The world's first nuclear space engine was assembled in Russia. Russia's new superweapon: what is a nuclear rocket engine

A rocket engine in which the working fluid is either a substance (for example, hydrogen) heated by the energy released during a nuclear reaction or radioactive decay, or directly the products of these reactions. Distinguish... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

A rocket engine in which the working fluid is either a substance (for example, hydrogen) heated by the energy released during a nuclear reaction or radioactive decay, or directly the products of these reactions. Is in… … encyclopedic Dictionary

nuclear rocket engine- branduolinis raketinis variklis statusas T sritis Gynyba apibrėžtis Raketinis variklis, kuriame reaktyvinė trauka sudaroma vykstant branduolinei arba termobranduolinei reakcijai. Branduoliniams raketiniams varikliams sudaroma kur kas didesnė… … Artilerijos terminų žodynas

- (Nuclear Jet) a rocket engine in which thrust is created due to the energy released during radioactive decay or a nuclear reaction. According to the type of nuclear reaction occurring in the nuclear engine, a radioisotope rocket engine is distinguished... ...

- (YARD) rocket engine, in which the source of energy is nuclear fuel. In a nuclear powered engine with a nuclear reactor. The torus heat released as a result of a nuclear chain reaction is transferred to the working fluid (for example, hydrogen). Nuclear reactor core... ...

This article should be Wikified. Please format it according to the article formatting rules. Nuclear rocket engine using a homogeneous solution of nuclear fuel salts (English... Wikipedia

Nuclear rocket engine (NRE) is a type of rocket engine that uses the energy of fission or fusion of nuclei to create jet thrust. They are actually reactive (heating the working fluid in a nuclear reactor and releasing gas through... ... Wikipedia

A jet engine, the energy source and working fluid of which is located in the vehicle itself. The rocket engine is the only one practically mastered for launching a payload into orbit of an artificial Earth satellite and for use in ... ... Wikipedia

- (RD) A jet engine that uses for its operation only substances and energy sources available in reserve on a moving vehicle (aircraft, ground, underwater). Thus, unlike air-jet engines (See... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Isotopic rocket engine, a nuclear rocket engine that uses the decay energy of radioactive chemical isotopes. elements. This energy serves to heat the working fluid, or the working fluid is the decomposition products themselves, forming... ... Big Encyclopedic Polytechnic Dictionary

The first stage is denial

German rocketry expert Robert Schmucker considered V. Putin's statements completely implausible. “I can’t imagine that the Russians can create a small flying reactor,” the expert said in an interview with Deutsche Welle.

They can, Herr Schmucker. Just imagine.

The first domestic satellite with a nuclear power plant (“Cosmos-367”) was launched from Baikonur back in 1970. 37 fuel assemblies of the small-sized BES-5 Buk reactor, containing 30 kg of uranium, at a temperature in the primary circuit of 700 ° C and a heat release of 100 kW, provided an electrical power of the installation of 3 kW. The weight of the reactor is less than one ton, the estimated operating time is 120-130 days.

Experts will express doubt: the power of this nuclear “battery” is too low... But! Look at the date: that was half a century ago.

Low efficiency is a consequence of thermionic conversion. With other forms of energy transmission, the indicators are much higher, for example, for nuclear power plants, the efficiency value is in the range of 32-38%. In this sense, the thermal power of a “space” reactor is of particular interest. 100 kW is a serious bid for victory.

It is worth noting that the BES-5 “Buk” does not belong to the family of RTGs. Radioisotope thermoelectric generators convert the energy of the natural decay of atoms of radioactive elements and have negligible power. At the same time, Buk is a real reactor with a controlled chain reaction.

The next generation of Soviet small-sized reactors, which appeared in the late 1980s, was distinguished by even smaller dimensions and higher energy release. This was the unique Topaz: compared to the Buk, the amount of uranium in the reactor was reduced threefold (to 11.5 kg). Thermal power increased by 50% and amounted to 150 kW, the continuous operation time reached 11 months (a reactor of this type was installed on board the Cosmos-1867 reconnaissance satellite).

Nuclear space reactors are an extraterrestrial form of death. If control was lost, the “shooting star” did not fulfill wishes, but could forgive the “lucky” ones their sins.

In 1992, the two remaining copies of small-sized reactors of the Topaz series were sold in the USA for $13 million.

The main question is: do such installations have enough power to be used as rocket engines? By passing the working fluid (air) through the hot core of the reactor and obtaining thrust at the output according to the law of conservation of momentum.

Answer: no. “Buk” and “Topaz” are compact nuclear power plants. To create a nuclear reactor, other means are needed. But the general trend is visible to the naked eye. Compact nuclear power plants have long been created and exist in practice.

What power must a nuclear power plant have to be used as a propulsion engine for a cruise missile similar in size to the X-101?

Can't find a job? Multiply time by power!
(Collection of universal tips.)

Finding power is also not difficult. N=F×V.

According to official data, the Kha-101 cruise missiles, like the Kalibr family of missiles, are equipped with a short-life turbofan engine-50, developing a thrust of 450 kgf (≈ 4400 N). The cruise missile's cruising speed is 0.8M, or 270 m/s. The ideal calculated efficiency of a turbojet bypass engine is 30%.

In this case, the required power of the cruise missile engine is only 25 times higher than the thermal power of the Topaz series reactor.

Despite the doubts of the German expert, the creation of a nuclear turbojet (or ramjet) rocket engine is a realistic task that meets the requirements of our time.

Rocket from Hell

"This is all a surprise - a nuclear-powered cruise missile," said Douglas Barry, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. “This idea is not new, it was talked about in the 60s, but it has faced a lot of obstacles.”

They didn't just talk about it. During tests in 1964, the Tori-IIC nuclear ramjet engine developed a thrust of 16 tons with a reactor thermal power of 513 MW. Simulating supersonic flight, the installation consumed 450 tons of compressed air in five minutes. The reactor was designed to be very “hot” - the operating temperature in the core reached 1600°C. The design had very narrow tolerances: in a number of areas, the permissible temperature was only 150-200 ° C below the temperature at which the rocket elements melted and collapsed.

Were these indicators sufficient to use nuclear-propelled jet engines as an engine in practice? The answer is obvious.

The nuclear ramjet developed more (!) thrust than the turbo-ramjet engine of the “three-mach” reconnaissance aircraft SR-71 “Black Bird”.

"Polygon-401", nuclear ramjet tests

Experimental installations “Tori-IIA” and “-IIC” are prototypes of the nuclear engine of the SLAM cruise missile.

A diabolical invention, capable, according to calculations, of piercing 160,000 km of space at a minimum altitude at a speed of 3M. Literally “mowing down” everyone who met on her mournful path with a shock wave and a thunderclap of 162 dB (lethal value for humans).

The reactor of the combat aircraft did not have any biological protection. The ruptured eardrums after the SLAM flyby would seem insignificant compared to the radioactive emissions from the rocket nozzle. The flying monster left behind a trail more than a kilometer wide with a radiation dose of 200-300 rad. It is estimated that SLAM contaminated 1,800 square miles with deadly radiation in one hour of flight.

According to calculations, the length of the aircraft could reach 26 meters. Launch weight - 27 tons. The combat load was thermonuclear charges, which had to be dropped sequentially on several Soviet cities along the missile’s flight route. After completing the main task, SLAM was supposed to circle over the territory of the USSR for several more days, contaminating everything around with radioactive emissions.

Perhaps the deadliest of all that man has tried to create. Fortunately, it didn’t come to real launches.

The project, codenamed “Pluto,” was canceled on July 1, 1964. At the same time, according to one of the developers of SLAM, J. Craven, none of the US military and political leadership regretted the decision.

The reason for abandoning the “low-flying nuclear missile” was the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Capable of causing the necessary damage in less time with incomparable risks for the military themselves. As the authors of the publication in Air&Space magazine rightly noted: ICBMs, at least, did not kill everyone who was near the launcher.

It is still unknown who, where and how planned to test the fiend. And who would be responsible if SLAM went off course and flew over Los Angeles. One of the crazy proposals suggested tying a rocket to a cable and driving it in a circle over deserted areas of the state. Nevada. However, another question immediately arose: what to do with the rocket when the last remnants of fuel burn out in the reactor? The place where the SLAM “lands” will not be approached for centuries.

Life or death. Final choice

Unlike the mystical “Pluto” from the 1950s, the project of a modern nuclear missile, voiced by V. Putin, proposes the creation of an effective means of breaking through the American missile defense system. Mutually assured destruction is the most important criterion for nuclear deterrence.

The transformation of the classic “nuclear triad” into a diabolical “pentagram” - with the inclusion of a new generation of delivery vehicles (nuclear cruise missiles of unlimited range and strategic nuclear torpedoes “status-6”), coupled with the modernization of ICBM warheads (maneuvering “Avangard”), is reasonable response to the emergence of new threats. Washington's missile defense policy leaves Moscow no other choice.

“You are developing your anti-missile systems. The range of anti-missiles is increasing, the accuracy is increasing, these weapons are being improved. Therefore, we need to adequately respond to this so that we can overcome the system not only today, but also tomorrow, when you have new weapons.”

The declassified details of the experiments under the SLAM/Pluto program convincingly prove that the creation of a nuclear cruise missile was possible (technically feasible) six decades ago. Modern technologies allow us to take an idea to a new technical level.

The sword rusts from promises

Despite the mass of obvious facts that explain the reasons for the appearance of the “presidential superweapon” and dispel any doubts about the “impossibility” of creating such systems, there are still many skeptics in Russia, as well as abroad. “All of the weapons listed are just a means of information warfare.” And then - a variety of proposals.

Probably, one should not take caricatured “experts” such as I. Moiseev seriously. The head of the Space Policy Institute (?), who told the online publication The Insider: “You cannot put a nuclear engine on a cruise missile. And there are no such engines.”

Attempts to “expose” the president’s statements are also being made at a more serious analytical level. Such “investigations” immediately gain popularity among the liberal-minded public. Skeptics give the following arguments.

All the announced systems relate to strategic top-secret weapons, the existence of which is not possible to verify or refute. (The message to the Federal Assembly itself showed computer graphics and footage of launches, indistinguishable from tests of other types of cruise missiles.) At the same time, no one is talking, for example, about creating a heavy attack drone or a destroyer-class warship. A weapon that would soon have to be clearly demonstrated to the whole world.

According to some “whistleblowers,” the highly strategic, “secret” context of the messages may indicate their implausible nature. Well, if this is the main argument, then what is the argument with these people about?

There is also another point of view. Shocking statements about nuclear missiles and unmanned 100-knot submarines are made against the background of obvious problems of the military-industrial complex encountered in the implementation of simpler projects of “traditional” weapons. Statements about missiles that immediately surpass all existing weapons are in sharp contrast to the well-known situation with rocket science. Skeptics cite the example of massive failures during Bulava launches or the development of the Angara launch vehicle, which dragged on for two decades. Sama began in 1995; speaking in November 2017, Deputy Prime Minister D. Rogozin promised to resume Angara launches from the Vostochny cosmodrome only in... 2021.

And, by the way, why was Zircon, the main naval sensation of the previous year, left without attention? A hypersonic missile capable of destroying all existing concepts of naval combat.

The news about the arrival of laser systems to the troops attracted the attention of manufacturers of laser systems. Existing directed energy weapons were created on an extensive base of research and development of high-tech equipment for the civilian market. For example, the American shipborne installation AN/SEQ-3 LaWS is a “pack” of six welding lasers with a total power of 33 kW.

The announcement of the creation of a super-powerful combat laser contrasts against the background of a very weak laser industry: Russia is not one of the world's largest manufacturers of laser equipment (Coherent, IPG Photonics or the Chinese Han "Laser Technology). Therefore, the sudden appearance of high-power laser weapons arouses genuine interest among specialists .

There are always more questions than answers. The devil is in the details, but official sources give an extremely poor picture of the latest weapons. It is often not even clear whether the system is already ready for adoption, or whether its development is at a certain stage. Well-known precedents associated with the creation of such weapons in the past indicate that the problems that arise cannot be solved with a snap of the fingers. Fans of technical innovations are concerned about the choice of location for testing nuclear-powered missile launchers. Or methods of communication with the underwater drone “Status-6” (a fundamental problem: radio communication does not work under water; during communication sessions, submarines are forced to rise to the surface). It would be interesting to hear an explanation about the methods of application: compared to traditional ICBMs and SLBMs, capable of starting and ending a war within an hour, Status-6 will take several days to reach the US coast. When there will be no one there anymore!

The last battle is over.
Is anyone left alive?
In response - only the howling of the wind...

Using materials:
Air&Space Magazine (April-May 1990)
The Silent War by John Craven

Late last year, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces tested a completely new weapon, the existence of which was previously thought impossible. The nuclear-powered cruise missile, which military experts designate 9M730, is exactly the new weapon that President Putin spoke about in his Address to the Federal Assembly. The missile test was allegedly carried out at the Novaya Zemlya test site, approximately at the end of autumn 2017, but the exact data will not be declassified soon. The rocket developer is also presumably the Novator Experimental Design Bureau (Ekaterinburg). According to competent sources, the missile hit the target in normal mode and the tests were considered completely successful. Further, alleged photographs of the launch (above) of a new rocket with a nuclear power plant and even indirect confirmation related to the presence at the expected time of testing in the immediate vicinity of the test site of the Il-976 LII Gromov “flying laboratory” with Rosatom marks appeared in the media. However, even more questions arose. Is the declared ability of the missile to fly at an unlimited range realistic and how is it achieved?

Characteristics of a cruise missile with a nuclear power plant

Length
- home page- at least 12 meters,
- marching- at least 9 meters,

Rocket body diameter- about 1 meter,
Case width- about 1.5 meters,
Tail height- 3.6 - 3.8 meters

Operating principle of a Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile

The fact is that, according to Putin, the missile has an almost unlimited flight range. This, of course, cannot be understood to mean that the missile can fly for years, but it can be regarded as a direct indication that its flight range is many times greater than the flight range of modern cruise missiles. The second point, which cannot be ignored, is also related to the declared unlimited flight range and, accordingly, the operation of the cruise missile’s power unit. For example, a heterogeneous thermal neutron reactor, tested in the RD-0410 engine, which was developed by Kurchatov, Keldysh and Korolev, had a testing life of only 1 hour, and in this case there cannot be an unlimited flight range of such a nuclear-powered cruise missile. speech.

All this suggests that Russian scientists have proposed a completely new, previously unconsidered concept of the structure, in which a substance that has a much economical resource of consumption over long distances is used for heating and subsequent ejection from the nozzle. As an example, this could be a nuclear air-breathing engine (NARE) of a completely new type, in which the working mass is atmospheric air, pumped into the working containers by compressors, heated by a nuclear installation and then ejected through the nozzles.

It is also worth noting that the cruise missile with a nuclear power unit announced by Vladimir Putin can fly around active zones of air and missile defense systems, as well as keep its path to the target at low and ultra-low altitudes. This is only possible by equipping the missile with terrain-following systems that are resistant to interference created by enemy electronic warfare systems.

One could begin this article with a traditional passage about how science fiction writers put forward bold ideas, and scientists then bring them to life. You can, but you don’t want to write with stamps. It is better to remember that modern rocket engines, solid propellant and liquid, have more than unsatisfactory characteristics for flights over relatively long distances. They allow you to launch cargo into Earth orbit and deliver something to the Moon, although such a flight is more expensive. But flying to Mars with such engines is no longer easy. Give them fuel and oxidizer in the required quantities. And these volumes are directly proportional to the distance that must be overcome.

An alternative to traditional chemical rocket engines are electric, plasma and nuclear engines. Of all the alternative engines, only one system has reached the stage of engine development - nuclear (Nuclear Reaction Engine). In the Soviet Union and the United States, work began on the creation of nuclear rocket engines back in the 50s of the last century. The Americans were working on both options for such a power plant: reactive and pulsed. The first concept involves heating the working fluid using a nuclear reactor and then releasing it through nozzles. The pulse nuclear propulsion engine, in turn, propels the spacecraft through successive explosions of small amounts of nuclear fuel.

Also in the USA, the Orion project was invented, combining both versions of the nuclear powered engine. This was done in the following way: small nuclear charges with a capacity of about 100 tons of TNT were ejected from the tail of the ship. Metal discs were fired after them. At a distance from the ship, the charge was detonated, the disk evaporated, and the substance scattered in different directions. Part of it fell into the reinforced tail section of the ship and moved it forward. A small increase in thrust should have been provided by the evaporation of the plate taking the blows. The unit cost of such a flight should have been only 150 then dollars per kilogram of payload.

It even got to the point of testing: experience showed that movement with the help of successive impulses is possible, as is the creation of a stern plate of sufficient strength. But the Orion project was closed in 1965 as unpromising. However, this is so far the only existing concept that can allow expeditions at least across the solar system.

It was only possible to reach the construction of a prototype with a nuclear-powered rocket engine. These were the Soviet RD-0410 and the American NERVA. They worked on the same principle: in a “conventional” nuclear reactor, the working fluid is heated, which, when ejected from the nozzles, creates thrust. The working fluid of both engines was liquid hydrogen, but the Soviet one used heptane as an auxiliary substance.

The thrust of the RD-0410 was 3.5 tons, NERVA gave almost 34, but it also had large dimensions: 43.7 meters in length and 10.5 in diameter versus 3.5 and 1.6 meters, respectively, for the Soviet engine. At the same time, the American engine was three times inferior to the Soviet one in terms of resource - the RD-0410 could work for an entire hour.

However, both engines, despite their promise, also remained on Earth and did not fly anywhere. The main reason for the closure of both projects (NERVA in the mid-70s, RD-0410 in 1985) was money. The characteristics of chemical engines are worse than those of nuclear engines, but the cost of one launch of a ship with a nuclear propulsion engine with the same payload can be 8-12 times more than the launch of the same Soyuz with a liquid propellant engine. And this does not even take into account all the costs necessary to bring nuclear engines to the point of being suitable for practical use.

The decommissioning of “cheap” Shuttles and the recent lack of revolutionary breakthroughs in space technology requires new solutions. In April of this year, the then head of Roscosmos A. Perminov announced his intention to develop and put into operation a completely new nuclear propulsion system. This is precisely what, in the opinion of Roscosmos, should radically improve the “situation” in the entire world cosmonautics. Now it has become clear who should become the next revolutionaries in astronautics: the development of nuclear propulsion engines will be carried out by the FSUE Keldysh Center. The general director of the enterprise, A. Koroteev, has already pleased the public that the preliminary design of the spacecraft for the new nuclear propulsion engine will be ready next year. The engine design should be ready by 2019, with testing scheduled for 2025.

The complex was called TEM - transport and energy module. It will carry a gas-cooled nuclear reactor. The direct propulsion system has not yet been decided: either it will be a jet engine like the RD-0410, or an electric rocket engine (ERE). However, the latter type has not yet been widely used anywhere in the world: only three spacecraft were equipped with them. But the fact that the reactor can power not only the engine, but also many other units, or even use the entire TEM as a space power plant, speaks in favor of the electric propulsion engine.

Already at the end of this decade, a nuclear-powered spacecraft for interplanetary travel may be created in Russia. And this will dramatically change the situation both in near-Earth space and on the Earth itself.

The nuclear power plant (NPP) will be ready for flight in 2018. This was announced by the director of the Keldysh Center, academician Anatoly Koroteev. “We must prepare the first sample (of a megawatt-class nuclear power plant. – Expert Online’s note) for flight tests in 2018. Whether she will fly or not is another matter, there may be a queue, but she must be ready to fly,” RIA Novosti reported his words. The above means that one of the most ambitious Soviet-Russian projects in the field of space exploration is entering the phase of immediate practical implementation.

The essence of this project, the roots of which go back to the middle of the last century, is this. Now flights into near-Earth space are carried out on rockets that move due to the combustion of liquid or solid fuel in their engines. Essentially, this is the same engine as in a car. Only in a car does gasoline, when burned, push the pistons in the cylinders, transferring its energy through them to the wheels. And in a rocket engine, burning kerosene or heptyl directly pushes the rocket forward.

Over the past half century, this rocket technology has been perfected all over the world to the smallest detail. But the rocket scientists themselves admit that . Improvement - yes, it is necessary. Trying to increase the payload of rockets from the current 23 tons to 100 and even 150 tons based on “improved” combustion engines - yes, you need to try. But this is a dead end from an evolutionary point of view. " No matter how much rocket engine specialists around the world work, the maximum effect we get will be calculated in fractions of a percent. Roughly speaking, everything has been squeezed out of existing rocket engines, be they liquid or solid fuel, and attempts to increase thrust and specific impulse are simply futile. Nuclear power propulsion systems provide a multifold increase. Using the example of a flight to Mars, now it takes one and a half to two years to fly there and back, but it will be possible to fly in two to four months “- the former head of the Russian Federal Space Agency assessed the situation at one time Anatoly Perminov.

Therefore, back in 2010, the then President of Russia, and now Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev By the end of this decade, an order was given to create in our country a space transport and energy module based on a megawatt-class nuclear power plant. It is planned to allocate 17 billion rubles from the federal budget, Roscosmos and Rosatom for the development of this project until 2018. 7.2 billion of this amount was allocated to the Rosatom state corporation for the creation of a reactor plant (this is being done by the Dollezhal Research and Design Institute of Energy Engineering), 4 billion - to the Keldysh Center for the creation of a nuclear power propulsion plant. 5.8 billion rubles are allocated by RSC Energia to create a transport and energy module, that is, in other words, a rocket ship.

Naturally, all this work is not done in a vacuum. From 1970 to 1988, the USSR alone launched more than three dozen spy satellites into space, equipped with low-power nuclear power plants such as Buk and Topaz. They were used to create an all-weather system for monitoring surface targets throughout the World Ocean and issuing target designation with transmission to weapon carriers or command posts - the Legend naval space reconnaissance and target designation system (1978).

NASA and American companies that produce spacecraft and their delivery vehicles have not been able to create a nuclear reactor that would operate stably in space during this time, although they tried three times. Therefore, in 1988, a ban was passed through the UN on the use of spacecraft with nuclear power propulsion systems, and the production of satellites of the US-A type with nuclear propulsion on board in the Soviet Union was discontinued.

In parallel, in the 60-70s of the last century, the Keldysh Center carried out active work on the creation of an ion engine (electroplasma engine), which is most suitable for creating a high-power propulsion system operating on nuclear fuel. The reactor produces heat, which is converted into electricity by a generator. With the help of electricity, the inert gas xenon in such an engine is first ionized, and then positively charged particles (positive xenon ions) are accelerated in an electrostatic field to a given speed and create thrust when leaving the engine. This is the operating principle of the ion engine, a prototype of which has already been created at the Keldysh Center.

« In the 90s of the 20th century, we at the Keldysh Center resumed work on ion engines. Now a new cooperation must be created for such a powerful project. There is already a prototype of an ion engine on which basic technological and design solutions can be tested. But standard products still need to be created. We have a set deadline - by 2018 the product should be ready for flight tests, and by 2015 the main engine testing should be completed. Next - life tests and tests of the entire unit as a whole.“, noted last year the head of the electrophysics department of the Research Center named after M.V. Keldysh, Professor, Faculty of Aerophysics and Space Research, MIPT Oleg Gorshkov.

What is the practical benefit for Russia from these developments? This benefit far exceeds the 17 billion rubles that the state intends to spend by 2018 on creating a launch vehicle with a nuclear power plant on board with a capacity of 1 MW. Firstly, this is a dramatic expansion of the capabilities of our country and humanity in general. A nuclear-powered spacecraft provides real opportunities for people to accomplish things on other planets. Now many countries have such ships. They also resumed in the United States in 2003, after the Americans received two samples of Russian satellites with nuclear power plants.

However, despite this, a member of the NASA special commission on manned flights Edward Crowley for example, he believes that a ship for an international flight to Mars should have Russian nuclear engines. " Russian experience in the development of nuclear engines is in demand. I think Russia has a lot of experience both in the development of rocket engines and in nuclear technology. She also has extensive experience in human adaptation to space conditions, since Russian cosmonauts made very long flights “,” Crowley told reporters last spring after a lecture at Moscow State University on American plans for manned space exploration.

Secondly, such ships make it possible to sharply intensify activity in near-Earth space and provide a real opportunity to begin the colonization of the Moon (there are already projects for the construction of nuclear power plants on the Earth’s satellite). " The use of nuclear propulsion systems is being considered for large manned systems, rather than for small spacecraft, which can fly on other types of installations using ion engines or solar wind energy. Nuclear propulsion systems with ion engines can be used on an interorbital reusable tug. For example, transport cargo between low and high orbits, and fly to asteroids. You can create a reusable lunar tug or send an expedition to Mars“, says Professor Oleg Gorshkov. Ships like these are dramatically changing the economics of space exploration. According to calculations by RSC Energia specialists, a nuclear-powered launch vehicle reduces the cost of launching a payload into lunar orbit by more than half compared to liquid rocket engines.

Third, these are new materials and technologies that will be created during the implementation of this project and then introduced into other industries - metallurgy, mechanical engineering, etc. That is, this is one of those breakthrough projects that can really push both the Russian and global economies forward.