Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Nuclear propulsion”

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 1,009 records · Page 56
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 NTRS2012

Experimental Studies of Carbon Nanotube Materials for Space Radiators

Game ]changing propulsion systems are often enabled by novel designs using advanced materials. Radiator performance dictates power output for nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) systems. Carbon nanotubes (CNT) and carbon fiber materials have the potential to offer significant improvements in thermal conductivity and mass properties. A test apparatus was developed to test advanced radiator designs. This test apparatus uses a resistance heater inside a graphite tube. Metallic tubes can be slipped over the graphite tube to simulate a heat pipe. Several sub ]scale test articles were fabricated using CNT cloth and pitch ]based carbon fibers, which were bonded to a metallic tube using an active braze material. The test articles were heated up to 600 C and an infrared (IR) camera captured the results. The test apparatus and experimental results are presented here.

SanSoucie, MIchael P.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CNTR: Explanation of Propellant Flow and Description of Initial Experiments

The Centrifugal Nuclear Thermal Rocket (CNTR) is one of few designs that could enable extremely rapid missions to Mars using currently available technologies. McCarthy conducted the first conceptual study of high performance nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) and published his findings in 1954. High performance NTP was further investigated by Princeton researchers in the early 1960s and continued by other researchers throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s. An interagency panel conducted in 1991 demonstrated the potential of liquid core nuclear rockets, such as the Liquid Annular Reactor System (LARS), to reach temperatures up to 5000 K and specific impulses (Isp) up to 2000 s. A more recent study of versatile NTP asserts that a similar propulsion system, the Centrifugal Gas Core Reactor (CGCR), can reach an estimated Isp of 1800 s[4]. An Isp of that magnitude significantly reduces travel times and consequently health risks to flight crews. The CNTR seeks to build on the work of previous liquid core NTP systems and aims to reach an Isp in the range of 1500 s to 1800 s while using hydrogen as the propellant. However, the CNTR is not limited to hydrogen and can instead utilize other volatiles such as ammonia, methane, or water at about half the Isp of hydrogen. This flexibility expands the CNTR’s mission range considerably by providing propellant storability and the potential for directly using volatiles available in-situ.

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Human Mars↗
NASA NTRS2019

Potential Improvements to the Nuclear Safety and Launch Approval Process for Nuclear Reactors Utilized for Space Power and Propulsion Applications

This study examines potential improvements that could be made to the nuclear safety and launch approval process for fission reactors to reduce the associated uncertainties in cost and schedule while continuing to ensure public safety and environmental protection. It concentrates on the launch approval and mission safety of fission power and propulsion applications of nuclear energy. Improvements to the launch approval process for radioisotope power systems (RPSs) are being considered elsewhere but are acknowledged throughout the report. The study considered technical, process, and organizational improvements to the launch approval processes. The study exclusively evaluated reactors that would not be started up prior to achieving a “sufficiently high orbit,” per United Nations (UN) Resolution 47/68.Potential criticality accidents were considered that could occur during a launch failure or abort or during reentry. Numerous scenarios were examined that might involve one or more Earth flybys as well as potential transportation missions that could intentionally return an active, or previously active fission reactor to Earth orbit. The Study Group was guided in its deliberations according to a number of fundamental principles. These included the paramount importance of adequate and appropriate levels of public safety and environmental protection as well as the importance of the inclusion of independent scientific, engineering, and safety reviews of the applications and proposals as a critical part of the process. Also considered was the need for the development of launch approval processes that might be different, depending upon the source of the application for launch approval, whether it be derived as a governmental launch, a commercial launch, or a hybrid/combination of the two. It is clear that all launches of nuclear reactors into space should have similar safety requirements; however, the safety review effort and the details of the analysis that are required should be commensurate with the potential hazards and the actual risk, which may differ based on the reactor design and its intended purpose. Finally, the study aimed at ensuring that whatever processes and procedures are developed should maximize the sufficiency, simplicity, and transparency of the processes. The Study Group reached five Conclusions and makes thirteen Recommendations. The Conclusions and Recommendations presented here are extensions of those presented previously in other studies. This report attempts to add specificity to the actions that need to be taken in order to move forward with successful space fission reactor programs. Without action to address the perceived and real problems in the launch approval process, designers and mission managers will be reluctant to commit the resources necessary to make space fission reactors a reality.

Camp, Allen↗
NASA NTRS1972

Thermionic reactor ion propulsion system /TRIPS/ - Its multi-mission capability.

The unmanned planetary exploration to be conducted in the last two decades of this century includes many higher energy missions which tax all presently available propulsion systems beyond their limit. One candidate with the versatility and performance to meet these mission objectives is nuclear electric propulsion (NEP). Additionally, the NEP System is feasible in orbit raising operations with the Shuttle or Shuttle/Tug combination. A representative planetary mission is described (Uranus-Neptune flyby with probe), and geocentric performance and tradeoffs are discussed. The NEP System is described in more detail with particular emphasis on the power subsystem consisting of the thermionic reactor, heat rejection subsystem, and neutron shield.

Peelgren, M. L.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Electric propulsion and its applications to space missions

Consideration is given the NASA, Air Force and European electric propulsion programs, the characteristics of primary electric propulsion systems, nuclear electric orbit transfer vehicles, and such topics in the fundamental processes of electrostatic thrusters as sputtering in mercury ion thrusters, the screen hole plasma sheath of an ion accelerator system, and the modelling of ion beam neutralization and nitrogen chemisorption. Also considered are electrostatic thruster components and systems, electromagnetic thrusters such as MPD and RIT systems, electric rail guns and mass drivers, power sources which include solar and nuclear alternatives, power conversion systems and their cooling apparatus, and the environmental interactions between spacecraft and their electric propulsion systems.

Finke, R. C.↗
NASA NTRS1990

An unmanned probe to Pluto

Now that Voyager II has completed its grand tour of the solar system, all the planets in the solar system, with the exception of Pluto, have been studied. Even now, missions to return to Mercury, Venus, Mars Jupiter, and Saturn are currently flying or are planned. However, a mission to explore Pluto is not, at the present time, being considered seriously. The design problem presented to the students was very general, i.e., design an unmanned mission to Pluto with a launch window constraint of the years 2000 to 2010. All other characteristics of the mission, such as mission type (flyby, orbiter, lander, penetrator), scientific objectives and payload, and the propulsion system were to be determined by the design teams. The design studies exposed several general problems to be solved. Due to the extreme distance to Pluto (and a corresponding travel time in the range of 10 to 25 years), the spacecraft had to be lighter and more robust than current spacecraft designs. In addition, advanced propulsion concepts had to be considered. These included the new generation of launch vehicles and upper stages and nuclear electric propulsion. The probe design offered an abundance of synthesis and analysis problems. These included sizing trade studies, selection of subsystem components, analysis of spacecraft dynamics, stability and control, structural design and material selection, trajectory design, and selection of scientific equipment. Since the characteristics of the mission, excluding the launch window, were to be determined by the design teams, the solutions varied widely.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1991

Stacking the odds in favor of a space propulsion jackpot

When faced with a variety of technical options to solve a problem, program planners often try to identify one potential winner, then channel their resources into this option. The more scarce their resources are perceived to be, the more likely they are to fall into this trap of illogic. The real ideal solution could well be an optimum combination of options, not just one. Many propulsion opportunities are tantalizing solutions to the potentially high cost of travelling to other planets. Among these opportunities, nuclear thermal rockets (NTR), nuclear electric propulsion (NEP), and asteroid derived propellants stand out as high-payoff modest-challenge options, as near term as they are resolved to be made. But which to choose? Or should higher risk higher payoff technology be opted for, such as fusion? The approach advocated here, technoflex, is one that addresses NTR, NEP, and asteroid propellants in harmony rather than in isolation. Technoflex is technology rich, and option flexible. Technoflex should cost roughly the same as a classic phased technology elimination approach. The synergistic benefits amongst these three options, how they can be efficiently pursued together, and how they can fit with longer range technologies are stressed. Even if no single option reaches its highest expectations, the combinations of any two partial winners would still give big dividends. These combinations are cheap propellants in space, dual mode high thrust/low thrust, or versatile propellant NTR. The triple payoff is excellent, even if all three options would pan out below expectations. If only one option reaches its potential, it could make the other two still worth their investment. If all three options meet full expectations, the triple payoff is a space propulsion jackpot which makes concern about the initial investment ludicrous as well as open up the solar system to expedient exploration.

Willoughby, Alan J.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Interplanetary Sample Return Missions Using Radioisotope Electric Propulsion

Solar electric propulsion (SEP) is being used for a variety of planetary missions sponsored by ESA, JAXA, and NASA and nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) is being considered for future, flagship-class interplanetary missions. Radioisotope electric propulsion (REP) has recently been shown to effectively complement SEP and NEP for missions to high-AU targets with modest payload requirements. This paper investigates the application of an advanced REP for a sample return from the comet Tempel 1. A set of mission and system parameters are varied with the goal of quantifying their impact on total mission payload. Mission parameters considered include trip-time and Earth return entry interface speed of the sample return system. System parameters considered include launch vehicle, power level of spacecraft at beginning of mission, and thruster specific impulse. For the baseline case of Atlas 401 and REP power level of 750 W, the mission time was 12 years, the payload was 144 kg, and the missions optimized to a single specific impulse generally within Hall ion thruster range. Other cases were investigated in support of graduate studies, and include the larger Atlas 551 launch vehicle and extended power level to 1 kW. The Atlas 551 cases tended to optimize dual specific impulses generally in the Hall ion thruster range for both legs of the mission. A power level of at least 1-kW and trip-time of approximately 11 years was required to obtain a total science payload close to 320 kg for the Atlas 401 launch vehicle. An Atlas 551 launch vehicle yielded a science payload of approximately 540 kg for the case of 1-kW of power and an 11-year trip time, and nearly 250 kg of science payload for the case of 1-kW of power and a 6-year trip time. Results are also reported indicating the performance ramifications of meeting a reduced Earth entry interface velocity constraint.

Williams, R.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Human Exploration of the Solar System by 2100

It has been suggested that the U.S., in concert with private entities and international partners, set itself on a course to accomplish human exploration of the solar system by the end of this century. This is a strikingly bold vision intended to revitalize the aspirations of HSF in service to the security, economic, and scientific interests of the nation. Solar system distance and time scales impose severe requirements on crewed space transportation systems, however, and fully realizing all objectives in support of this goal will require a multi-decade commitment employing radically advanced technologies - most prominently, space habitats capable of sustaining and protecting life in harsh radiation environments under zero gravity conditions and in-space propulsion technologies capable of rapid deep space transits with earth return, the subject of this paper. While near term mission destinations such as the moon and Mars can be accomplished with chemical propulsion and/or high power SEP, fundamental capability constraints render these traditional systems ineffective for solar system wide exploration. Nuclear based propulsion and alternative energetic methods, on the other hand, represent potential avenues, perhaps the only viable avenues, to high specific power space transport evincing reduced trip time, reduced IMLEO, and expanded deep space reach. Here, very long term HSF objectives for solar system wide exploration are examined in relation to the advanced propulsion technology solution landscape including foundational science, technical/engineering challenges, and developmental prospects.

Transportation↗
NASA NTRS2002

Selection and Prioritization of Advanced Propulsion Technologies for Future Space Missions

The exploration of our solar system will require spacecraft with much greater capability than spacecraft which have been launched in the past. This is particularly true for exploration of the outer planets. Outer planet exploration requires shorter trip times, increased payload mass, and ability to orbit or land on outer planets. Increased capability requires better propulsion systems, including increased specific impulse. Chemical propulsion systems are not capable of delivering the performance required for exploration of the solar system. Future propulsion systems will be applied to a wide variety of missions with a diverse set of mission requirements. Many candidate propulsion technologies have been proposed but NASA resources do not permit development of a] of them. Therefore, we need to rationally select a few propulsion technologies for advancement, for application to future space missions. An effort was initiated to select and prioritize candidate propulsion technologies for development investment. The results of the study identified Aerocapture, 5 - 10 KW Solar Electric Ion, and Nuclear Electric Propulsion as high priority technologies. Solar Sails, 100 Kw Solar Electric Hall Thrusters, Electric Propulsion, and Advanced Chemical were identified as medium priority technologies. Plasma sails, momentum exchange tethers, and low density solar sails were identified as high risk/high payoff technologies.

Eberle, Bill↗
NASA NTRS1975

Comparative assessment of out-of-core nuclear thermionic power systems

The hardware selections available for fabrication of a nuclear electric propulsion stage for planetary exploration were explored. The investigation was centered around a heat-pipe-cooled, fast-spectrum nuclear reactor for an out-of-core power conversion system with sufficient detail for comparison with the in-core system studies completed previously. A survey of competing power conversion systems still indicated that the modular reliability of thermionic converters makes them the desirable choice to provide the 240-kWe end-of-life power for at least 20,000 full power hours. The electrical energy will be used to operate a number of mercury ion bombardment thrusters with a specific impulse in the range of about 4,000-5,000 seconds.

Estabrook, W. C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of Large-Scale Thrust Chambers using Laser Powder Directed Energy Deposition

Historical manufacturing methods for liquid propulsion combustion chambers have relied on series of tube-walls or slotted channel walls (subsequently brazed or plated) for regenerative cooling paths. Large-scale additive manufacturing techniques offer strong potential to minimize manufacturing lead times and cost for developing liquid propulsion chambers, while maintaining performance metrics of traditionally manufactured hardware. The benefits expand beyond traditional combustion chambers to lesser considered nuclear thermal propulsion chambers where radiation energizes the singular incoming propellant stream instead of an exothermic chemical reaction. While each subset of liquid propulsion chambers reaps similar benefit, the geometric challenges in each design can vary substantially. This manuscript discusses the challenges of large contraction ratio propulsion chambers, bimetallic liners and closeout jackets, and material selection when considering laser powder directed energy deposition. LP-DED presently offers build volumes unattainable by L-PBF systems, required for large diameter thrust chambers. LP-DED typically has faster deposition time and is capable of overhang angles without support material (due to the ability to tilt the build plate and minimize the actual build angle). These benefits come at the cost of feature resolution. Designers and manufacturers should consider the effects of thick-wall features printed parallel to the primary surface versus perpendicular due to distortion. Thick-wall and thin-wall features printed in the same plane can substantially increase build time. Where large-scale L-PBF overlaps in size, there may be limited benefit in the quantity of powder required for the build due to the low capture rate of LP-DED and a case-by-case examination is required.

LP-DED↗
NASA NTRS2014

A Research Reactor Concept to Support NTP Development

In support of efforts for research into the design and development of man rated Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), is evaluating the potential for building a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed NTP based research reactor (NTPRR). The proposed NTPRR would be licensed by NASA and operated jointly by NASA and university partners. The purpose of the NTPRR would be used to perform further research into the technologies and systems needed for a successful NTP project and promote nuclear training and education.

Eades, Michael J.↗
NASA NTRS2006

A Practical Approach to Starting Fission Surface Power Development

The Prometheus Power and Propulsion Program has been reformulated to address NASA needs relative to lunar and Mars exploration. Emphasis has switched from the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) flight system development to more generalized technology development addressing Fission Surface Power (FSP) and Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP). Current NASA budget priorities and the deferred mission need date for nuclear systems prohibit a fully funded reactor Flight Development Program. However, a modestly funded Advanced Technology Program can and should be conducted to reduce the risk and cost of future flight systems. A potential roadmap for FSP technology development leading to possible flight applications could include three elements: 1) Conceptual Design Studies, 2) Advanced Component Technology, and 3) Non-Nuclear System Testing. The Conceptual Design Studies would expand on recent NASA and DOE analyses while increasing the depth of study in areas of greatest uncertainty such as reactor integration and human-rated shielding. The Advanced Component Technology element would address the major technology risks through development and testing of reactor fuels, structural materials, primary loop components, shielding, power conversion, heat rejection, and power management and distribution (PMAD). The Non-Nuclear System Testing would provide a modular, technology testbed to investigate and resolve system integration issues.

Mason, Lee S.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster applications

Advance study activities within NASA indicate that electric propulsion will be required to make certain types of potential missions feasible. The large power levels under consideration make magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters a good candidate for these applications since this type of electric thruster is best suited to operation at high power levels. This paper examines the status of the magnetoplasmadynamic thruster and compares it to the ion thruster which also is a candidate. The use of these two types of electric propulsion devices for orbit raising of a self-powered large satellite is examined from a cost standpoint. In addition the use of nuclear electric propulsion is described for use as both a near-earth space tug and for an interplanetary exploration vehicle. These preliminary examinations indicate that the magnetoplasmadynamic thruster is the lowest cost thruster and therefore merits serious consideration for these applications.

Pawlik, E. V.↗