Space

New fuel withstands nuclear thermal propulsion reactor conditions

General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (GA-EMS) has successfully tested the nuclear fuel that may one day propel and power the spacecraft of the future. The trials verify that the fuel can survive the harsh environment of a nuclear rocket reactor.

Up until now, the main way of propelling spacecraft has been through chemical rockets. To be fair, that's nothing to sneer at. Chemical engines put the first satellite into space, the first man on the Moon, and have sent the first deep space probes hurtling out of our solar system.

However, chemical rockets have reached the theoretical limits of their capabilities. In fact, they already did so when the first German V-2 rocket reached space in 1942. Since then all the advances have been in making rockets larger and more efficient through innovations peripheral to the rocket engine itself.

There are alternatives to chemical rockets, such as ion drives and solar sails, but these produce minuscule thrust and have limited applications. For really ambitious projects, what space engineers want is something with at least a third more power than the best chemical rocket. If such an engine could be made, it would allow for fast shuttles between low Earth orbit and the Moon, the ability to quickly shift orbits at short notice, and to send large crewed missions to Mars and other planets in a reasonable time frame.

The best, in fact, the only, candidate for this is the Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) system or nuclear rocket. First conceived of in 1945, this is a rocket that replaces burning chemical fuel with a nuclear reactor that is used to heat up a propellant. This propellant is most likely hydrogen, though anything could be used, including water. This is because the propellant doesn't provide any power. It's just reaction mass to be expelled to generate thrust according to Newton's First Law.

The basic principle is simple but with engineering the devil is always in the details. One of these details is that such a reactor must operate at very high temperatures and strong vibrations and survive. We're talking 2,326 °C (4,220 °F), with highly reactive superheated hydrogen gas thrown into the bargain.

Any conventional nuclear fuel would have trouble standing up to that but what the rocket engineers need is a fuel that can not only survive, but refrain from cracking or splintering in the process.

According to Scott Forney, president of GA-EMS, the recent tests carried out at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama have proven that the latest fuel can survive without erosion or degradation at operational temperatures. The fuel was subjected to full reactor heat and hydrogen gas and kept there for 20 minutes – about what a nuclear engine would have to endure during a boost maneuver. Other tests looked at how the fuel handled variations in protective features that weren't specified.

"To the best of our knowledge, we are the first company to use the compact fuel element environmental test (CFEET) facility at NASA MSFC to successfully test and demonstrate the survivability of fuel after thermal cycling in hydrogen representative temperatures and ramp rates," said Dr. Christina Back, vice president of GA-EMS Nuclear Technologies and Materials. "We’ve also conducted tests in a non-hydrogen environment at our GA-EMS laboratory, which confirmed the fuel performed exceptionally well at temperatures up to 3,000 °K (4,940 °F, 2,726 °C), which would enable the NTP system to be two-to-three times more efficient than conventional chemical rocket engines. We are excited to continue our collaboration with NASA as we mature and test the fuel to meet the performance requirements for future cislunar and Mars mission architectures."

Source: General Atomics

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Flipboard
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Google News
4 comments
paul314
20-30 minutes is OK if you're only planning on using your rocket engine once. But for the past half-century or so development of conventional rockets has focused on reusable engines. Promising, but when they get to 20-30 hours nuclear engines will be much more plausible. (Also a good idea to make plans ahead of time for reprocessing/disposal of nuclear rocket engines and fuel.)
CHRSKO
Disposal is actually pretty easy. Aim it at the sun and fire. Best incinerator in town, and it's already nuclear so no nasty nuclear waste issue.
Karmudjun
Great write up David. A nice synopsis of the General Atomics press release on the actual testing of a powerful nuclear rocket fuel. Again, a great write up on the proof of concept nuclear rocket fuel testing where the mixture was maintained at a theoretical minimum duration full service situation. And with each mixture - including with hydrogen - the fuel proved stable & reliable. Gosh, when will they test the most efficient nuclear rocket ENGINE that needs to be directional and able to shut down and fire up again. And when they test such an engine, maybe paul314's questions would be germaine - like what risk does the remaining fuel pose?
vince
Doubling or even tripling the power of a chemical rocket would allow mankind to harvest other planets. If tripke you could achieve speeds od 100,000 moh or more making a Mars flight far less risky and problematic for astronauts as expoaed to less cosmic rays, the lack of gravity repercussions for long periods without bone jarring gravity to prevent bone and muscle loss and more would be fantastic. Imagine the movie the Martian with a nuclear lowered emergsncy craft which could even fire to a trip to Earth without the planets being in a best conjunction positions for shortest flights.