Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “fission power technology”

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.

197 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2004

Trajectory Analysis

The Systems Analysis Branch performs trajectory and systems analysis for next-generation launch vehicle and space transportation technologies. Currently the branch is supporting the Project Prometheus with analysis of nuclear electric and nuclear thermal propulsion missions to a variety of destinations. Within Project Prometheus a proposed mission to Jupiter and three of the planet sized icy moons that orbit it is developing. The Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) as the project is being called will enable detailed scientific investigation of Jupiter's moons Callisto, Ganymede, and Europa. These moons were choose to orbit for intensive study in particular because they are each believed to have water, energy, and organic material. The JIMO mission will utilize nuclear fission power and electric propulsion in order to allow the spacecraft to orbit the moons at close range for long durations of time. My assignment this summer was to assist in developing a trajectory analysis for the spacecraft system the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter by rewriting an inefficient Excel file into a more efficient FORTRAN program. This program has been created for use planning the trajectory of the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter Mission. The program uses a database of thousands of data points representing flight time, burn time, thrust, mass of the propellant used, final mass of the spacecraft, ratio of finals mass to initial mass, and change in velocity that a spacecraft experiences during each phase in the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter Mission. The trajectory program is capable of taking a specific user entered specific impulse (isp), final mass fraction, and thrust (P(sub J)/m0) and through the use of cubic splines to fit specific data curves, the program can locate the exact flight time linked to the user specified values of specific impulse and final over initial mass fraction. Currently, the database used by the program to calculate flight times for a given thrust is only for isps in the range of 2000 to 9000 seconds. Although the program is specific to the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission, it can be easily modified to fit any mission with a propulsion system expected isp range between 2000 and 9000 seconds. This program performs the same tasks as the old Excel file but in a more timely fashion. Finally, this FORTRAN program will replace the Excel file as the tool used to calculate trajectory properties in missions and will provide valuable data to mission analysts for years to come.

Burke, Laura M.↗
NASA NTRS2015

NASA's Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Project

Space fission power systems can provide a power rich environment anywhere in the solar system, independent of available sunlight. Space fission propulsion offers the potential for enabling rapid, affordable access to any point in the solar system. One type of space fission propulsion is Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP). NTP systems operate by using a fission reactor to heat hydrogen to very high temperature (>2500 K) and expanding the hot hydrogen through a supersonic nozzle. First generation NTP systems are designed to have an Isp of approximately 900 s. The high Isp of NTP enables rapid crew transfer to destinations such as Mars, and can also help reduce mission cost, improve logistics (fewer launches), and provide other benefits. However, for NTP systems to be utilized they must be affordable and viable to develop. NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) NTP project is a technology development project that will help assess the affordability and viability of NTP. Early work has included fabrication of representative graphite composite fuel element segments, coating of representative graphite composite fuel element segments, fabrication of representative cermet fuel element segments, and testing of fuel element segments in the Compact Fuel Element Environmental Tester (CFEET). Near-term activities will include testing approximately 16" fuel element segments in the Nuclear Thermal Rocket Element Environmental Simulator (NTREES), and ongoing research into improving fuel microstructure and coatings. In addition to recapturing fuels technology, affordable development, qualification, and utilization strategies must be devised. Options such as using low-enriched uranium (LEU) instead of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) are being assessed, although that option requires development of a key technology before it can be applied to NTP in the thrust range of interest. Ground test facilities will be required, especially if NTP is to be used in conjunction with high value or crewed missions. There are potential options for either modifying existing facilities or constructing new ground test facilities. At least three potential options exist for reducing (or eliminating) the release of radioactivity into the environment during ground testing. These include fully containing the NTP exhaust during the ground test, scrubbing the exhaust, or utilizing an existing borehole at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) to filter the exhaust. Finally, the project is considering the potential for an early flight demonstration of an engine very similar to one that could be used to support human Mars or other ambitious missions. The flight demonstration could be an important step towards the eventual utilization of NTP.

Houts, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2011

A Small Fission Power System with Stirling Power Conversion for NASA Science Missions

In early 2010, a joint National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Department of Energy (DOE) study team developed a concept for a 1 kWe Fission Power System with a 15-year design life that could be available for a 2020 launch to support future NASA science missions. The baseline concept included a solid block uranium-molybdenum reactor core with embedded heat pipes and distributed thermoelectric converters directly coupled to aluminum radiator fins. A short follow-on study was conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) to evaluate an alternative power conversion approach. The GRC study considered the use of free-piston Stirling power conversion as a substitution to the thermoelectric converters. The resulting concept enables a power increase to 3 kWe with the same reactor design and scalability to 10 kW without changing the reactor technology. This paper presents the configuration layout, system performance, mass summary, and heat transfer analysis resulting from the study.

Mason, Lee↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Long -Term Architecture Development For The Moon And M

Developing an enterprise-level architecture encompassing future human-robotic science and exploration at the Moon and Mars requires a visionary approach that ensures NASA is responsive to national priorities and global science and technology advancement objectives. While the initial capabilities needed to return humans to the Moon may be well understood, NASA is still formulating a long-term infrastructure at the Moon and working to narrow the trade space for the first human missions to Mars. This paper will focus on the formulation and current status of engineering and design applications for a long-term and robust lunar architecture that will implement the Artemis Base Camp concept, including pre-formulation activities and elements currently in formulation. Authors will demonstrate how the Moon-to-Mars campaign approach fosters commonality of requirements and standards across individual mission elements, as well as multi-destination systems and operations, to reduce risk and encourage healthy competition in the growing space market. Among the Artemis Base Camp elements discussed will be multiple surface mobility elements, a fixed, anchoring surface habitat, fission surface power, and an in-situ resource development pilot plant. The narrative will clearly illustrate the direct evolution of the base camp elements to a minimal Mars architecture concept, and also outline unique development efforts that will be required in the next decade to make it possible to send humans to the Red Planet as early as the 2030s.

Greg Chavers↗
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 NTRSDate not supplied

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.

Mark E Lewis↗
NASA NTRS2012

Heat Rejection from a Variable Conductance Heat Pipe Radiator Panel

A titanium-water heat pipe radiator having an innovative proprietary evaporator configuration was evaluated in a large vacuum chamber equipped with liquid nitrogen cooled cold walls. The radiator was manufactured by Advanced Cooling Technologies, Inc. (ACT), Lancaster, PA, and delivered as part of a Small Business Innovative Research effort. The radiator panel consisted of five titanium-water heat pipes operating as thermosyphons, sandwiched between two polymer matrix composite face sheets. The five variable conductance heat pipes were purposely charged with a small amount of non-condensable gas to control heat flow through the condenser. Heat rejection was evaluated over a wide range of inlet water temperature and flow conditions, and heat rejection was calculated in real-time utilizing a data acquisition system programmed with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Thermography through an infra-red transparent window identified heat flow across the panel. Under nominal operation, a maximum heat rejection value of over 2200 Watts was identified. The thermal vacuum evaluation of heat rejection provided critical information on understanding the radiator s performance, and in steady state and transient scenarios provided useful information for validating current thermal models in support of the Fission Power Systems Project.

Jaworske, D. A.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Instability and Target Design in a Z-Pinch Driven Pulsed Fission / Fusion Engine

Advanced forms of propulsion are required to drastically improve upon the limits of existing technology and enable deep space exploration. Nuclear reactors, both fission and fusion, have great potential as systems with high energy density for spacecraft propulsion. There are a variety of nuclear propulsion concepts that have been proposed over the last several decades. Some of these rely on the confinement of plasmas by both magnetic and inertial means. When discussing the plasma confinement one must consider the stability of the system. The conditions of the plasma dictate the burn rate of the nuclear fuel; therefore, the plasma must maintain a minimum set of conditions in order to achieve an adequate burn. Instabilities limit plasma confinement through growing fluctuations in density and pressure. This results in turbulent mixing and loss of confinement. Thus it is desirable to find ways of managing the impact of instabilities that arise in order for a sufficient burn of the fuel such that surplus energy can be converted into a propulsive force. Note that the same instabilities plague the confinement of plasmas for terrestrial power generation. Over the last several years there has been research relating to the development of a Pulsed Fission-Fusion Engine (PuFF) conducted by the authors and others at their respective institutions. The propulsion system concept centers on the use of a z-pinch to compress a plasma in order to induce nuclear reactions. The plasma along with the additional energy released by the fission and fusion processes is expanded with a magnetic nozzle to produce thrust. The concept, if developed, is expected to have an improvement in specific impulse of several orders of magnitude in comparison with chemical propulsion systems. The z-pinch has been explored in the past as a method to confine a plasma via magnetic confinement fusion (MCF) for power generation. It suffers; however, from instabilities that so far have prevented break even conditions.

Taylor, Brian↗
NASA NTRS2002

Phase 1 Space Fission Propulsion Energy Source Design

Fission technology can enable rapid, affordable access to any point in the solar system. If fission propulsion systems are to be developed to their full potential; however, near-term customers must be identified and initial fission systems successfully developed, launched, and operated. Studies conducted in fiscal year 2001 (IISTP, 2001) show that fission electric propulsion (FEP) systems with a specific mass at or below 50 kg/kWjet could enhance or enable numerous robotic outer solar system missions of interest. At the required specific mass, it is possible to develop safe, affordable systems that meet mission requirements. To help select the system design to pursue, eight evaluation criteria were identified: system integration, safety, reliability, testability, specific mass, cost, schedule, and programmatic risk. A top-level comparison of four potential concepts was performed: a Testable, Passive, Redundant Reactor (TPRR), a Testable Multi-Cell In-Core Thermionic Reactor (TMCT), a Direct Gas Cooled Reactor (DGCR), and a Pumped Liquid Metal Reactor.(PLMR). Development of any of the four systems appears feasible. However, for power levels up to at least 500 kWt (enabling electric power levels of 125-175 kWe, given 25-35% power conversion efficiency) the TPRR has advantages related to several criteria and is competitive with respect to all. Hardware-based research and development has further increased confidence in the TPRR approach. Successful development and utilization of a "Phase I" fission electric propulsion system will enable advanced Phase 2 and Phase 3 systems capable of providing rapid, affordable access to any point in the solar system.

Houts, Mike↗
NASA NTRS1992

Fusion energy from the Moon for the twenty-first century

It is shown in this paper that the D-He-3 fusion fuel cycle is not only credible from a physics standpoint, but that its breakeven and ignition characteristics could be developed on roughly the same time schedule as the DT cycle. It was also shown that the extremely low fraction of power in neutrons, the lack of significant radioactivity in the reactants, and the potential for very high conversion efficiencies, can result in definite advantages for the D-He-3 cycle with respect to DT fusion and fission reactors in the twenty-first century. More specifically, the D-He-3 cycle can accomplish the following: (1) eliminate the need for deep geologic waste burial facilities and the wastes can qualify for Class A, near-surface land burial; (2) allow 'inherently safe' reactors to be built that, under the worst conceivable accident, cannot cause a civilian fatality or result in a significant (greater than 100 mrem) exposure to a member of the public; (3) reduce the radiation damage levels to a point where no scheduled replacement of reactor structural components is required, i.e., full reactor lifetimes (approximately 30 FPY) can be credibly claimed; (4) increase the reliability and availability of fusion reactors compared to DT systems because of the greatly reduced radioactivity, the low neutron damage, and the elimination of T breeding; and (5) greatly reduce the capital costs of fusion power plants (compared to DT systems) by as much as 50 percent and present the potential for a significant reduction on the COE. The concepts presented in this paper tie together two of the most ambitious high-technology endeavors of the twentieth century: the development of controlled thermonuclear fusion for civilian power applications and the utilization of outer space for the benefit of mankind on Earth.

Kulcinski, G. L.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Fission Surface Power for the Exploration and Colonization of Mars

The colonization of Mars will require abundant energy. One potential energy source is nuclear fission. Terrestrial fission systems are highly developed and have the demonstrated ability to safely produce tremendous amounts of energy. In space, fission systems not only have the potential to safely generate tremendous amounts of energy, but could also potentially be used on missions where alternatives are not practical. Programmatic risks such as cost and schedule are potential concerns with fission surface power (FSP) systems. To be mission enabling, FSP systems must be affordable and programmatic risk must be kept acceptably low to avoid jeopardizing exploration efforts that may rely on FSP. Initial FSP systems on Mars could be "workhorse" units sized to enable the establishment of a Mars base and the early growth of a colony. These systems could be nearly identical to FSP systems used on the moon. The systems could be designed to be safe, reliable, and have low development and recurring costs. Systems could also be designed to fit on relatively small landers. One potential option for an early Mars FSP system would be a 100 kWt class, NaK cooled system analogous to space reactors developed and flown under the U.S. "SNAP" program or those developed and flown by the former Soviet Union ("BUK" reactor). The systems could use highly developed fuel and materials. Water and Martian soil could be used to provide shielding. A modern, high-efficiency power conversion subsystem could be used to reduce required reactor thermal power. This, in turn, would reduce fuel burnup and radiation damage .effects by reducing "nuclear" fuels and materials development costs. A realistic, non-nuclear heated and fully integrated technology demonstration unit (TDU) could be used to reduce cost and programmatic uncertainties prior to initiating a flight program.

Houts, Mike↗
NASA NTRS2001

Fusion for Space Propulsion

There is little doubt that humans will attempt to explore and develop the solar system in this century. A large amount of energy will be required for accomplishing this. The need for fusion propulsion is discussed. For a propulsion system, there are three important thermodynamical attributes: (1) The absolute amount of energy available, (2) the propellant exhaust velocity, and (3) the jet power per unit mass of the propulsion system (specific power). For human exploration and development of the solar system, propellant exhaust velocity in excess of 100 km/s and specific power in excess of 10 kW/kg are required. Chemical combustion can produce exhaust velocity up to about 5 km/s. Nuclear fission processes typically result in producing energy in the form of heat that needs to be manipulated at temperatures limited by materials to about 2,800 K. Using the energy to heat a hydrogen propellant increases the exhaust velocity by only a factor of about two. Alternatively the energy can be converted into electricity which is then used to accelerate particles to high exhaust velocity. The necessary power conversion and conditioning equipment, however, increases the mass of the propulsion system for the same jet power by more than two orders of magnitude over chemical system, thus greatly limits the thrust-to-weight ratio attainable. The principal advantage of the fission process is that its development is relatively mature and is available right now. If fusion can be developed, fusion appears to have the best of all worlds in terms of propulsion - it can provide the absolute amount, the propellant exhaust velocity, and the high specific jet power. An intermediate step towards pure fusion propulsion is a bimodal system in which a fission reactor is used to provide some of the energy to drive a fusion propulsion unit. The technical issues related to fusion for space propulsion are discussed. The technical priorities for developing and applying fusion for propulsion are somewhat different from those for terrestrial electrical power generation. Thus fusion schemes that are initially attractive for electrical power generation might not necessarily be attractive also for propulsion and vice versa, though the underlying fusion science and engineering enjoy much overlap. Parallel efforts to develop these qualitatively differently fusion schemes for the two applications could benefit greatly from each other due to the synergy in the underlying physics and engineering. Pulsed approaches to fusion have not been explored to the same degree as steady-state or long-pulse approaches to fusion in the fusion power research program. The concerns early on were several. One was that the pulsed power components might not have the service lifetimes meeting the requirements of a practical power generating plant. Another was that, for many pulsed fusion schemes, it was not clear whether the destruction of hardware per pulse could be minimized or eliminated or recycled to such an extent as to make economical electrical power generation feasible, Significant development of the underlying pulsed power component technologies have occurred in the last two decades because of defense and other energy requirements. The state of development of the pulsed power technologies are sufficiently advanced now to make it compelling to visit or re-visit pulsed fusion approaches for application to propulsion where the cost of energy is not so demanding a factor as in the case of terrestrial power application. For propulsion application, the overall mass of the fusion system is the critical factor. Producing fusion reactions require extreme states of matter. Conceptually, these extreme states of matter are more readily realizable in the pulsed states, at least within appropriate bounds, than in the steady states. Significant saving in system mass may result in such systems. Magnetic fields are effective in confining plasma energy, whereas inertial compression is an effective way of heating and containing the plasma. Intensive research in developing magnetic energy containment and inertial plasma compression are being pursued in distinctively different fusion experiments in the terrestrial fusion power program. Fusion schemes that attempt to combine the favorable attributes of these two aspects into one single integrated fusion scheme appear to have benefits that are worth exploring for propulsion application.

Thio, Y. C. Francis↗
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 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↗
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↗