Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “boil-off”

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.

205 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Nodal Modeling of Liquid Propellant Feed and Pressurization System

Nodal or network flow modeling plays an important role in the design and operation of the feed and pressurization system of a liquid rocket engine. Model development and execution time is relatively short for nodal codes in comparison to the Navier-Stokes based CFD codes. Nodal models also allow the inclusion of several components into one model to predict the behavior of a larger system. Unlike CFD models, the nodal models do not need very fine discretization of the flow field because they use empirical correlations to model fluid friction and heat transfer. This paper presents several applications of nodal modeling of liquid propellant feed and pressurization systems using the Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP), a nodal code developed at NASA/ Marshall Space Flight Center. GFSSP discretizes the flow field into nodes which are connected by branches. The mass and energy conservation equations and the equation of state are solved to calculate pressure, temperature, and resident mass at the nodes. The momentum equations are solved at the branches to calculate flow rates. Applications include a) tank pressurization by inert gas as well as autogenous pressurization by gaseous propellant, b) submerged pressurization by helium, c) self-pressurization due to boil-off of cryogenic propellant, d) chilldown of a transfer line of a cryogenic propellant feed system, and e) chilldown and filling of a cryogenic tank. Each of the above-mentioned models was verified and validated by comparing with test data.

Nodal Model↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hydrophobicity of Cryogenic Fluids for Fuel Transfer in Space Applicaitons

Introduction Hydrophobicity is the tendency of a fluid to repel another material or fluid. Hydrophobiciy can be measured through the wetting angle of the fluid on the surface of the other material. The greater the wetting angle, the more hydrophobic the surface is against the fluid. Hydrophobicity properties can be caused by one of two means, either through physical properties or chemical properties [\citenum{NARBUTT2020121}]. Physical hydrophobicity due to the surface of a solid creating surface roughness/patterning, minimizing the contact area between the fluid and the surface. This can be observed throughout nature, such as the surface of lotus leaves or butterfly wings. This physical property can be induced on a variety of surfaces, namely through laser etching, allowing a surface to be finely lineated to imitate these natural surfaces while controlling quantity, depth, and patterns of the etching on the surface [\citenum{10.1063/1.4905616}]. Physical hydrophobicity is therefore dependent on several variables, including the surface that the fluid is on and properties of the fluid itself, such as density and surface tension, both of which are dependent on temperature and/or pressure. Chemical hydrophobicity [\citenum{MadeiraHydrophobocicicici}] is due to the inherent chemical properties of the materials being used. This is most commonly due to the molecular structures changing the polarity of the materials. Depending on a nonpolar material will repel a polar material, proving to be hydrophobic, conversely if the polarity of the materials is the same (polar – polar, nonpolar – nonpolar), they will attract each other. Cryogenics refers to the behavior of materials at very low temperatures (<\ang{-100} C) [\citenum{ZOHURI20181}]. In space applications many things are inherently cryogenic, therefore this is an important field. There has been little research in how hydrophobicity changes at cryogenic temperatures. Cryogenic fluids are commonly used as fuels for spacecraft, therefore, integrating a hydrophobic surface can increase the transfer rate of the fuel. To test this, several experiments were set up to determine the hydrophobic properties of cryogenic fluids, including nitrogen (LN2), argon (LAr), oxygen (LOx), hydrogen (LH2), and methane (CH4), at cryogenic temperatures. Etched Wafer Testing A silicon wafer cut from a crystal of silicon [100] was used to model the potential hydrophobicity of various cryogenic fluids. Silicon [100] references to the crystallographic orientation of the silicon crystals in the wafer. These wafers were then laser etched to create a surface that is more likely to be hydrophobic. To test the hydrophobicity of the wafers at cryogenic temperatures, the temperatures of the wafers must be reduced to the same temperature as the cryogenic fluid being used to prevent rapid boil-off. To achieve this a double-walled vacuum insulated glass chamber was utilized. The chamber is open, with a double-walled glass that can be placed in a vacuum to remove condensation from the outside to allow easier viewing of the experiment. Furthermore, the silicon wafer's temperature must be lowered to the temperature of LN2, as well as maintain the temperature throughout the experiment. To achieve this a piece of 6061 aluminum was used, creating a stand-off for the wafer and it would allow for the insulation of the temperature of the wafers. The container was then filled with LN2 and once the LN2 stabilized the vaporization and the levels of LN2 dropped under the height of the wafer, the wafer was then allowed to air dry. Once the wafer was dry from the LN2, drops of LN2 were placed on the surface of the wafer for observation. During the first trial, the LN2 that was dropped on the surface displayed nonhydrophobic behaviors, spreading out along the surface, with a minimal wetting angle (too small to be measured). This process was repeated for liquid argon. Further testing with other cryogenic liquids will require different testing apparatuses due to being more volatile. Furthermore, several papers [\citenum{voltvolt7}] have suggested that running a voltage can induce a hydrophobic effect throughout a surface, further testing will include a voltage (constant and oscillating) to determine if voltage influences inducing hydrophobicity at cryogenic temperatures. Chemical Testing Coating the interior walls of the fuel tanks and fuel lines can successfully create a hydrophobic surface. The inherent problem is finding a material that can be used to coat the surface, furthermore, at these temperatures, the coating will remain solid, which could pose issues in maintaining the hydrophobic properties. To test this water (polar) is hydrophobic against oils and fats (nonpolar), therefore the same experiment as the etched wafer testing was conducted to determine if the hydrophobic properties will persist as the nonpolar material remains solid and the polar material remains a fluid. The water remained hydrophobic, allowing testing can expand to the cryogenic fluids. However, another hurdle is faced in finding a chemically opposite material to the cryogenic fluids being tested. As many of the cryogenic fluids being tested are diatomic, they are inherently nonpolar, therefore, the material used for the hydrophobic coating must be polar. Polar greases and lubricants are difficult to come by, however, lithium stearate, appears to be a potential candidate for creating a coated hydrophobic surface for cryogenic fluids at cryogenic temperatures.

Cryogenics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Zero-Boil-Off Tank Experiment: the Effects of Non-Condensable Gases on Pressurization and Pressure Control of Propellant Tanks in Microgravity

Introduction Integral to all phases of NASA’s projected planetary expeditions is affordable and reliable cryogenic fluid storage for use in propellant or life support systems. It is greatly advantageous to develop innovative vent-less pressure control designs based on cooling/mixing of the bulk tank fluid to allow storage of the cryogenic fluid with zero or reduced boil-off. The presence of noncondensable gases, can interfere with the condensation at the interface impacting tank pressure control during subcooled jet mixing especially in microgravity. The Zero-Boil-Off Tank (ZBOT) Experiments are a series of small-scale experiments aboard the International Space Station (ISS) that use a transparent volatile simulant fluid in a transparent sealed tank to delineate various fundamental fluid flow, heat and mass transport, and phase change phenomena associated with storage tank pressurization and pressure control in microgravity. The ZBOT-1 experiment was performed on the ISS 2017-2018 timeframe and collected data to validate a state-of-the-art CFD model for tank pressurization and pressure control for a pure system. The ZBOT-NC Experiment is the second experiment in the series to be performed on the International Space Station (ISS) in 2025. Its goal is to investigate the effects of noncondensable gases on interfacial evaporation and condensation during self -pressurization and jet-mixing pressure control in microgravity for a two-component system. Materials & Methods In this work, we will describe the detailed features of the ZBOT-NC experimental hardware and Diagnostics that includes nonintrusive Quantum Dot Thermometry (QDT) for whole field temperature measurement. All microgravity pressurization and pressure control tests will be performed for both the pure and the two-components systems with Xenon and Neon as the two noncondensable gases spanning small and large molecular weights and sizes. The two-phase CFD model that is developed as part of the project will be also presented and discussed. Results Ground-based pressurization and jet mixing experiments and CFD simulation results are compared to each other to validate both the fidelity of the CFD model predictions and the accuracy of the QDT measurement. Model simulations for noncondensable gas effects will also be compared against large Cryogenic LH2-GHe experiments to indicate the noncondensable gas effects on tank pressure control during jet mixing in 1G. Finally, CFD results will be presented to predict the effects of the noncondensable gas during subcooled jet mixing during the ZBOT-NC in advance of the microgravity experiment in 2015.

Evaporation Condensation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boiloff Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRS2022

Recent Concept Study for Cryogenic Fluid Management to Support Opposition Class Crewed Missions to Mars

NASA recently completed a mission concept study to evaluate the feasibility and propulsion technology development requirements for reduced travel duration crewed missions to Mars. A high-level goal of the study was to minimize the health impact on the crew caused by the space environment. This was implemented in the study by limiting the crew to a total of approximately-two years of in-space operations and travel time. For the initial mission, the crew would stay about 30 days on the Martian surface. The propulsive demands of such a mission are immense, and the study identified two advanced propulsion options with the potential to meet the mission requirements—both options rely on nuclear fission to provide efficient propulsive energy. One propulsion option was a nuclear electric propulsion (NEP)/Chem Hybrid, with a reactor and energy conversion system powering xenon propellant ion thrusters to provide an efficient, but lower-thrust, push for most of the mission duration. This concept also relied on a liquid oxygen/liquid methane (LO2/LCH4) chemical propulsion stage to provide high thrust for maneuvers while near the Earth and Mars. The second propulsion option was nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP), in which the reactor heats liquid hydrogen (LH2) propellant to expand through a nozzle for thrust at about twice the efficiency of the best chemical propulsion systems. Both vehicle concepts rely on storing large amounts of cryogenic propellant (either LO2/LCH4 or LH2) for multiple years in space without loss, far exceeding state-of-the-art capability. To enable this new capability, the team assumed the use of several advanced cryogenic fluid management (CFM) technologies and analyzed the integrated system performance. This included considering the vehicle-level effects of the size, mass, and power requirements of these CFM elements. Further, the team evaluated the development required to enable such a mission in the mid-2030 s and determined that it was feasible. The paper elaborates on the assumed CFM technologies, provides key analysis results, and illustrates the feasibility of technology development for the proposed solutions to the CFM challenges for each propulsion concept.

cryogenic propellant↗