Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “nuclear electric”

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.

At least 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Heat Pipe Heat Exchanger for Nuclear Electric Propulsion Power Conversion System

Heat pipe reactors have been considered by the Space Nuclear Propulsion program for Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) power conversion systems and will require the use of heat exchangers to transfer heat via heat pipes to the Brayton working fluid from the reactor. Sodium (Na) and lithium (Li) were considered as viable working fluids inside the heat pipes which were assumed to have the same geometry based on studies and information from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The heat exchanger was assumed to be a rectangular duct with heat pipes serving as tubes from previous NEP work and recommendations. Based on this geometry, Zukauskas correlations were used to model the convective heat transfer and pressure losses. Parametric sizing of the reactor component involved operational limits-based heat pipe thermal hydraulic modeling in cohesion with required user input geometry for the in-core lattice and various subcomponents. This work considered various power conversion inlet temperatures (PCIT) of 1100 K, 1150 K, and 1200 K for Na heat pipes and 1100 K, 1150 K, 1200 K, and 1400 K for Li heat pipes based on recommendations from prior work. Using these different PCITs, the subsystem masses and pressure losses were determined and analyzed. Na showed a lower overall operating temperature and about a fifth of the maximum heat throughput capability than that of Li for the same geometry. Due to this, the entire Na-based subsystem ended up being three times more massive than the Li-based subsystem given five times the required number of heat pipes. At the low PCIT of 1100 K, the Na-based subsystem exhibited the lowest pressure losses given the large overall cross sectional flow area and relatively low frictional pressure losses. However, as the PCIT increased, the frictional pressure losses increased resulting in higher pressure losses at the 1200 K PCIT than Li-based subsystem. However, the Li-based subsystem exhibited the largest pressure losses of all analyzed cases at the 1400 K PCIT due to the low density of the Brayton working fluid at this temperature.

electric↗
NASA NTRS1992

Robotic planetary mission benefits from nuclear electric propulsion

Several interesting planetary missions are either enabled or significantly enhanced by nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) in the 50 to 100 kW power range. These missions include a Pluto Orbiter/Probe with an 11-year flight time and several years of operational life in orbit versus a ballistic very fast (13 km/s) flyby which would take longer to get to Pluto and would have a very short time to observe the planet. (A ballistic orbiter would take about 40 years to get to Pluto). Other missions include a Neptune Orbiter/Probe, a Jupiter Grand Tour orbiting each of the major moons in order, an Uranus Orbiter/Probe, a Multiple Mainbelt Asteroid Rendezvous orbiting six selected asteroids, and a Comet Nucleus Sample Return. This paper discusses potential missions and compares the nuclear electric propulsion option to the conventional ballistic approach on a parametric basis.

Kelley, James H.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modular Assembled Radiators for Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) VehicLes (MARVL) Project Thermal Technology Development

Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) has been considered for crew and cargo class missions to Mars for more than six decades. The Primary Heat Rejection Subsystem (PHRS) of an NEP vehicle expels the megawatts of waste heat generated by the Power Conversion Subsystem (PCS). In previous studies, integrating the majority of the NEP vehicle within a single launch fairing required the use of complex deployable elements and resulted in reduced PCS efficiency. To achieve the necessary radiating area, past design studies have utilized massive multi-wing folding radiators resulting in conceptual PHRS designs that have been widely acknowledged as non-optimal. The Modular Assembled Radiators for NEP VehicLes (MARVL) project is incorporating in-Space Assembly (iSA) into the design process to realize lightweight, modular, and more capable PHRS radiators. Since the project’s Authority to Proceed (ATP) date of October 2024, the project team has been developing a modular design for the PHRS radiators that will be suitable for both the Mars mission environments and iSA commissioning operations. This document captures the current progress of the incremental technology development for the thermal components of the MARVL System of Interest (SOI).

Modular Radiator↗
NASA NTRS1963

THE NASA NUCLEAR ELECTRIC POWER PROGRAM

Review of present and proposed research concerning nuclear electric power for space applications, including objectives of the snap-8 project

NUCLEAR-ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Nuclear Electric Propulsion for Outer Planet Science Missions

Nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) combines the high specific impulse of electric thrusters with a constant power source that can operate anywhere in the solar system. Current investments in fission surface power offer a starting point for development of an NEP capability for deep space science missions, with a mission to the Saturn system illustrating the potential of such a system. Minimum time of flight transits, maximum payload delivery, and a sample return from Enceladus are considered. The NEP system can deliver payloads to the Saturn system with similar transit times to the Cassini spacecraft without requiring the planetary flyby maneuvers, and when coupled with a heavy-lift launch vehicle an NEP-powered spacecraft can complete a Saturn transit significantly faster than Cassini. High payload masses can be delivered on a longer trajectory at the expense of transit time. Replacing a portion of the payload with propellant allows for a high degree of maneuverability upon reaching the Saturn system. An Enceladus sample return mission closes when utilizing the NEP system for the Saturn departure and Earth return burns.

Matthew E Duchek↗
NASA NTRS2021

Compass Final Report: Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP)-Chemical Vehicle 1.2

Many previous studies have examined sending crews to and from Mars. The most economical involved a ‘conjunction’ class whereby the crew spends around 500 days on Mars waiting for a ‘cheap’ return. The total mission time results in over a 1000-day mission duration (about 3 years). Given the current experience level of only one year on the International Space Station (ISS), it of interest to reduce that time to only two years, thus reducing risk and minimizing required Mars surface infrastructure. The Phase 1.1 Study goal was stated as follows, “Determine the feasibility of a two-year roundtrip class Mars mission concept of operation that enables boots on Mars no later than 2036.” While the Phase1 study did show feasibility for the NEP-Chemical option, the 2036 Opposition opportunity was found to stress the schedule due to proposed technology development schedules. A 2039 Opposition (which requires even more energy than the 2036 case) was chosen as representative for Phase 1.2. Phase 1.2 also sought to further refine the concept, building on the feasibility, but addressing several challenges brought by the red team and habitat team. Given the date of 2039, nearer term technologies, primarily nuclear thermal and nuclear electric were deemed as the most viable for these missions. As will be shown, the energy required to perform such a mission in only two years (for the 2039 opportunity at least) is about three times that of the three-year conjunction mission. The rocket equation shows that this mission would then require several times the propellant of the three-year mission unless the specific impulse (ISP) of the propulsion system can be increased. Based on lunar needs, a limit of five Space Launch System (SLS) launchers with 8.4m fairings was imposed for the piloted transportation portion of the mission, limiting the size of the system. When using nuclear electric propulsion, the main limiting factor was packaging the required radiator area. The higher Isp nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) system option is described herein but with a twist: in order to keep the size of radiators packageable in one SLS and use proven reactor power system technology (~1200K reactor outlet temperature and superalloy-class Brayton) the NEP system had to be combined with a chemical propulsion system. This combination of electric propulsion and high thrust chemical was found to be useful in previous design studies combining solar electric propulsion (SEP) and chemical propulsion. Such a combination allowed the low-thrust system to provide significant change in velocity (∆V) during the interplanetary portions of the mission, thereby notably reducing the ∆V required by the high thrust system to capture and depart from the Mars gravity well. Here the high thrust ‘impulsive’ system is more efficient due to the Oberth Effect. A plethora of trades, both at the mission and system level, as well as the subsystem level were performed to develop these vehicle concepts. An entire family of NEP-Chemical transportation vehicles is described herein. The main driver and the primary focus was the piloted vehicle but additional concepts for cargo were performed using the same ‘building blocks’ in order to reduce costs and provide commonality.

Nuclear Power↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) Developments for Human Mars Missions

Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) has the potential to enable human missions to Mars and other ambitious missions throughout the solar system. This paper will discuss ongoing NEP research and development efforts and challenges to developing NEP systems for these missions. The baseline NEP vehicle design is comprised of multiple subsystems operating in concert. The major subsystems include a nuclear reactor, a dynamic power conversion system to generate electrical power, heat rejection/radiators, a power management and distribution system to deliver power to the electric propulsion (EP) system and to the crewed transit habitat, and the EP system. An additional chemical propulsion system is also included to execute higher-thrust maneuvers in the Earth and Martian gravity wells. Specific issues that will be addressed include mission trajectory design and optimization, concurrent subsystem technology advancement plans and maturation efforts, and systems-level modeling of the entire vehicle to permit the fast exploration of trade-offs that can occur with changes in operating conditions or through the use of different technologies.

Kurt A Polzin↗
NASA NTRS1979

Nuclear electric power and propulsion system for earth orbital and solar system exploration applications

This paper discusses the design of a Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) system, selection of thrusters and propellant. Outer planet exploration requirements are compared to earth orbital power requirements and a nuclear electric power system with a power level of 200 to 250 kWe is recommended. Current technology appears capable of accomplishing the early missions and growth potential exists for accomplishing more difficult later missions without significant changes in the basic system.

Phillips, W. M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Technology Maturation Plan for the Development of Nuclear Electric Propulsion

Over the last two years NASA’s Space Nuclear Propulsion (SNP) Project formulated a Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) for development of the sub-systems needed for a MW-class Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) system which, combined with a high thrust chemical propulsion stage, would be suitable for human missions to Mars. Two recent assessments, independently conducted by the National Academies for Science, Engineering, and Medicine and the NASA Engineering & Safety Center, concluded that the technologies required for a high-power NEP system are immature and the attendant risks insufficiently quantified to justify initiating a flight project. For NEP to be available as a viable option to meet flight opportunities in the late 2030s / 2040s time frame, development of the key sub-systems must begin now. SNP has subdivided the NEP system into five Critical Technology Elements (CTE): the nuclear reactor, power conversion, power management and distribution, electric propulsion sub-system, and the primary heat rejection system. Development plans for each of these CTEs have been drafted which will serve as the template for a focused milestone-driven research and development campaign intended to advance each CTE to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5. This will be accomplished by building and testing hardware at relevant power levels (~ 1 MW) and for relevant durations (2,500 hours, ~10% of the required operational lifetime) and conducting numerical modeling of the CTEs anchored by the accumulated test data to predict system performance and reliability. Concurrent with this work, high-level coupled system/mission modeling will be carried out to refine the key performance parameters that the various CTEs must achieve. Non-advocate reviews will be held at milestone points to assess progress and inform down-select decisions. The strategy for formulating the TMP was described previously; this paper describes ongoing progress on the drafting and baselining of the plan, including key specific details.

Space Nuclear Propulsion↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Nuclear Electric Propulsion Brayton Power Conversion Working Fluid Considerations

NASA has considered Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) for high ∆V missions since the late 1950s, but the current technology readiness level of the requisite power-train needs to be raised for such a mission. The powertrain includes reactor, power conversion, power management, electric propulsion, and thermal management components that must be integrated to minimize system a (kg/kWe) and to finalize a propulsion system architecture within the 2025-2027 timeframe requires advancing these component technologies to technology readiness level (TRL) 5 and Advancement Degree of Difficulty (AD2) 3 in an expeditious manner with minimal risks. This paper will only address the power conversion (heat to electric) components of that system. Based on both internal and industry studies, a primary conclusion of this work is that a single-spool supercritical Xe-He radial flux Brayton heat engine combined with a permanent magnet synchronous alternator can potentially be developed with the least technical risk to meet the technology readiness schedule and required NEP system performance metrics.

Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP)↗
NASA NTRS1973

Nuclear electric propulsion reactor control systems status

The thermionic reactor control system design studies conducted over the past several years for a nuclear electric propulsion system are described and summarized. The relevant reactor control system studies are discussed in qualitative terms, pointing out the significant advantages and disadvantages including the impact that the various control systems would have on the nuclear electric propulsion system design. A recommendation for the reference control system is made, and a program for future work leading to an engineering model is described.

Ferg, D. A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Brayton Cycle Power Conversion Model for MW-Class Nuclear Electric Propulsion Mars Missions

A Brayton cycle based power conversion system for a nuclear electric propulsion application was modeled in Simulink as part of NASA’s space nuclear program in order to explore the impact of technology assumptions on the power conversion system performance and capabilities. The thermodynamic processes and algorithms within the model are documented, including a higher fidelity reactor model. Assumptions are chosen based on literature and subject matter expert review, and example results and capabilities of the model are shown. The effects of the turbine inlet and compressor inlet temperature on radiator area and thermal efficiency are discussed. For a He-Xe closed Brayton cycle, radiator areas as low as 650 m2/MWe are shown, with corresponding thermal efficiences at roughly 20% for the minimal radiator area solutions.

Brayton↗