Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “fission power system”

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.

526 records · Page 30

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↗

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 37, No. 3, July-September 1996]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS 181 Attitudes and Practices Regarding Disposal of Liquid Nuclear Waste at Clinton Laboratories in the Very Early Years: A Historical Analysis, S. H. Stow; 202 Off-Site Nuclear Emergency Management in Germany Under the Auspices of the Federal Structure, A. Bayer, S. Bittner, and H. Korn; DESIGN FEATURES: 211 Twenty-Fourth DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning and Treatment Conference, R. R. Bellamy, J. J. Hayes, R. D. Porco, and M. W. First; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 222 Explosion in the Tomsk-7 Reprocessing Plant on April 6, 1993, M. L. Hyder, W. G. Lussie, and F. E. Witmer; 234 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 237 Assessment of Spent Fuel Cooling, J. G. Ibarra, W. R. Jones, G. F. Lanik, H. L. Ornstein, and S. V. Pullani; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 256 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 260 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1996; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 210 Tennessee Industries Week; 221 21st International Symposium on The Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management; 259 IAEA Programme of Scientific Meetings for 1997; 270 PSAM 4 (International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management); 265 The Authors; 268 Errata.

05 NUCLEAR FUELS↗

Verifying MCNP Models of the TEX High 240 Plutonium Benchmark

Computational modeling programs are invaluable tools that allow us to understand systems, safely develop new processes, and make reliable predictions about future designs. However, the effectiveness of these codes is limited by the degree to which their parameters match the real world. In the field of nuclear engineering, cross section data is one of these vital parameters. Accurate cross section data on important fissile and fissionable isotopes promotes the design of safer and more efficient fabrication, transportation, storage, and stockpiling of nuclear fuel. Unfortunately, there are knowledge gaps in data on key isotopes. In 2011, a multinational meeting hosted by the US Department of Energy Nuclear Criticality Safety Program ranked the priority of certain cross section data needs. In response, Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) designed the Thermal and Epithermal eXperiment (TEX) series of benchmark experiments. Benchmark experiments are used to validate current cross section data. They validate data by comparing the results of an actual experiment to the predicted results from a computational model. The data a benchmark applies to depends on the isotope and energy range the experiment’s neutron multiplication factor ( k eff ) is most sensitive to. The development and testing of the TEX High 240 Plutonium Benchmark will help validate 240 Pu cross section data. The configuration and materials of this benchmark are designed to be most sensitive to 240 Pu's intermediate energy range (from 0.625 ev to 100 keV ). MCNP® models of the assembly have been developed by LLNL and the results have been written in the final design report. In order for the discrepancies between benchmark models and experiments to be attributed to cross section inaccuracies, the accuracy of the models needs to be verified. The goal of this project is to verify of the results of LLNL's modeling by creating a new set of MCNP models and comparing the results.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

Measurement of the U 235 ( n , f ) prompt fission neutron spectrum from 10 keV to 10 MeV induced by neutrons of energy from 1 MeV to 20 MeV

The characterization of fission-driven nuclear systems primarily relies on calculations of neutron-induced chain reactions, and these calculations require evaluated nuclear data as input. Calculation accuracy heavily depends on input nuclear data evaluation accuracy, and thus high precision on the experimental input to the nuclear data evaluation is essential for fundamental quantities like the energy spectrum of neutrons emitted from neutron-induced fission (i.e., the prompt fission neutron spectrum, PFNS). Despite decades of measurement efforts, prior to the measurements described in this work there were only three literature data sets for the 235 U(n,f) PFNS at incident neutron energies above 1.0 MeV considered reliable for inclusion in nuclear data evaluations and no reliable data sets above 3.0 MeV incident neutron energy. In this work we report on new measurements of the 235 U(n,f) PFNS spanning a grid of 1.0–20.0 MeV in incident neutron energy and 0.01–10.0 MeV in outgoing (PFNS) neutron energy. These measurements were carried out at the Weapons Neutron Research facility at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center and used a multifoil parallel-plate avalanche counter target with both a Li-glass and a liquid scintillator detector array in separate experiments to span the quoted outgoing neutron energy ranges. The PFNS results are shown in terms of the energy spectra themselves as well as the average PFNS energy $(\langle{E}\rangle)$ and ratios of $\langle{E}\rangle$ at forward and backward angles. Here, the results are compared with literature data and selected nuclear data evaluations. Generally, the data agree with the ENDF/B-VIII.0 evaluation below 5.0-MeV incident neutron energy and more closely with the JEFF-3.3 evaluation above 5.0 MeV, though no evaluations considered for comparison in this work agree with the data across all of the incident and outgoing neutron energies shown, especially in regions where the third-chance fission process becomes available. Additionally, we show a ratio of the present PFNS results for 235 U(n, f) with a recent and highly correlated experiment to measure the 239 Pu(n, f) PFNS at the same experimental facility and with nearly identical equipment and analysis procedures. Many observations reported in this work are the first of their kind and represent significant advancements for knowledge of the 235 U(n, f) PFNS.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗