Power Processing Unit Options for High Powered Nuclear Electric Propulsion Using MPD

Krauthamer, Stan

Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 20060037027

Power Processing Unit Options for High Powered Nuclear Electric Propulsion Using MPD

Krauthamer, Stan

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Nuclear Electric Propulsion

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Krauthamer, Stan. 1995-01-01. Power Processing Unit Options for High Powered Nuclear Electric Propulsion Using MPD. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20060037027

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRS2026

Thermal Considerations for 2039 Opposition Class Nuclear Electric Propulsion/Chemical Propulsion Crewed Mars Mission

The high specific impulse (Isp) of Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) technology offers the potential for advanced space mission capabilities. However, the five critical technology elements of NEP vehicles have yet to prove technical maturity levels for consideration into mission design. In response to the critical reviews by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), NASA’s Space Nuclear Propulsion (SNP) project created an NEP Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) for focused development of NEP technology. The TMP called for a coordinated set of technology development efforts to meet this objective. The Modular Assembled Radiators for NEP VehicLes (MARVL) Early Career Initiative (ECI) project was initiated to develop a portion of the fifth Critical Technology Element (CTE) of the NEP vehicle: the Primary Heat Rejection Subsystem (PHRS). A target application of a 2039 human-rated Mars mission was outlined in the TMP. For the outlined mission, a NEP vehicle will experience several thermal environments which will impact the design and operation of the PHRS. To maintain radiator temperatures within the required effective temperature range, the effect of natural, induced, and NEP internally generated heat loads on the radiator panel must be well understood. Furthermore, this analysis is critical for analyzing the influence of various orientations and positions of the NEP vehicle relative to nearby celestial bodies throughout the mission. This study conducted a complete enveloping analysis of the thermal environments influencing the NEP vehicle throughout the mission. Thermal analysis was conducted for the radiator panels based on the defined mission environments. This thermal analysis concludes with the selection of ideal radiator orientations for the NEP vehicle, and the identification of worst case hot and cold environmental sink temperatures throughout the mission. For the target application, the environmental sink temperature while the reactor is powered OFF or powered ON ranges from 30 K to 353 K and 2.7 K to 243 K respectively. When considering interplanetary space, the minimum environmental sink temperature when the reactor is powered OFF and the radiators are oriented “edge to Sun” is 2.7 K. The environmental thermal models generated in this study will be used for future studies with the full vehicle system model. The environmental sink temperature curves generated will be used for future radiator and component analysis to predict transient performance in the space environment. The environmental sink temperature and heat rejection capability curves will inform the trade between commissioning orbits that are in consideration. The model may also serve as a useful tool as reference for future crewed space missions, missions involving radiators or temperature sensitive equipment, or other missions requiring analysis of natural orbital thermal environments.

Nuclear Electric Propulsion↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mars Opposition Piloted Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP)-Chem Vehicle

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 surface waiting for a ‘cheap’ return. The total mission time results in a mission duration around 3 years. Given the current demonstrated crew maximum of a 1 year stint on ISS, it is interesting to look at reducing that time to only two years, thus reducing risk and minimizing time in the Martian System. In order to meet such a short mission an ‘opposition’ class Mars mission (which includes a Venus flyby) was chosen. The energy required to perform such a mission in only two years (for the 2036 opportunity at least) is about three times that of the 3 year conjunction mission. The rocket equation clearly shows that this mission would then require several times the propellant of the three-year mission unless the Isp of the propulsion system can be increased. Electric propulsion can provide the 3-10x improvement in Isp but even with a nuclear reactor power levels could approach 10 MWe. As an alternative, a smaller reactor (1.5 MWe class) joined together with a chemical stage was found to allow for using each propulsion system to its best advantage: low thrust in interplanetary space and chemical in the gravity wells of Earth and Mars. Indeed, the use of high Isp, low thrust during the interplanetary leg of the journey’s reduced the required capture/departure ∆Vs by 5-10X. Lowering the NEP power also allowed fitting the power system into a single SLS launch – which limited the radiator area to ~ 2500m^2. For the first look a reactor using fuels created by the SP-100 program with a limit of ~1200K was assumed. Starting in the ‘Lunar Gateway’ also allowed for use of commercial tankers to fuel the vehicle in a relative benign place. A top level summary of the mission design, concept of operations, as well as a conceptual point design of the vehicle is described.

Nuclear Electric Propulsion↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

1.9 MWe Nuclear Electric Propulsion-Chemical Propulsion Piloted Mars Opposition Vehicle

To assess ‘quick’ missions to Mars, a study was performed to determine the feasibility of a two-year roundtrip class mission concept of operation that enables boots on Mars in the 2030s. After performing a Phase 1.1 2036 Mars opposition design case, the more difficult 2039 opposition design was pursued. This Phase 1.2 also sought to further refine the concept, building on feasibility, and addressing several challenges brought by independent team reviews. Given the date of 2039, nearer-term technologies, primarily nuclear thermal and nuclear electric were deemed as the most viable for these missions. This paper explores a nuclear electric and chemical combined propulsion approach to achieve the desired mission timeline.

Nuclear Electric Propulsion↗