Generating power: A power-conversion unit consisting of two Stirling engines, sitting opposite each other, is set up for testing at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. Pumped liquid metal is used to transfer heat from the reactor to the engines, where it is converted to electricity.
NASA
Tests prove the feasibility of using nuclear reactors to provide electricity on the moon and Mars.
Researchers at NASA and the Department of Energy recently tested key technologies for developing a nuclear fission reactor that could power a human outpost on the moon or Mars. The tests prove that the agencies could build a "safe, reliable, and efficient" system by 2020, the year NASA plans to return humans to the moon.
A fission reactor works by splitting atoms and releasing energy in the form of heat, which is converted into electricity. The idea for using nuclear power in space dates back to the late 1950s, when they were considered for providing propulsion through Project Orion. In the 1960s a series of compact, experimental space nuclear reactors were developed by NASA under the Systems Nuclear Auxiliary Power program. But public safety concerns and an international treaty banning nuclear weapons in space stopped development.
Now nuclear power is being considered for lunar and Mars missions because, unlike alternatives such as solar power, it can provide constant energy, a necessity for human life-support systems, recharging rovers, and mining for resources. Solar power systems would also require the use of energy storage devices like batteries or fuel cells, adding unwanted mass to the system. Solar power is further limited because the moon is dark for up to 14 days at a time and has deep craters that can obscure the sun. Mars is farther away from the sun than either the Earth or the moon, so less solar power can be harvested there.
The new nuclear power system is part of a NASA project started in 2006, called Fission Surface Power, that is examining small reactors designed for use on other planets. While nuclear power remains controversial, the researchers say that the reactor would be designed to be completely safe and would be buried a safe distance from the astronauts to shield them from any radiation it would generate.
The recent tests examined technologies that would see a nuclear reactor coupled with a Stirling engine capable of producing 40 kilowatts of energy--enough to power a future lunar or Mars outpost.
"We are not building a system that needs hundreds of gigawatts of power like those that produce electricity for our cities," says Don Palac, the project manager at NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, OH. The system needs to be cheap, safe, and robust and "our recent tests demonstrated that we can successfully build that," says Palac.
To generate electricity, the researchers used a liquid metal to transfer the heat from the reactor to the Stirling engine, which uses gas pressure to convert heat into the energy needed to generate electricity. For the tests, the researchers used a non-nuclear heat source. The liquid metal was a sodium potassium mixture that has been used in the past to transfer heat from a reactor to a generator, says Palac, but this is the first time this mixture has been used with a Stirling engine.
"They are very efficient and robust, and we believe [it] can last for eight years unattended," says Lee Mason, the principal investigator of the project at Glenn. The system performed better than expected, Palac says, generating 2.3 kilowatts of power at a steady pace.
Italian-Russian reactor could be the first to reach a major milestone.
The maker of nuclear power plants is promoting a process to use the waste as fuel.
Loan guarantees in the 2011 federal budget could help revive the nuclear power industry.
The article refers to a treaty that prohibits nuclear power in space. Which treaty is that? Nuclear *weapons* are prohibited under current space law, but that's not the same thing. In point of fact, both the US and the former Soviet Union launched nuclear reactors into space in the past, and the use of much smaller RTG power sources (radioisotope thermoelectric generators; essentially they transform heat from decaying plutonium into electricity, though not very efficiently; RTGs are nuclear powered, but not nuclear reactors, per se) is ongoing.
tribolumen,
Thanks for your comment! And you are correct, it should read nuclear "weapons". I have made the fix in the article. And yes, there has been forms of nuclear power launched, and people still protest no matter the amount or kind.
Brittany
Sorry, that may have come out a bit more surly than I intended. Thanks for the correction. And the article, for that matter.
Even though it would work excellently, I don't think it's very environmentally friendly. Why don't we put wind turbines on the moon, so we can avert global warming there too!
Wind Turbines on the Moon? Uhhh, My Alma Mater is Drexel, am I missing something? It actually sounds novel, cost effective and implementable.
In absence of smiley faces or "jk" sign-offs, I'm almost inclined to think you are serious. =)
But we do want global warming in space =P. Especially on Mars, that's basically the main idea on how to terraform it atm. just pump a bunch of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and in a few hundred years it will be vibrant and green!
The idea of very small, self-contained, nuclear power plants that operate autonomously for 10 years or more has been around for several years now. In fact, I understand several such devices are available commercially right now. Certainly some testing and modification might be necessary to use one of these on the moon, but I am not sure it is necessary at this point to re-invent the wheel. e.g., see:
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/15865/page1/
http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Small_nuclear_power_reactors
asiwel,
One of the big differences in nuclear power plants and what NASA and the DOE are working on is that power plants typically use turbine engines to produce electrical energy, whereas the new work uses Stirling engines because NASA's Fission Surface Power project is focusing on even smaller amounts of power than the small systems for power plants.
Brittany
Yes, that is a good point. Thank you. Turbines are not as reliable and long-lasting as Stirling engines and maybe, somehow, less power is better than more sometimes. Still, these emplacements would not have to last forever. One would hope we would still be there in a few years with even better replacements when needed.
There was a British Science Fiction TV show called "Space 1999", whose whole premise was that we [The United States of Britain] built a reactor on the moon and stored our nuclear waste [from Earth] on the moon. The nuclear waste accidentally exploded and sent the moon flying out of earth orbit and into interstellar space. The show [which was made in the early seventies] even had cool moon shuttle fighter ships that employed laser cannons along with hand ones Everyone also had laser guns. All this by 10 years ago, so they thought…
Decades ago NASA developed a concept for a nuclear battery to power space craft. They needed a battery that could work for decades in the harsh environment of space. The Navy uses nuclear batteries to power our subs and aircraft carriers.
A [Micro] nuclear battery [that is perfectly safe] could potentially power a car or truck for decades. The battery could theoretically be the size of the standard Dry Cell battery.
The idea never took off because of anti-nuclear opposition and government hysteria.
They use them in some satelites and in deep space probes. So the idea didn't die. I think the main issue with using a nuclear battery is that to power any sort of a long stay mission a nuclear reactor is needed over a nuclear battey because of the amount of power.
I'm so psyched every time I see any pro-nuclear article and especially one about space! A detailed article devoted to nuclear thermal rockets would be a real treat.
Nuclear power for space exploration
Good article, Brittany. (Even if I'm months late running across it!)
Two other nice points to using nuclear for this purpose: (1.) no years-long government review, and, (2.) no NIMBY! Well -- I guess the *astronauts* might not be too happy to have one right next to their living and work areas, not to mention their landing-ascent craft.
Enjoyed this piece.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
djweber
10 Comments
Nuclear propulsion
You don't need Project Orion to use nuclear power for propulsion, or even little mini-bombs. A Nuclear Thermal Rocket has a Specific Impulse about twice that of the best chemical rockets. But, it has the word "nuclear" in it.
Reply
erbium
331 Comments
Re: Nuclear propulsion
Huh?
the article is about nuclear power reactors, not propulsion.
Perhaps they could apply this technology to earth. Build a reactor that can be buried with no attending personnel, instead of the 2,400 highly trained personnel that attend each of today's reactors.
Reply