Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “fission power propulsion”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

173 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1976

Plasma core reactor applications

Analytical and experimental investigations were conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of fissioning uranium plasma core reactors and to characterize space and terrestrial applications for such reactors. Uranium hexafluoride fuel is injected into core cavities and confined away from the surface by argon buffer gas injected tangentially from the peripheral walls. Radiant heat transfer calculations were performed for a six-cavity reactor configuration. Axial working fluid channels are located along a fraction of each cavity peripheral wall. Results of calculations for outward-directed radiant energy fluxes corresponding to radiating temperatures of 2000 to 5000 K indicate total operating pressures from 80 to 650 atm, centerline temperatures from 6900 to 30,000 K, and total radiated powers from 25 to 2500 MW, respectively. Applications are described for this type of reactor such as (1) high-thrust, high specific impulse space propulsion, (2) highly efficient systems for generation of electricity, and (3) hydrogen or synthetic fuel production systems using the intense radiant energy fluxes.

Latham, T. S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Use of Immersion Rigs for High Temperature Hydrogen Exposure Testing Within the Nuclear Thermal Rocket Element Environmental Simulator (NTREES)

The Nuclear Thermal Rocket Element Environmental Simulator (NTREES) was designed to perform non-nuclear testing of nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) fuel elements and materials. NTREES can simulate the thermal hydraulic environment within an NTR and has been leveraged to provide critical information on component performance and material compatibility. NTREES has the ability to expose test articles to pressurized Hydrogen gas up to 1000 psig and 225 g/s. NTREES tests are operated in a deoxygenated environment of Nitrogen or Argon pressurized up to 1000 psig. NTREES simulates fission heat through induction heating powered by a 1.2 MW AC power supply, and NTREES has recorded temperatures exceeding 3700K. To perform hot Hydrogen exposure tests on materials more rapidly and earlier in the fuel development process, NTREES must be able to test small material samples on the order of 1 square inch in volume, individual fuel assembly subcomponents, and particle materials. To meet these needs, multiple testing rigs have been developed to immerse test specimens in hot Hydrogen, with each "immersion rig" varying in its capability of sample type and performance range in order to meet the broadest range of testing needs. Herein is a discussion of a selection of these “immersion rigs.”

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion↗
NASA NTRS2015

Affordable Development and Demonstration of a Small NTR Engine and Stage: How Small is Big Enough?

The Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) derives its energy from fission of uranium-235 atoms contained within fuel elements that comprise the engine's reactor core. It generates high thrust and has a specific impulse potential of approximately 900 seconds - a 100% increase over today's best chemical rockets. The Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) project, funded by NASA's AES program, includes five key task activities: (1) Recapture, demonstration, and validation of heritage graphite composite (GC) fuel (selected as the "Lead Fuel" option); (2) Engine Conceptual Design; (3) Operating Requirements Definition; (4) Identification of Affordable Options for Ground Testing; and (5) Formulation of an Affordable Development Strategy. During FY'14, a preliminary DDT&E plan and schedule for NTP development was outlined by GRC, DOE and industry that involved significant system-level demonstration projects that included GTD tests at the NNSS, followed by a FTD mission. To reduce cost for the GTD tests and FTD mission, small NTR engines, in either the 7.5 or 16.5 klbf thrust class, were considered. Both engine options used GC fuel and a "common" fuel element (FE) design. The small approximately 7.5 klbf "criticality-limited" engine produces approximately 157 megawatts of thermal power (MWt) and its core is configured with parallel rows of hexagonal-shaped FEs and tie tubes (TTs) with a FE to TT ratio of approximately 1:1. The larger approximately 16.5 klbf Small Nuclear Rocket Engine (SNRE), developed by LANL at the end of the Rover program, produces approximately 367 MWt and has a FE to TT ratio of approximately 2:1. Although both engines use a common 35 inch (approximately 89 cm) long FE, the SNRE's larger diameter core contains approximately 300 more FEs needed to produce an additional 210 MWt of power. To reduce the cost of the FTD mission, a simple "1-burn" lunar flyby mission was considered to reduce the LH2 propellant loading, the stage size and complexity. Use of existing and flight proven liquid rocket and stage hardware (e.g., from the RL10B-2 engine and Delta Cryogenic Second Stage) was also maximized to further aid affordability. This paper examines the pros and cons of using these two small engine options, including their potential to support future human exploration missions to the Moon, near Earth asteroids, and Mars, and recommends a preferred size. It also provides a preliminary assessment of the key activities, development options, and schedule required to affordably build, ground test and fly a small NTR engine and stage within a 10-year timeframe.

Spacecraft design↗
NASA NTRS2019

The Value Proposition of Multi-Megawatt Electric Power/Propulsion for the Human Exploration of Mars

NASA and other space agencies have been offering stakeholders an architecture for the human exploration of Mars that has remained essentially unchanged since the 1960's. The mission duration and launch mass are the two first order figures of merit that drive the total cost of such an architecture. The options studied to date center on the "conjunction class" or "Long Stay" mission, in which surface infrastructure elements are sent ahead on uncrewed, slow trajectories requiring a minimum amount of propellant, and the crewed elements are sent at the synotic cycle's shortest trajectory, stay on Mars until the next close alignment, and then return to Earth. Total crewed mission durations for these architectures range from 900 to 1100 days, with variations driven primarily by trades between the amount of propellant launched and the effective specific mass of the propulsion technology assumed (e.g., chemical, nuclear thermal, solar electric, nuclear electric). Mars transit propulsion systems assumed in mission architectures studied to date have all resulted in architectural figures of merit that drive the cost to a level of "too much." However, nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) technology offers a "knob" that might be turned to enable a radically different Mars architecture, whose launch mass and mission duration may enable a value proposition more palatable to mission stakeholders. Mars architectures studied to date have assumed an NEP system providing 2.5 MWe at a specific mass of no less than 20 kg/kWe. This has often been seen as obtainable with a moderately high temperature fission reactor. An NEP system providing 15 MWe at specific mass of ~1 kg/kWe, though, could enable a short stay (30 days on surface) Mars mission, requiring only two or three SLS-class launch vehicles and a total mission duration of under one calendar year. However, turning this NEP "knob" would require a high risk development program driving innovation on the order of that delivered by the Manhattan Project, but for a fraction of the cost. Any technology option that might offer such a capability at such a development cost now stands at a low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3, would be based on a nuclear energy source (likely fusion), and would require an extremely high risk (and rapid) development effort. The aggressive, parallel path project management paradigm exemplified by the original Manhattan Project might have the best chance of success. An energy source developed in this manner may also have a major impact on the terrestrial power industry.

power↗
NASA NTRS2012

Concept Assessment of a Fission Fragment Rocket Engine (FFRE) Propelled Spacecraft

The March, 2012 issue of Aerospace America stated that ―the near-to-medium prospects for applying advanced propulsion to create a new era of space exploration are not very good. In the current world, we operate to the Moon by climbing aboard a Carnival Cruise Lines vessel (Saturn 5), sail from the harbor (liftoff) shedding whole decks of the ship (staging) along the way and, having reached the return leg of the journey, sink the ship (burnout) and return home in a lifeboat (Apollo capsule). Clearly this is an illogical way to travel, but forced on Explorers by today's propulsion technology. However, the article neglected to consider the one propulsion technology, using today's physical principles that offer continuous, substantial thrust at a theoretical specific impulse of 1,000,000 sec. This engine unequivocally can create a new era of space exploration that changes the way spacecraft operate. Today's space Explorers could travel in Cruise Liner fashion using the technology not considered by Aerospace America, the novel Dusty Plasma Fission Fragment Rocket Engine (FFRE). This NIAC study addresses the FFRE as well as its impact on Exploration Spacecraft design and operation. It uses common physics of the relativistic speed of fission fragments to produce thrust. It radiatively cools the fissioning dusty core and magnetically controls the fragments direction to practically implement previously patented, but unworkable designs. The spacecraft hosting this engine is no more complex nor more massive than the International Space Station (ISS) and would employ the successful ISS technology for assembly and check-out. The elements can be lifted in "chunks" by a Heavy Lift Launcher. This Exploration Spacecraft would require the resupply of small amounts of nuclear fuel for each journey and would be an in-space asset for decades just as any Cruise Liner on Earth. This study has synthesized versions of the FFRE, integrated one concept onto a host spacecraft designed for manned travel to Jupiter's moon, Callisto, and assessed that round trip journey. This engine, although unoptimized, produced 10 pounds force of thrust at a delivered specific impulse of 527,000 seconds for the entire 15-year mission while providing enormous amounts of electrical power to the spacecraft. A payload of 60 metric tons, included in the 300 metric ton vehicle, was carried to Callisto and back; the propellant tanks holding the 4 metric tons of fuel were not jettisoned in the process. The study concluded that the engine and spacecraft are within today's technology, could be built, tested, launched on several SLS (Space Launch System) (or similar) launchers, integrated, checked out, moved to an in-space base such as at a Lagrange point and operated for decades.

Engine↗
NASA NTRS2015

Affordable Development and Demonstration of a Small NTR Engine and Stage: A Preliminary NASA, DOE, and Industry Assessment

The Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) represents the next evolutionary step in cryogenic liquid rocket engines. Deriving its energy from fission of uranium-235 atoms contained within fuel elements that comprise the engine's reactor core, the NTR can generate high thrust at a specific impulse of approx. 900 seconds or more - twice that of today's best chemical rockets. In FY'11, as part of the AISP project, NASA proposed a Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) effort that envisioned two key activities - "Foundational Technology Development" followed by system-level "Technology Demonstrations". Five near-term NTP activities identified for Foundational Technology Development became the basis for the NCPS project started in FY'12 and funded by NASA's AES program. During Phase 1 (FY'12-14), the NCPS project was focused on (1) Recapturing fuel processing techniques and fabricating partial length "heritage" fuel elements for the two candidate fuel forms identified by NASA and the DOE - NERVA graphite "composite" and the uranium dioxide (UO2) in tungsten "cermet". The Phase 1 effort also included: (2) Engine Conceptual Design; (3) Mission Analysis and Requirements Definition; (4) Identification of Affordable Options for Ground Testing; and (5) Formulation of an Affordable and Sustainable NTP Development Strategy. During FY'14, a preliminary plan for DDT&E was outlined by GRC, the DOE and industry for NASA HQ that involved significant system-level demonstration projects that included GTD tests at the NNSS, followed by a FTD mission. To reduce development costs, the GTD and FTD tests use a small, low thrust (approx. 7.5 or 16.5 klbf) engine. Both engines use graphite composite fuel and a "common" fuel element design that is scalable to higher thrust (approx. 25 klbf) engines by increasing the number of elements in a larger diameter core that can produce greater thermal power output. To keep the FTD mission cost down, a simple "1-burn" lunar flyby mission was considered along with maximizing the use of existing and flight proven liquid rocket and stage hardware (e.g., from the RL10-B2 engine and Delta Cryogenic Second Stage) to further ensure affordability. This paper provides a preliminary NASA, DOE and industry assessment of what is required - the key DDT&E activities, development options, and the associated schedule - to affordably build, ground test and fly a small NTR engine and stage within a 10-year timeframe.

Nuclear rocket engines↗
NASA NTRS2016

Affordable Development and Demonstration of a Small Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) Engine and Stage: How Small Is Big Enough?

The Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) derives its energy from fission of uranium-235 atoms contained within fuel elements that comprise the engine's reactor core. It generates high thrust and has a specific impulse potential of approximately 900 specific impulse - a 100 percent increase over today's best chemical rockets. The Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) project, funded by NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) program, includes five key task activities: (1) Recapture, demonstration, and validation of heritage graphite composite (GC) fuel (selected as the Lead Fuel option); (2) Engine Conceptual Design; (3) Operating Requirements Definition; (4) Identification of Affordable Options for Ground Testing; and (5) Formulation of an Affordable Development Strategy. During fiscal year (FY) 2014, a preliminary Design Development Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) plan and schedule for NTP development was outlined by the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC), Department of Energy (DOE) and industry that involved significant system-level demonstration projects that included Ground Technology Demonstration (GTD) tests at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), followed by a Flight Technology Demonstration (FTD) mission. To reduce cost for the GTD tests and FTD mission, small NTR engines, in either the 7.5 or 16.5 kilopound-force thrust class, were considered. Both engine options used GC fuel and a common fuel element (FE) design. The small approximately 7.5 kilopound-force criticality-limited engine produces approximately157 thermal megawatts and its core is configured with parallel rows of hexagonal-shaped FEs and tie tubes (TTs) with a FE to TT ratio of approximately 1:1. The larger approximately 16.5 kilopound-force Small Nuclear Rocket Engine (SNRE), developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) at the end of the Rover program, produces approximately 367 thermal megawatts and has a FE to TT ratio of approximately 2:1. Although both engines use a common 35-inch (approximately 89-centimeters) -long FE, the SNRE's larger diameter core contains approximately 300 more FEs needed to produce an additional 210 thermal megawatts of power. To reduce the cost of the FTD mission, a simple one-burn lunar flyby mission was considered to reduce the liquid hydrogen (LH2) propellant loading, the stage size and complexity. Use of existing and flight proven liquid rocket and stage hardware (e.g., from the RL10B-2 engine and Delta Cryogenic Second Stage) was also maximized to further aid affordability. This paper examines the pros and cons of using these two small engine options, including their potential to support future human exploration missions to the Moon, near Earth asteroids (NEA), and Mars, and recommends a preferred size. It also provides a preliminary assessment of the key activities, development options, and schedule required to affordably build, ground test and fly a small NTR engine and stage within a 10-year timeframe.

Spacecraft design↗
NASA NTRS2022

Separating Propulsive Mass and Energy for Space Applications

Initially and traditionally, space access and in-space propulsion utilized combustion and expulsion of chemical “fuels” carried on board, with performance governed by the rocket equation. These chemicals produced energy, and after combustion, constituted the propulsive mass/momentum. The best such chemicals in terms of Isp that are deemed safe engineering/mission wise are hydrogen and oxygen, producing some 450 seconds of Isp. There are more reactive chemicals, such as fluorine, which have higher Isp, but also have serious safety issues. Propulsion in atmospheres can ingest atmospheric constituents (aka “airbreathing propulsion”) which provide additional propulsive mass when heated and a component of the combustion/energy generation process. This utilization of non-stored/carried propulsive mass provides partial separation of propulsive mass and energy and produces higher Isp. The other approach to separating propulsive mass and energy is to, either on board or added from offboard, supply additional energy, such as from nuclear or solar sources. This is the approach for fission nuclear thermal and electric propulsion, which can provide an Isp in excess of 800 seconds of Isp. Other processes or in addition to thermal expansion, such as electro-magnetics, can be employed to increase exit velocity and Isp. Separating propulsive mass and energy for space faring is commonly referred to as a means to circumvent the rocket equation and is capable of producing major benefits for the development of commercial deep space and space faring in general including affordable fast transits to mitigate the human health impacts of galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) and microG. The key to higher than chemical Isp, beyond H2-O2, and beyond the radiated energy and systems limitations of solar for space faring, is a light weight, high energy density source, either on board or via utilization of energy beaming to the vehicle. Traditional energy sources include chemical, heat, electrics, mechanical, photons, and nuclear. Propulsive mass can be carried on board, sourced beyond the surface of Earth via in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), and includes harvesting from atmospheres. High Isp via electromagnetic related propulsive mass acceleration requires sufficient ionization and conductivity. The major metrics for space propulsion are costs, safety, Isp, weight, and thrust level, the latter dependent upon mission requirements. High thrust for human missions is needed to reduce time exposed to radiation and microG and high thrust is required for space access. Costs of space access are reducing via reusability, printing manufacture, and robotization of manufacturing and operation. Chemical rockets provide high thrust from the expansion of the heated mass constituents at high mass flow. The other high thrust propulsion approach is magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), which, in addition to high thrust, has a high Isp of over 2,000 seconds of Isp. The VASIMIR engine offers some 5,000 seconds of Isp at high thrust [ref. 3]. Electric propulsion cycles are capable of Isp much higher than that but at low thrust levels using available energy sources. With cost as a major metric, reusable rockets and improved manufacturing and operations are rapidly greatly lowering the costs of space access, which could provide/supply in space fuel depots and affordable chemical propulsion for the desired human fast transits (e.g., some 200-day round trips to Mars). The other option for fast transits is VASIMIR, given a nuclear on-board energy source that has the requisite many megawatts of power and an alpha, kgs of weight/kW of energy produced, on the order of one (i.e., a light weight, high energy density energy source). The purpose of this report is to examine the options beyond traditional rocket engines, where propulsive mass and energy are combined, specifically the separation of propulsive mass and energy. This report considers the spectrum of advanced energetics, sources of propulsive mass, conductivity enhancement approaches, energy beaming possibilities, and candidate propulsion cycles. Suggestions are made for various combinatorial, system level, beyond traditional combustion rocket, space propulsion approaches for human deep space missions given the changing conditions of increased knowledge of deep space resources for ISRU, revolutionary energetics, and technology advancements writ large.

Dennis M. Bushnell↗
DOE OSTI2022

Neutronics Modeling of the pulsed plasma rocket reactor using rattlesnake

In the pulsed plasma rocket (PPR) reactor, neutron induced fission processes are utilized to implement a series of pulsed micro-explosions of very high power and eject plasma as a propellant. More specifically, projectiles (bullets) composed of moderated uranium are sent through the chamber of an unmoderated uranium barrel. By inducing rapid fission within the bullets, a plasma can be generated with appropriate delivery of neutrons. This study aims to assess the neutronics performance of the PPR reactor during normal operations using the MOOSE-based Rattlesnake code through the evaluation of the impact of the movement of the fuel bullet and the rotation of control drums on the criticality of the system. The Monte Carlo (MC) code Serpent 2 was employed to generate material-based cross sections for use in Rattlesnake and the reference neutronics solution. Cubit was used to generate the mesh for the Rattlesnake model. Parametric studies were conducted to evaluate the best approaches for cross section and mesh generation to ensure accurate results from Rattlesnake. As part of the verification process, the eigenvalue results of the system at various fuel bullet positions were obtained using Rattlesnake and compared with the reference solutions. The acceptable differences show that the Rattlesnake model with appropriate cross section and mesh generation procedure is a sufficiently accurate approximation of the continuous energy (CE) MC model for micro-sized reactors like the PPR reactor. Next, the impact of the rotation of the control drums on the system criticality was evaluated using the verified model. It was shown that the high-fidelity simulation using the deterministic code Rattlesnake can produce sufficiently accurate results for the evaluation of the reactor's neutronics performance in different phases of the normal operation with acceptable computational cost.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
NASA NTRS2019

Fusion-Enabled Pluto Orbiter and Lander

Direct Fusion Drive (DFD) is a unique fusion engine concept based on the Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration (PFRC) fusion reactor conceived by Dr. Sam Cohen of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. DFD would enable the Pluto orbiter and lander context mission and more broadly enable true "rapid transit" to outer-planet and near interstellar space. The truly game-changing levels of thrust and power in a modestly sized package could integrate with our current launch infrastructure while radically expanding the science capability of these missions. Our Phase I was our first funded work on the DFD, with previous work at PSS occurring only under internal R&D. We established the feasibility of our Pluto mission trajectories using straight-line and planar models, including a departure spiral from Earth and insertion at Pluto. We developed our first thrust and specific impulse model using the results of the UEDGE multi-fluid code. Our specific power model was improved. During this Phase II effort, we continued our efforts to increase the fidelity of the designs for the RF, magnet, and shielding subsystems. Dedicated thrust augmentation experiments were run on the PFRC experiment, using a supersonic gas puffing valve. For the first time, we analyzed the design of a closed-loop operation mode and estimated the hardware that would be required for a dual-mode engine. In an exciting new development, we have invented a new thermophotovoltaic thermal conversion method that has the potential to have efficiencies of a Brayton or Stirling system. Our report presents details of these analyses. Our roadmap to bringing DFD to flight predicts that with sufficient support, a first flight unit could be built by 2040. We anticipate that three machine generations are required before this point: a ~1 T PFRC-3 machine hitting new plasma temperature and density levels, a ~5 T PFRC-4 machine with first demonstration of D-3He fusion, and a flight. (The current experiment, PFRC-2, is limited to about 0.1 T). In order to achieve a flight in 2035-2040, the TRL of the supporting systems must be increased in parallel, including low mass radiators, cryogenic propellant storage, and large (>100 kW) thermal conversion systems. Fortunately, many of these systems are dual-use and are required for other technologies including fission systems, so DFD would contribute to and benefit from those programs. This NIAC support and the results of our work have led to multiple follow-on contracts. We won two NASA STTRs focused on DFD subsystems, one on the RF system and one on the superconducting magnets, and our magnet STTR is now midway through a Phase II. We will be receiving a superconducting test magnet for experiments at PPPL this summer. In addition, we won an ARPA-E OPEN grant; this is the first time that OPEN has included fusion technologies, and we are part of a cohort of three alternative fusion companies now supported directly by DOE. We are very optimistic that if we are able to meet our experimental milestones in the next 12-18 months, we will be competitive for additional DOE grants to build PFRC-3.

Propulsion↗
NASA NTRS2014

Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) Development Risk Communication

There are clear advantages of development of a Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) for a crewed mission to Mars. NTR for in-space propulsion enables more ambitious space missions by providing high thrust at high specific impulse (approximately 900 sec) that is 2 times the best theoretical performance possible for chemical rockets. Missions can be optimized for maximum payload capability to take more payload with reduced total mass to orbit; saving cost on reduction of the number of launch vehicles needed. Or missions can be optimized to minimize trip time significantly to reduce the deep space radiation exposure to the crew. NTR propulsion technology is a game changer for space exploration. However, "NUCLEAR" is a word that is feared and vilified by some groups and the hostility towards development of any nuclear systems can meet great opposition by the public as well as from national leaders and people in authority. Communication of nuclear safety will be critical to the success of the development of the NTR. Why is there a fear of nuclear? A bomb that can level a city is a scary weapon. The first and only times the Nuclear Bomb was used in a war was on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2. The "Little Boy" atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and the "Fat Man" on Nagasaki 3 days later on August 9th. Within the first 4 months of bombings, 90- 166 thousand people died in Hiroshima and 60-80 thousand died in Nagasaki. It is important to note for comparison that over 500 thousand people died and 5 million made homeless due to strategic bombing (approximately 150 thousand tons) of Japanese cities and war assets with conventional non-nuclear weapons between 1942- 1945. A major bombing campaign of "firebombing" of Tokyo called "Operation Meetinghouse" on March 9 and 10 consisting of 334 B-29's dropped approximately1,700 tons of bombs around 16 square mile area and over 100 thousand people have been estimated to have died. The declaration of death is very clear for conventional weapons and then the declaration of death due to radiation becomes vague and unclear. This may have been due to people mis-understanding the dangers and effects of radiation when assessing the damage and harm to people initially, but it is also become insidious when expressing opposition to nuclear energy. A nuclear radiation accident can be scary due to the power involved and the fear of radiation release. The International Atomic Energy Agency defines a nuclear and radiation accident a "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility." There have been 3 commercial nuclear reactor accidents (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima) that stand out to the public and much of the information about the result and impact to workers, environment, and public can be misleading. Often information is presented without clear correlation with radiation and other pertinent information is left out presenting a very scary situation to affect the emotions of the reader. A very boring but "critically acclaimed" movie was made in 1979 called "The China Syndrome" starring Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon. The film was released on March 16, 1979, 12 days before the 3-Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania. The basis from the movie was from a few nuclear plant incidents and in particular, the Brown's Ferry Alabama Power Plant fire. In one scene from the movie, a physicist Dr. Elliott Lowell played by Donald Hotton states that a China Syndrome event would make "an area the size of Pennsylvania" permanently uninhabitable. Real serious nuclear incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima are often sited to make people fear the consequences of using nuclear power. However, the consequences are at best poorly communicated and at worst fictitiously inflated to instigate social unrest against nuclear power. There is an article being circulated on Facebook with a title "28 Signs that the (US) West Coast is being absolutely fried with nuclear radiation from Fukushima" which focus on mis-information and fear mongering. Nuclear power and NTR are powerful resources that can open many doors for future prosperity and capability. With great power comes great responsibility. Radiation and its effects need to be better understood, quantified, and communicated. A human mission to mars has its own risks of deep space radiation and is considered a considerable risk at 400 milli-Sieverts per year in deep space and 245 milli-Sieverts per year on the surface of Mars as measured by the Mars Curiosity mission. Although these quantities of ionizing radiation are within the astronaut career limit, it exceeds the yearly average amounts of ionizing radiation. Astronaut crews have experienced these levels of radiation before, but for durations shorter than a year, and a mission to Mars could possibly be 3 years in length. There is also evidence that people can comfortably handle higher levels of ionizing radiation where the radiation occurs naturally like Ramsar, Iran when people can experience 270 milli-Sieverts per year. A risk posture that the development, test, and flight of an NTR will meet opposition from groups who oppose nuclear energy must be likely and the impact can be sever to the effort. Active risk mitigation must be taken for an NTR full-scale development project. The NTR design must take into account safety for transport and off nominal conditions. Nuclear fuel element must consider containment of fission products and Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) that may meet less opposition should be considered for safety and security reasons. Even though testing was conducted on Rover/NERVA safely and successfully in the 60's with exhaust sent heavenward in to open air, modern testing of NTR must consider full containment and no release of ionizing radiation to the public and must meet the current requirement of no more than 0.1 milli-Sieverts per year to the public. 0.1 milli-Sieverts is equivalent to eating one banana or a 20 hour plane flight. Good communication with the public and regulatory agencies will be essential to show that all effort is applied toward protection to the public and astronauts. The inspiring endeavor to put humans on Mars to study the planet, search for life, and learn more about this Solar System will be full of risks but it will be worth it. NTR will be worth the development effort if it allows humans to explore our Solar System.

Kim, Tony↗