Talk:Project Timberwind

Timberwind 75 - Diameter seems to be wrong

The external source says: Diameter 6.67 ft (2.03 m) but that's less than the smaller Timberwind 45 engine with 13.94 ft (4.25 m). In relation to the Timberwind 250 with 28.5 ft (8.7 m) my guess would be around 16.8 ft (5.12 m) diameter for the 75. On the other hand I can't imagine an Enigne with 1/3 of the thrust of the F-1, almost the same weight and more than 2 times the diameter. Could it be that for the Timberwind 45 and 250 the diameter of the stage is meant? (SternFuchs (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

From refs on the refs given I've added stage lengths and a 6 metre diameter for TW 75. Could be improved to separate engine details from rocket stage details. - Rod57 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Program in this article

"in contrast to the TIMBER WIND project," ? why is Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Program in this article ? If it belongs here can we make the link explicit ? Was the TW project moved into, or transformed into, SNTP ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a rebranding when the project was transferred in Oct 1991, but the goals were different (outside the atmosphere vs 2nd stage launcher), and technology might have been different. Timberwind was a particle-bed reactor. The SNTP images look more like NERVA. - Rod57 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are they called particle-bed rather than pebble-bed reactors

pebble-bed reactors all seem to use 6 cm diameter spheres. What size spheres did Timberwind propose & test ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)