming that nuclear engines were a dead end. But if they were not, it'd be nice to know what they could do relative to what we had.--Neopeius (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)