(Page 2 of 2)
Cooling off: Marc Gibson, a NASA test engineer, inspects the radiator panel used to cool the fission power system that is being tested at Glenn Research Center. The panel is six feet by nine feet. Twenty such radiators would be needed for a full-scale system.
NASA
The researchers also developed a lightweight radiator panel to cool the system and dissipate the heat from the reactor. The prototype panel is approximately six feet by nine feet--one-twentieth the size required for a full-scale system. Heat from a water-cooling system is circulated to the radiator where it dissipates.
The researchers tested the radiator panel in a vacuum chamber at Glenn that replicates the lack of atmosphere and the extreme temperatures on the moon--from over 100 degrees Celsius during the day to below 100 degrees Celsius at night. The panel dissipated six kilowatts of energy, more than expected--a "very successfully test," says Palac. On the moon, the panel must also survive the dusty environment cause by the regolith.
Lastly, the researchers tested the performance of the Stirling alternator in a radiation environment at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM. The objective was to test the performance of the motor, ensuring that the materials would not degrade. The alternator was subjected to 20 times the amount of radiation it would expect to see in its lifetime and survived without any significant problems.
Mason says that the tests are very important in showing the feasibility of the system and that the next step is for the researchers to conduct a full system demonstration, by combining a non-nuclear reactor simulator with the Stirling engine and radiator panel. He says that these tests should be completed in 2014.
The researchers are also working on the power transmission and electronics of the system. "A lunar base needs lots of power for things like computers, life support, and to heat up rocks to get out resources like oxygen and hydrogen," says Ross Radel, a senior member of the technical staff and part of the advanced nuclear concepts group at Sandia. His group is working on the systems dynamic analysis, a computer model that predicts how the reactor will perform during testing. "Nuclear is a stepping stone to move further out into manned space exploration," says Radel.
"It is a fascinating project and the only possible method of providing power for a manned trip to Mars," says Daniel Hollenbach, a researcher in the nuclear science and technology division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, who was not involved in the project.
Mason says that nuclear fission is one of a number of concepts being tested as a power source for human missions to the moon and Mars, and if selected, he says the technology could be deployed by 2020.
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.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
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
340 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