The Nuclear Space
By: Matthew Buza
Development of Nuclear Systems





Importance of Space
Exploration: moon, mars,
outer planets
Limits of Robotic missions,
need for manned missions
Limits of modern rockets
Use of nuclear as a new
system, what it offers
Nuclear for unmanned and
manned, and powering
alternative modes of
transportation (Ionic, RTG,
NTR)
Why Go?




Bring back the hidden dream, no spark.
Doubt in NASA, Columbia, Cost?, Need?
Forget that NASA also Aero not just space, most efficient branch of
government, education/research/materials/technologies/space/aero
Need for new cheaper, lighter, more powerful system of
transportation.
Robots and Rockets







The human detachment, Robots
can only do so much. No where
near where we want to study.
Loss of dynamic science, “On the
go science.”
Rockets limitations for travel (one
pop shop).
Chemical rockets a thing of the
past, new technologies needed.
Impulses of 400 to 500 sec.
Compared to N. 1000- 6000 sec.
1 kg of nuclear material has ten
millions times as much energy as
1 kg of chemical material.
New period (politically) allow for
new systems to be developed.
Nuclear Systems of the past!!!






United States and Russia competed with nuclear
reactors in space, though two paths were taken.
America went with RTG’s(45/1), while russia(6/36)
dabbled in more small nuclear reactors.
What is an RTG? And What type of Nuclear reactor?
RTGs are lightweight, compact spacecraft power
systems, very reliable. Not nuclear reactors, no
moving parts. No fission or fusion processes to
produce energy. Power through natural radioactive
decay of plutonium (mostly Pu-238, a nonweaponsgrade isotope). Heat generated is changed
into electricity.
Nuclear Reactors, small scaled down versions of
reactors. Use heating of water or gas to create
energy for system.
Famous missions with nuclear systems on them.
Apollo, Kosomos, Galileo, Cassini, Voyager 1/2 ,
Viking 1/2, pioneer
What does the Nuke give me?





More power than stored batteries, and large solar cells.
Weight alone, and size of reactors or RTG’s (1m x .4m dia.)
Ex: Cassini, 600-700W, 1.6 billion miles, 11 years. RTG(3)
mass: 168kg Solar panels: 1,337kg
Solar panels (4) are 42m X 3.5m, enormous.
Pro’s: size, no moving parts, easy maneuverability
Con’s: pulbic fear of nuclear, ex: 72 lbs of nuclear material.
“It will allow us to go to Neptune, Uranus and Pluto and go in orbit and allows us to think about
sending missions to other stars. The kinds of missions we’re talking about could not be done
without nuclear power” – Ed Weiler NASA space science chief.
“What we are talking about today is not whether we will develop nuclear space power systems, but
whether we will explore our solar system, because without nuclear power, it’s not practical “ –
James Crocker, VP Lockheed Martin.
Where too next?


New political desire for revived
space program. Administration is
willing to spend the money
needed to get back to the moon
and to mars.
Questions do arise as manned
missions are discussed
•
•
•

What about the power systems?
(solar, nuclear, battery)
If new and radical ship, where do
we build, and how do we get
there?
Protect crew from reactor
radiation, or reactor meltdown.
What type of transportation, old
rockets? Or something new?
Rattle and Hum -- the future is now



Two types of modern methods, and hopes. Nuclear
electric Propulsion (NEC), and Nuclear Thermal
Propulsion (NTP).
• Both have been developed extensively by JPL
and NASA, respectively.
NEC, most commonly known as Ionic propulsion.
• Systems runs off energy source, most likely a
nuclear reactor
• Located on the ship, battery and solar power
just not enough.
• Charged ions (inert gas bombarded), causing
an electron from atom to be expelled and then
charged particle creates an equal and opposite
‘push’ on the spacecraft as its ejected out
• Low thrust, but ion engines have very large
impulse times, which allows for higher speeds
in the long run.
NTP have been developed at NASA since 1959 for
space applications (NERVA).
• Attempting to create a rocket with an
imbedded nuclear reactor which superheats
low molecular mass materials (H2).
• Fear is that a rocket failure will cause a
nuclear disaster.
Future Travels





Price of one mars mission with
chemical rockets is 3 billion, while the
thermal-rocket engine was just 1.3
billion, less than half of the normal
chemical rocket.
If outer planets are to be explored
nuclear reactors and nuclear devices
for power and transportation will be
needed.
If stellar traveling is meant to happen
large impulse ion drives, with larger
nuclear reactors will be used.
Also new systems cut down on time
spent out, time spent outside of the
protective covering Earth’s magnetic
field.
Safer for the astronaut.
Nuke 




Stress importance of RTG’s, and nuclear reactors for space exploration.
Understand the world around you, expand the human presence in space. And the
limitations of modern chemical rockets.
The new propulsion techniques will allow for many more people to travel the solar
systems (for now).
Allow for a more hand’s on, and the dynamic science. The removal of robots, and
chemical rockets will usher in a new era of planetary exploration.