Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Nuclear Fuel Cycle Separations Capabilities”

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.

4 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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 NTRSDate not supplied

Strategy for Developing Technologies for Megawatt-class Nuclear Electric Propulsion Systems

In late fiscal year 2020, the Space Nuclear Propulsion (SNP) project began the process of formulating an investment strategy to support development of the technologies required for a high-power (megawatt-class) nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) system capable of performing human-scale missions. This activity was initiated concurrent with several high-level studies and assessments were either under way or had just concluded. Studies of human-scale Mars missions have been performed several times over the past two decades. One of the most recent studies examined opposition-class human Mars missions to occur in the late 2030s timeframe [1,2]. The mission architecture assumed a hybrid NEP/chem-propelled vehicle that used a high specific impulse (Isp) NEP-system and a liquid oxygen (LOx)-liquid methane high thrust chemical stage (two 110 kN (25 klbf) thrust, 365 s Isp engines) for maneuvers performed to enter and exit gravity wells. Trajectory analyses performed in this study showed that such a mission could be performed with 2-4 MWe directed into the electric propulsion system (operating for 20,000+ hours), with the large range representing different opposition-class Mars mission opportunities and permutations on the trajectory design, concept of operations, and technology choices. In 2020, the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) performed a study to evaluate the maturity of the different technologies required for nuclear propulsion systems [3]. The executive summary of this report provided the following top-level conclusions: • “The majority of critical technologies for… NEP/Chem… systems are relatively immature” • “TRLs [technology readiness levels] in the literature are often overestimated” • “The majority of critical technologies… for NEP/Chem… systems are at a relatively high level of advancement degree of difficulty (AD2 > 4) for maturation, requiring a dual development approach” • “The proper assessment of baseline TRL and AD2 values and the estimation of requirements and resources required for advancement have been consistent issues for NEP,” • “Non-advocate reviews should occur at the start of a technology program and at all key milestones.” In 2021, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) issued a separate report [4] identifying the “primary technical and programmatic challenges, merits, and risks for maturing space nuclear propulsion technologies of interest to a future human Mars exploration mission.” That work contained several important findings, including: • “Developing a MWe-class NEP system for the baseline mission would require increasing power by orders of magnitude relative to NEP system flight- or ground-based technology demonstrations completed to date.” • “Subscale in-space flight testing of NEP systems cannot address many of the risks and potential failure modes associated with the baseline mission NEP system. With sufficient M&S [modeling & simulation] and ground testing, including modular subsystem tests at full scale and power, flight qualification requirements can be met by the cargo missions that will precede the first crewed mission to Mars. Fully integrated ground testing may not be required.” • “As a result of low and intermittent investment over the past several decades, it is unclear if even an aggressive program would be able to develop an NEP system capable of executing the baseline mission in 2039.” These efforts motivated the SNP project to investigate the technologies available for a megawatt-class high power nuclear electric propulsion system. That system is illustrated schematically in Figure 1 and is comprised of five separate top-level critical technology elements (CTEs). 1. Nuclear Reactor – Thermal power source for the system, utilizing high-assay low enriched uranium (HALEU) as the nuclear fuel. Reactor radiation shielding is also included in this CTE. 2. Power Conversion – Operates as a thermodynamic cycle, accepting nuclear reactor thermal power as an input and converting it to mechanical power. 3. Power Management and Distribution (PMAD) – Accepts as an input mechanical power from the power conversion system, which is used to generate electrical power. The PMAD system also distributes the generated electrical power to all other parts of the spacecraft, including the high-power EP system. The PMAD system may also perform duties such as isolation, fault detection, and power transformation/rectification for different spacecraft systems, including the thrusters. 4. Electric Propulsion (EP) – Accepts as an input electrical power, which is used to accelerate a propellant to high speeds to produce thrust. This system includes the power processing unit (PPU), which converts the power it receives to the correct current and voltage required by the thrusters, and the propellant storage and feed systems, which contain and meter the flow of propellant to the thrusters. 5. Thermal Management (Radiators/Heat Rejection) – The cold side of the thermodynamic power conversion cycle, accepts thermal power from the power conversion system and radiatively rejects that heat to space. In this paper, we describe the SNP project formulation and investment strategy that aims to accomplish the research and development required to advance the technology readiness for each CTE. The strategy relies heavily upon experimental testing supported by modeling and simulation to yield realistic assessments of the technologies, which in turn will be used to inform future NEP system-level design decisions and any potential technology downselects.

Kurt A Polzin↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA’s Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021 (SAC21) Human Mars Architecture

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Mars Architecture Team (MAT) was challenged to develop a mission architecture capable of transporting humans to the surface of Mars and back as fast—and as soon—as practical. This challenge represented a significant departure from previous approaches that minimized Earth-launched mass and maximized in-space transportation efficiency, often resulting in roundtrip missions of three years or more in duration. In the interest of crew health, MAT’s cross-Agency team of subject matter experts was challenged to develop an architecture capable of shortening crew time away from Earth to about two years. MAT was given specific mission constraints, such as number of crew, as well as mandates to minimize surface infrastructure as much as possible and to incorporate nuclear transportation options. The resulting MAT-developed concept, referred to here as the Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021 (SAC21) architecture, leverages Artemis elements and emerging commercial capabilities for cargo and logistics launches, and features a hybrid Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP)/Chemical transportation system able to complete the 1.8 billion kilometer round-trip journey to Mars and back in 760 to 850 days transit time for the 2039 Earth departure opportunity. Three Mars Descent Systems (MDS), each capable of landing about 25 metric tons of useful cargo on the surface of Mars, would be pre-deployed in advance of crew departure from Earth; two of these MDS’s would deliver a partially fueled Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV), a fission power system, surface mobility, and additional MAV propellant. To minimize surface infrastructure, only two of the four Mars crew would descend and live in an MDS-landed pressurized rover, exploring the martian surface for 30 martian days, or sols, before returning to Mars orbit aboard their MAV and rejoining the other two crew on the Deep Space Transport for the Earth return voyage. Specifics of many of these architecture elements are detailed in separate technical publications; this paper outlines the end-to-end integrated architecture performance and concept of operations, including synergies with Artemis lunar architecture elements. It is important to note that NASA does not have a formal human Mars program and no decisions have been made; the architecture described here is intended to fill in an often-overlooked corner of the trade space, helping to complete the menu of options available to decision-makers as they chart the course for humans to Mars.

exploration↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021 (SAC21) Human Mars Architecture

[Note: this is the presentation for a companion paper with the following abstract] The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Mars Architecture Team (MAT) was challenged to develop a mission architecture capable of transporting humans to the surface of Mars and back as fast—and as soon—as practical. This challenge represented a significant departure from previous approaches that minimized Earth-launched mass and maximized in-space transportation efficiency, often resulting in roundtrip missions of three years or more in duration. In the interest of crew health, MAT’s cross-Agency team of subject matter experts was challenged to develop an architecture capable of shortening crew time away from Earth to about two years. MAT was given specific mission constraints, such as number of crew, as well as mandates to minimize surface infrastructure as much as possible and to incorporate nuclear transportation options. The resulting MAT-developed concept, referred to here as the Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021 (SAC21) architecture, leverages Artemis elements and emerging commercial capabilities for cargo and logistics launches, and features a hybrid Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP)/Chemical transportation system able to complete the 1.8 billion kilometer round-trip journey to Mars and back in 760 to 850 days transit time for the 2039 Earth departure opportunity. Three Mars Descent Systems (MDS), each capable of landing about 25 metric tons of useful cargo on the surface of Mars, would be pre-deployed in advance of crew departure from Earth; two of these MDS’s would deliver a partially fueled Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV), a fission power system, surface mobility, and additional MAV propellant. To minimize surface infrastructure, only two of the four Mars crew would descend and live in an MDS-landed pressurized rover, exploring the martian surface for 30 martian days, or sols, before returning to Mars orbit aboard their MAV and rejoining the other two crew on the Deep Space Transport for the Earth return voyage. Specifics of many of these architecture elements are detailed in separate technical publications; this paper outlines the end-to-end integrated architecture performance and concept of operations, including synergies with Artemis lunar architecture elements. It is important to note that NASA does not have a formal human Mars program and no decisions have been made; the architecture described here is intended to fill in an often-overlooked corner of the trade space, helping to complete the menu of options available to decision-makers as they chart the course for humans to Mars. Note: Slide 9 contains a ~2 min video, best viewed when downloaded. Once downloaded to begin video you may be requested to hit options and Trust this document.

Long-duration spaceflight↗