The Solar System is a really big place, and it takes forever to travel from world to world
with traditional chemical rockets.
But one technique, developed back in the 1960s might provide a way to dramatically shorten
our travel times: nuclear rockets.
Of course, launching a rocket powered by radioactive material has its own risks as well.
Should we attempt it?
Let’s say that you wanted to visit Mars using a chemical rocket.
You would blast off from Earth and go into low Earth orbit.
Then, at the right moment, you’d fire your rocket, raising your orbit from the Sun.
The new elliptical trajectory you’re following intersects with Mars after eight months of
flight.
This is known as Hohmann transfer, and it’s the most efficient way we know how to travel
in space, using the least amount of propellant and the largest amount of payload.
The problem of course, is the time it takes.
Throughout the journey, astronauts will be consuming food, water, air, and be exposed
to the long term radiation of deep space.
Then a return mission doubles the need to resources and doubles the radiation load.
We need to go faster.
It turns out NASA has been thinking about what comes next after chemical rockets for
almost 50 years.
Nuclear thermal rockets.
They definitely speed up the journey, but they’re not without their own risks, which
is why you haven’t seen them.
But maybe their time is here.
In 1961, NASA and the Atomic Energy Commision worked together on the idea of nuclear thermal
propulsion, or NTP.
This was pioneered by Werner von Braun, who hoped that human missions would be flying
to Mars in the 1980s, on the wings of nuclear rockets.
Well that didn’t happen.
But they did perform some successful tests of nuclear thermal propulsion and demonstrated
that it does work.
While a chemical rocket works by igniting some kind of flammable chemical and then forcing
the exhaust gases out a nozzle.
Thanks to good old Newton’s third law, you know, for every action there’s an equal
and opposite reaction, the rocket receives a thrust in the opposite direction from the
expelled gases.
A nuclear rocket works in a similar way.
A marble-sized ball of Uranium fuel undergoes the process of fission, releasing a tremendous
amount of heat.
This heats up a hydrogen to almost 2,500 C which is then expelled out the back of the
rocket at high velocity.
Very very high velocity, giving the rocket two to three times the propulsion efficiency
of a chemical rocket.
Remember the 8 months I mentioned for a chemical rocket?
A nuclear thermal rocket could cut the transit time in half, maybe even 100 day trips to
Mars.
Which means less resources consumed by the astronauts, and a lower radiation load.
And there’s another big benefit.
The thrust of a nuclear rocket could allow missions to go when Earth and Mars aren’t
perfectly aligned.
Right now if you miss your window, you have to wait another 2 years, but a nuclear rocket
could give you the thrust to deal with flight delays.
The first tests of nuclear rockets started in 1955 with Project Rover at the Los Alamos
Scientific Laboratory.
The key development was miniaturizing the reactors enough to be able to put them on
a rocket.
Over the next few years, engineers built and tested more than a dozen reactors of different
sizes and power outputs.
With the success of Project Rover, NASA set its sights on the human missions to Mars that
would follow the Apollo landers on the Moon.
Because of the distance and flight time, they decided nuclear rockets would be the key to
making the missions more capable.
Nuclear rockets aren’t without their risks, of course.
A reactor on board would be a small source of radiation to the astronaut crew on board,
this would be outweighed by the decreased flight time.
Deep space itself is an enormous radiation hazard, with the constant galactic cosmic
radiation damaging astronaut DNA.
In the late 1960s, NASA set up the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application program,
or NERVA, developing the technologies that would become the nuclear rockets that would
take humans to Mars.
They tested larger, more powerful nuclear rockets, in the Nevada desert, venting the
high velocity hydrogen gas right into the atmosphere.
Environmental laws were much less strict back then.
The first NERVA NRX was eventually tested for nearly two hours, with 28 minutes at full
power.
And a second engine was started up 28 times and ran for 115 minutes.
By the end, they tested the most powerful nuclear reactor ever built, the Phoebus-2A
reactor, capable of generating 4,000 megawatts of power.
Thrusting for 12 minutes.
Although the various components were never actually assembled into a flight-ready rocket,
engineers were satisfied that a nuclear rocket would meet the needs of a flight to Mars.
But then, the US decided it didn’t want to go to Mars any more.
They wanted the space shuttle instead.
The program was shut down in 1973, and nobody tested nuclear rockets since then.
But recent advances in technology have made nuclear thermal propulsion more appealing.
Back in the 1960s, the only fuel source they could use was highly enriched uranium.
But now engineers think they can get by with low-enriched uranium.
This would be safer to work with, and would allow more rocket facilities to run tests.
It would also be easier to capture the radioactive particles in the exhaust and properly dispose
of them.
That would bring the overall costs of working with the technology down.
On May 22, 2019, US Congress approved $125 million dollars in funding for the development
of nuclear thermal propulsion rockets.
Although this program doesn’t have any role to play in NASA’s Artemis 2024 return to
the Moon, it - quote - “calls upon NASA to develop a multi-year plan that enables
a nuclear thermal propulsion demonstration including the timeline associated with the
space demonstration and a description of future missions and propulsion and power systems
enabled by this capability.”
So money is flowing back into nuclear rocket research.
But what about fusion rockets?
When do we get to see Epstein Drives from The Expanse?
There’s good news on that front too, and I’ll talk about that in a second, but first
I’d like to thank:
Andrew Stewart Justin Olson
Jessica Felts Ady James
Jeremy Jozwik
And the rest of our 809 patrons for their generous support.
They contribute so that you can see these videos, and we can make them freely available
to anyone who wants to learn about space.
Join our community at patreon.com/universetoday and get in on the action.
Nuclear fission is one way to harness the power of the atom.
Of course, it requires enriched uranium and generates toxic radioactive waste.
What about fusion?
Where atoms of hydrogen are squeezed into helium, releasing energy?
The Sun has fusion worked out, thanks to its enormous mass and core temperature, but sustainable,
energy positive fusion has been elusive by us puny humans.
Huge experiments like ITER in Europe are hoping to sustain fusion energy within the next decade
or so.
After that, you can imagine fusion reactors getting miniaturized to the point that they
can serve the same role as a fission reactor in a nuclear rocket.
But even if you can’t get fusion reactors to the point that they’re net energy positive,
they can still provide tremendous acceleration for the amount of mass.
And maybe we don’t need to wait decades.
A research group at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory is working on a concept called
the Direct Fusion Drive, which they think could be ready much sooner.
It’s based on the Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration fusion reactor developed in
2002 by Samuel Cohen.
Hot plasma of helium-3 and deuterium are contained in a magnetic container.
Helium-3 is rare on Earth, and valuable because fusion reactions with it won’t generate
the same amount of dangerous radiation or nuclear waste as other fusion or fission reactors.
As with the fission rocket, a fusion rocket heats up a propellant to high temperatures
and then blasts it out the back, producing thrust.
It works by lining up a bunch of linear magnets that contain and spin very hot plasma.
Antennae around the plasma are tuned to the specific frequency of the ions, and create
a current in the plasma.
Their energy gets pumped up to the point that the atoms fuse, releasing new particles.
These particles wander through the containment field until they’re captured by the magnetic
field lines and they get accelerated out the back of the rocket.
In theory, a fusion rocket would be capable of providing 2.5 to 5 Newtons of thrust per
megawatt, with a specific impulse of 10,000 seconds - remember 850 from fission rockets,
and 450 from chemical rockets.
It would also be generating electricity needed by the spacecraft far from the Sun, where
solar panels aren’t very efficient.
A Direct Fusion Drive would be capable of carrying a 10 tonne mission to Saturn in just
2 years, or a 1-tonne spacecraft from Earth to Pluto in about 4 years.
New Horizons needed almost 10.
Since it’s also a 1 megawatt fusion reactor, it would also provide power for all the spacecraft’s
instruments when it arrives.
Much much more than the nuclear batteries currently carried by deep space missions like
Voyager and New Horizons.
Imagine what kinds of interstellar missions might be on the table with this technology
too.
And Princeton Satellite Systems isn’t the only group working on systems like this.
Applied Fusion Systems have applied for a patent for a nuclear fusion engine that could
provide thrust to spacecraft.
I know it’s been decades since NASA seriously tested nuclear rockets as a way to shorten
flight times, but it looks like the technology is back.
Over the next few years I expect to see new hardware, and new tests of nuclear thermal
propulsion systems.
And I am incredibly excited at the possibility of actual fusion drives taking us to other
worlds.
As always, stay tuned, I’ll let you know when one actually flies.
What do you think?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments.
Once a week I gather up all my space news into a single email newsletter and send it
out.
It’s got pictures, brief highlights about the story, and links so you can find out more.
Go to universetoday.com/newsletter to sign up.
Did you know that all of my videos are also available in a handy audio podcast format,
so you can have the latest episodes show up right on your audio device.
Go to universetoday.com/audio, or search for Universe Today on iTunes, Spotify or wherever
you get your podcasts.
I’ll put a link in the shownotes.
And finally, here’s a playlist.