Is Nuclear Power the Future of Space Propulsion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Winzer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Nuclear power is being explored as a viable option for space propulsion, particularly through the development of nuclear-powered ion drives. Current research is limited due to funding constraints and competing priorities at NASA. The Project Prometheus initiative aimed to advance nuclear propulsion but was deferred following budget cuts. Ion drives require xenon or other high-mass ions as propellants, and while they offer sustainable energy, their thrust is significantly lower than traditional chemical engines.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of nuclear propulsion concepts
  • Familiarity with ion drive technology
  • Knowledge of propellant types and their properties
  • Basic principles of energy and momentum in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the latest developments in nuclear-powered ion drives
  • Explore the implications of Project Prometheus on future space missions
  • Investigate the properties and applications of various ion propellants
  • Learn about the upcoming ANS meeting and related nuclear technology discussions
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, researchers in propulsion technology, and students interested in the future of sustainable space exploration will benefit from this discussion.

Winzer
Messages
597
Reaction score
0
Is there any research being done for: using nuclear power for space propulsion?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Winzer said:
Is there any research being done for: using nuclear power for space propulsion?
In short yes, but the funding is very limited, and NASA and others have other priorities.
 
The simplest form of nuclear propulsion to develop would be a nuclear powered ion drive. Ion drives work and just need electricity, so I'm not sure there would be that steep of a curve to develop one...there'd just have to be a need.
 
russ_watters said:
The simplest form of nuclear propulsion to develop would be a nuclear powered ion drive. Ion drives work and just need electricity, so I'm not sure there would be that steep of a curve to develop one...there'd just have to be a need.
Those are interesting, but the thrust is small compared to a chemical engine, or maybe for our theoretical nuclear engine.

It just seems to me nuclear power in space fits. It is definitely sustainable. The reaction itself on a spacecraft would be dangerous though.
 
I think the upcoming ANS meeting in June will have a talk about NETS (nuclear and emerging technologies for space). You could probably find out which papers will be discussed and get a copy if you have access to academic journels at your university.
 
One can find links to space nuclear power here, including some papers in pdf.

http://anstd.ans.org/ [Mentors' note - this is a correction to a broken link]

Project Prometheus was the latest NASA/DOE program in an attempt to achieve something along the lines of nuclear propulsion in space. But coming as it did after the loss of Columbia, and when O'Keefe was given the directive to reduce cost, it was one of the programs to be indefinitely deferred. Nuclear power (and propulsion) is at the bottom of the list at NASA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One of my fellow undergraduates is currently working with Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on a project having to do with developing nuclear power for space
 
russ_watters said:
The simplest form of nuclear propulsion to develop would be a nuclear powered ion drive. Ion drives work and just need electricity, so I'm not sure there would be that steep of a curve to develop one...there'd just have to be a need.
Ion drives also need a bottle (or many bottles) of xenon gas or other high mass ion for consumption as the propellant. To understand the advantage of ion mass,

Energy E = (1/2) m v2.
Momentum p = m v
Therefore p = sqrt(2 m E)

So you get more thrust from a high mass ion.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_engines#Propellants
 
  • #10
Over a long term mission that seems like it would be a bit of a large load. Carrying enough gas for a several month journey.

Although you wouldn't be constantly burning the engines the whole way to your destination.

How about an engine design like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor
 
  • #11
With respect to energy requirements of ion propulsion, it is actually preferable to use ions of least mass in order to maximize ion speed/velocity.

let qV = 1/2 mv2, where q is the charge, V is the accelerating potential, m is the ion mass, and v is the exhaust velocity

then v = sqrt(2qV/m).


Xe is preferable from the standpoint of it's low ionization potential compared to other gases, but the trade off is low Isp. And actually, Cs is perhaps even better from the standpiont of ionziation potential.

Hydrogen would be ideal for Isp, but it has high ionization potential (13.6 eV) and low density in gas and liquid form, and liquid is disadvantageous from the standpoint of cryogenic systems.

Diborane B2H6 would be an interesting propellant, but it's very explosive in air.
 
  • #12
Although seeing as the air in space is so thin that wouldn't be a problem. The tanks would just have to be atmospherically isolated from the rest of the ship. Kept in an unpressurized section.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
385
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K