“Design and Analysis of Nuclear Propelled Spacecraft”

This report is submitted to Rashtrasant Tukdoji

Maharaj Nagpur University in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the award of degree
of

Bachelor of Engineering in Aeronautical Engineering

by

1. Shrut Deshmukh 3. Preshit Sambare

4. Dhanshree Tamshetwar
2. Kirti Kedar

under the guidance of

Prof. Sandeep Patil

DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

Lokmanya Tilak Jankalyan Shikshan Sanstha’s

PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

(An institution affiliated to Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University)

NAGPUR – 440019

2018 - 2019
 Lokmanya Tilak Jankalyan Shikshan Sanstha’s

PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

(An institution affiliated to Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University)

NAGPUR – 440019
2018 - 2019

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

This is to certify that the project entitled “Design and Analysis of Nuclear Propelled
Spacecraft” has been successfully completed by

Shrut Deshmukh

Kirti Kedar

Preshit Sambare

Dhanshree Tamshetwar

under the guidance of Prof. Sandeep Patil in recognition to the award of the degree by
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University in Aeronautical Engineering.

Prof. Sandeep Patil

(Project Guide)

External Examiner Dr. Girish D. Mehta Dr. M.P. Singh

Head of Department Principal

 DECLARATION
We certify that,
a. The work constrained in this project has been done by us under the guidance of our
supervisor
b. The work has not been submitted to any other institute for any degree or diploma
c. We have followed the guidelines provided by the institute in preparing the project report.
d. We have conformed to the norms and guidelines give in the Ethical Code of Conduct of
the Institute.
e. Whenever we have used materials (data, theoretical analysis, figures and text) from other
sources, we have given due credit to them by citing their name in the text of the report and
giving their details in the reference. Further, we have taken permission from the copyright
owners of the sources, whenever necessary.

Roll No. Name of Student Signature

815 Shrut Deshmukh
805 Kirti Kedar
833 Preshit Sambare
809 Dhanshree Tamshetwar
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Priyadarshini College of Engineering is a well established and renowned institute and follows a
goal of creating technocrats and brings it into reality, which will perform challenging endeavor in
technical field for welfare of human being.

We wish to avail this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to Guide Prof. Sandeep
Patil and Head of Department, Dr. Girish D. Mehta who continuously supervised our work
with utmost care and zeal. He has guided us in our endeavor to present our project on “Design and
analysis of Nuclear Propelled spacecraft”.

It’s a great pleasure to express our deep sense of gratitude and the whole hearted thanks to our
principal Dr. M. P. Singh, Priyadarshini College of Engineering, Nagpur.

We express our deep sense of gratitude to all teaching and non-teaching staff of the Institute, who
directly and indirectly helped us to complete our project successfully and to bring it into reality.
 Priyadarshini College of Engineering, Nagpur

Department of Aeronautical Engineering

CERTIFICATE

This is to be certified that,

Shrut Deshmukh

Kirti Kedar

Preshit Sambare

Dhanshree Tamshetwar

Students of eight semester B. E. (Aeronautical Engineering) submitted synopsis of their

dissertation work on “Design and Analysis of Nuclear Propelled Spacecraft” under my
supervision and guidance in Aeronautical Engineering Department, Priyadarshini College of
Engineering, Nagpur (Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur) during the
session 2018 - 2019.

It is submitted for the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the graduate degree
of Bachelor of Engineering in Aeronautical Engineering in the discipline of Engineering and
Technology. This work in the same form or any other is not submitted to any other university for
the award of any other degree or diploma.

Prof.Sandeep Patil

(Project Guide)
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO TITLE PAGE NO

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Motivation 1

1.2 Historical Background 3

1.3 Types of Nuclear Spacecraft 13

2 Literature Review 18

3 Theoretical Studies 23

3.1 Basic Formulae 23

3.2 Components of Spacecraft 28

4 Catia Models 30

5 Mathematical Calculations 37

6 Comparison with Chemical Rocket 42

7 Computational Results 45

7.1 Computational Analysis 46

7.2 Flow Visualisation 50

8 Conclusion 52

9 Future scope 54
 List of Figures

Figure No. Title Page No.

1.1 NERVA 1 as it stands in Huntsville, Alabama, Space Park 5

1.3.1 NERVA solid core rocket design 14

1.3.2 Solid Reactor Core for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion, NPT 14

1.3.3 Schematic of Nuclear Electric Propulsion, NEP Vehicle and 15

System

1.3.4 Schematic of a nuclear fusion rocket 16

1.3.5 Mars exploration modules based on External Pulsed Plasma 17

Propulsion, EPPP for a Mars mission

3.1 Projected Isp accounting for frozen flow losses as a function 26

of total fusion gain

4.1 Docking Port 30

4.2 Central Liner Sub-components 30

4.3 Truss structure for observation desk 31

4.4 Structure joining propulsion system to main body 31

4.5 Centrifuge 32

4.6 Propulsion sytem with propellant tank 32

4.7 Hard node and Transit Tunnel 33

4.8 Inflatable space modules 33

4.9 Solar panel and radiators 34

4.10 Propulsion System 34

4.11 Spacecraft Module 35

4.12(a) Nozzle scale model 35

4.12(b) Dimensions of Nozzle 36

4.12(c) Nozzle exported to ANSYS 36

 5.1 Payload mass fraction as a function of burn time and total 39
gain

5.2 Fusion Reaction 39

7.1 Meshing of Nozzle & setting Helium exhaust 46

7.2 Static Pressure Contour 46

7.3 Density Contour 47

7.4 Velocity Contour 47

7.5 Energy Contour 48

7.6 Enthalpy Contour 48

7.7 Mach Number 49

7.8 Inlet Conditions 49

7.9(a) Flow simulation in the nozzle(converging) 50

7.9(b) Flow simulation in the nozzle(diverging) 50

7.9(c) Flow simulation in nozzle (exhaust) 51

 List of Tables

Tables No. Title Page No.

1.1 NERVA: Reactor and Engine Systems Tests 5

5.1 Mass Calculation 38

6.1 The calculated parameters that are require before running 43

the GMAT simulation

6.2 Numeric comparison of the chemical rocket with an NTR 44

for a mission from LEO to LMO
Abstract

In scarcely two decades’ astronautics has outgrown its infancy and has become increasingly
important in daily life. Many countries have their own space programs, cooperate in
international projects, and are members of international space programs.
Up to now, it is the chemical rocket motor that has provided the thrust for large launch
vehicles that carry Earth satellites, interplanetary spacecraft or other payloads.
A conceptual vehicle design enabling fast, piloted outer solar system travel was created
predicated on a small aspect ratio spherical nuclear fusion reactor. The initial requirements
were satisfied by the vehicle concept, which could deliver a 172 mt crew payload from
Earth to Mars rendezvous in 118 days, with an initial mass in low Earth orbit of 1,690 mt.
Nuclear fusion reactors can be broadly classified into at least three groups: closed magnetic
(such as tokamaks, small aspect ratio toroids, spheromaks, field reversed, etc.), open
magnetic (mirrors), and inertial concepts. Based in part on the results of previous studies of
the attributes and shortcomings of these reactor groups towards space propulsion, a closed
magnetic system was chosen for this vehicle concept. . The high power density achievable
in closed systems, improved confinement, spin polarization of fuel, density and temperature
profile peaking provided advantages in application towards space propulsion.
The vehicle design was initiated by first establishing a simple set of mission requirements,
then producing a consistent engineering design that satisfied those requirements.
The reference missions selected were to destinations in the outer solar system, where
dozens of scientifically interesting worlds will compel human exploration in the future. The
missions were to provide a logical progression to the considerable mission planning
national space agencies have conducted over the years to more near term, inner solar
system destinations (i.e. the Moon).

The theoretical ideal experimental conditions have been created on this model. This project
describes analysis of design of nuclear fusion engine of the spacecraft, its analysis was
done using Fluent.

To keep up with the pace of current times, it’s essential that the project is cost effective and
efficient. The project is also designed in such a way that it can be helpful to coming
generations.
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

A fusion rocket is a theoretical design for a rocket driven by fusion propulsion which
could provide efficient and long-term acceleration in space without the need to carry a large
fuel supply. The design relies on the development of fusion power technology beyond current
capabilities, and the construction of rockets much larger and more complex than any current
spacecraft.
A space exploration mission requires power at many stages: for the initial launch of the space
vehicle and for subsequent maneuvering; for instrumentation and communication systems;
for warming or cooling vital systems; for lighting; for experiments and many more uses,
especially in manned missions. To date, chemical rocket thrusters have been used for
launching. It would be tempting to believe that all power could be supplied by solar means
since the sun is available and free.
However, in many cases the mission may take place in the dark and large solar panels are not
always suitable for a mission.
For short durations of up to a few hours, chemical fuels can provide energy of up to 60 000
kW, but for durations of a month use is limited to a kilowatt or less. Owing to the diffuse
nature of solar power, it is not practicable to provide rapid surges of large amounts of energy.
On the other hand, solar power is most efficient for power levels of some 10–50 kW for as
long as it is needed. Nuclear reactors can provide almost limitless power for almost any
duration. For this reason, especially for long interplanetary missions, the use of radioisotopes
for communications and the powering of experiments is preferred.

1.1 Motivation

Within the current technology one can plan missions to nearest planets around the solar
system; but the vision of the human is to reach stars and to understand the dynamics of the
universe with in a possible man’s life time. 46 The nearest start human can reach is at a
distance of 4.3 light years or 2.52 × 1013 miles. If we start traveling at a speed of 25000
miles per hour by a spacecraft it would take 114000 years to reach alpha century (Richard F.
Tinder. 1967). There are various observations over the nearest stars like Proxima Century,
Alpha Century-C, Bernard Star, Epsilon Eradani and Lalande-21185, which takes much
longer period since their distances are above 10 light years. The need to find opportunities to
complete such kind of missions with in a human life time needs greatest spacecraft which can

1
travel at relativistic speeds. With idea of four years of research with nuclear rocket
propulsion, the near future possible propulsion system that can support such kinds of
missions can be with gas core reactors. This indicates traveling in deep space is going to be
challenge where we have to be dependent on the time that we can encounter on the earth one
human’s life time. And completing such ambitious missions need effective propulsion system
Nuclear energy is one of the considerable sources for replacing chemical rockets; the idea of
using nuclear energy for rocket applications was established from the success of controlled
fission reaction. In space travel distances and time are two major contains which need to be
addressed from rocket science. The conventional rocket propulsion methods are quite suitable
to reach moon or near earth orbits with specific payloads. The space community in the
current generation is looking at interplanetary manned missions, to reduce the travel time to
protect human from space environment as well as from radiation. The competitive feasible
solution with in the aimed time line is going to be nuclear thermal rocket. The first glimmers
of a chance to convert fanciful notions of extraterrestrial flight into an idea with engineering
significance came with the invention of rocket (Robert, 1958). The idea of creating nuclear
thermal rocket is to strengthen the spacecraft’s 47 with higher energy potential. In nuclear
thermal rocket nuclear fission based rector will be used to produce energy and low molecular
weight propellant like hydrogen will be used as a propellant to extract heat from the reactor.
The major developments in designing reactor system for nuclear rockets are tied with safety
and cost effectiveness as well as engineering possibilities over material contains. The
operational temperature range starts from 3000k and it can be upgraded to effective values
based on the fluid limitations. Traveling with grater speeds in space is more of a relativistic
space mechanics problem than a systems development problem. The theoretical attainable
speed by manmade object internes of fraction of light speeds is 0.37c. Which needs a greater
level of kinetic energy producing device and carrying such a huge mass of fuel and propellant
will be a challenge. The reactor technology developments supporting nuclear thermal rockets
can eventually support travel up to nearest star system, if not a complete mission but at least
robotic probe can change the overall idea with its observations. The gas core reactor
development will be based on neutronics and establish collisional cross-section between the
neutron and the nuclei with in the core geometry. Unfortunately, there is not much
information available on gas phase neutronics and thermalized kinetics. LASL is active for
two decades in the investigation of neutronics with the hope that it can give a day of light for
nuclear thermal rocket development. The theoretical studies in the research indicate that gas
core neutronics is viable, but practical developments need more understanding. The idea of

2
working on gas core neutronics is to at least develop a system which can accommodate
10000K core temperature so that the specific impulse that can be achieved will reach to 1500
sec at least, since the theoretical studies are revolving around 2400-2800 sec. In a way fuel
selection choices are also limited, may be uranium hexafluoride, uranium 48 tetrafloride and
242 Am can only be used. This study over two group neutron theory will develop an idea
over gas core neutronics with heat transfer model.

1.2 Historical Background

The theoretical work on rockets which can travel beyond earth atmosphere started
from the Konstantin Tsiolkovskii in the period of 1857, he described about space travel,
weightlessness and exhaust velocity. The paper published in 1903 by Tsiolkovskii given a
derivation for rocket equation in the form of delta for the use of reaching distances, also he
described about the multistage rocket systems and liquid propulsion system by using alcohol
and liquid oxygen (Bissel WR, 1992). This work identified exhaust velocity as an important
performance parameter; also he concluded that higher temperature produced by lower
molecular weight liquid fuels would be an important method for producing higher exhaust
velocities.

The next stages of the theoretical work continued by Herman Obreth and he examined the use
of liquid propelled rockets in given a design in his doctoral thesis in 1923, by using his work
in Germany lot of amateur rocket scientists started creating systems using liquid oxygen and
alcohol. The actual engineering and scientific work originated from the year 1914 from
Robert Goddard, who got a patent for a liquid propelled rocket combustion chamber and a
nozzle. The overall experimentation and theoretical work from this professor resulted in
getting 214 patents for the development of various systems for rocket propulsion (Stanley,
2001). His inventions include use of vanes in the jet stream to steer the rocket, gyroscope,
turbo-pump to drive the propellant to the combustion chamber, cooling system for the rocket
nozzle using liquid oxygen. Goddard lunched his first rocket in 1926 with the weight of 5 kg
using petrol and liquid oxygen as a fuel and successfully attained a height of 12.5 meters and
he presented a paper on his experimental work and mentioned the possibility of sending
unmanned rocket vehicle to the moon (Goddard, 1919).

3
NERVA HISTORICAL SUMMARY

This US early nuclear program dealing with the thermal Rocket propulsion is very
popular, well documented, periodically revisited .In any case, this program is a mine of
experimental knowledge and its great merit is to have clearly demonstrated that the Nuclear
Thermal Rocket is feasible and safe. A other great merit, often forgotten, is that the
technology to process cryogenic hydrogen has been successfully developed for this
opportunity. From 1951, some theoretical analysis have shown the great merit of the
Nuclear Thermal rocket (NTR) in front of the chemical propulsion. In 1955, Los Alamos
Scientific Laboratory (L.A.S.L), supported by the USAF and the U.S.A.E.C began the
development of a NTR, without precise requirements, except to be able to be use for
rocket propulsion and to produce a thermal power of about 1000 MW. The design was a
homogenous graphite core reactor cooled by H2. This program was called ROVER. In 1958,
started the manufacturing of the first reactor. Its name was KIWI, because like the New
Zealand bird it has the elements for flight but it doesn’t fly. In 1961, NASA in front of
this meaningful initiative, founded the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (S.N.P.O ) a
NASA/AEC organization and supported the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle
Application (NERVA). The companies involved in this program were : - Aerojet
corporation for the Engine System design, - Westinghouse Electric corporation for the
nuclear core, - Rocketdyne for the LH2 Turbopump, - Y 12 Oak ridge for the nuclear fuel.
The requirements were to develop a flight rated engine of a thrust of 22 kN, a thermal
power of 1000 MW. The selected application was to be used as third stage for Saturn V, its
payload mass would be increase up to 65% and to be used for Mars Exploration. In
1964, after the full success completion of the KIWI tests, the S.N.P.O. supported the
L.A.S.L. for a more ambitious program, called PHOEBUS. The thrust and the Thermal
power required were 87,5 kN and 5000 MW. From funding reasons, this PHOEBUS
program was cancelled and the NERVA requirements updated to a 1500 MW Thermal
power and a thrust of 34 kN. From the L.A.S.L. side, small experimental reactors have been
built to test the NERVA fuel elements. These reactors called PEWEE released a thermal
power of 400 MW.

4
 Name Date of Testing

Phoebus 1B (one-Power test) Feb.1967

Phoebus 2(cold-flow tests) July 1967-Aug.1967

NRX-A6(one Power test) Dec.1967

XECF(cold-flow test) Feb.1968-Apriil 1968

Phoebus-2A(Three-Power tests) Jan.1968-July 1968

Pewee-1(Two Power Tests) Nov.1968-Dec.1968

XE(28 Starts) Dec.1968-Aug.1969

Table 1.1: NERVA: Reactor and Engine Systems Tests

Fig 1.1: NERVA 1 as it stands in Huntsville, Alabama, Space Park [Dewar, 2004]

5
RUSSIAN NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKET PROPULSION PROGRAM

The open literature dealing with the history of the Russian N.T.R is scarce and not fully
coherent A well informed history of the Russian Nuclear Program is presented in. In USSR,
the early studies related to the nuclear propulsion have started near 1950, before the first
"Spoutnik". This period the engineers in charge of the N.T.R. Where I.V Kourtchatov, M.V
Keldysh, and S. P Korolev, it seems that the leader was V.M Ielev (1926-1990). Their
analysis was regarding Solid, Liquid Core and Gas Core. In reality, the first Russian
projected application for Nuclear energy was to power a military Scramjet, like "Pluto" in
USA. Glushko, from his side, appeared to be in disagreement with the use of H2 and
suggested NH3. He have issued in February 1956 a preliminary report (Thermonuclear
Rocket Engine) in which comparative analysis of various types of chemical and nuclear
reactors. In 1958, Glushko established a special team headed by R.A Glinick to oversee the
work. With progress apparently stalled, in 1955 Kurchatov called an All Union conference of
Soviet researchers with the ultimate aim of opening up fusion research within the USSR. In
April 1956, Kurchatov travelled to the UK as part of a widely publicized visit by Nikita
Khrushchev and Nikolai Bulganin. He offered to give a talk at Atomic Energy Research
Establishment, at the former RAF Harwell, where he shocked the hosts by presenting a
detailed historical overview of the Soviet fusion efforts.He took time to note, in particular,
the neutrons seen in early machines and warned that neutrons did not mean fusion.

Unknown to Kurchatov, the British ZETA stabilized pinch machine was being built at the far
end of the former runway. ZETA was, by far, the largest and most powerful fusion machine
to date. Supported by experiments on earlier designs that had been modified to include
stabilization, ZETA intended to produce low levels of fusion reactions. This was apparently a
great success, and in January 1958 they announced the fusion had been achieved in ZETA
based on the release of neutrons and measurements of the plasma temperature.

Vitaly Shafranov and Stanislav Braginskii examined the news reports and attempted to figure
out how it worked. One possibility they considered was the use of weak "frozen in" fields,
but rejected this, believing the fields would not last long enough. They then concluded ZETA
was essentially identical to the devices they had been studying, with strong external fields.

By this time, Soviet researchers had decided to build a larger toroidal machine along the lines
suggested by Sakharov. In particular, their design considered one important point found in
Kruskal's and Shafranov's works; if the helical path of the particles made them circulate

6
around the plasma's circumference more rapidly than they circulated the long axis of the
torus, the kink instability would be strongly suppressed.

Today this basic concept is known as the safety factor. The ratio of the number of times the
particle orbits the major axis compared to the minor axis is denoted q, and the Kruskal-
Shafranov Limit stated that the kink will be suppressed as long as q > 1. This path is
controlled by the relative strengths of the external magnets compared to the field created by
the internal current. To have q > 1, the external magnets must be much more powerful, or
alternatively, the internal current has to be reduced.

Following this criterion, design began on a new reactor, T-1, which today is known as the
first real tokamak. T-1 used both stronger external magnets and a reduced current compared
to stabilized pinch machines like ZETA. The success of the T-1 resulted to its recognition as
the first working tokamak. For his work on "powerful impulse discharges in a gas, to obtain
unusually high temperatures needed for thermonuclear processes", Yavlinskii was awarded
the Lenin Prize and the Stalin Prize in 1958. Despite this, Yavlinskii was already preparing
the design of an even larger model, later built as T-3. With the apparently successful ZETA
announcement, Yavlinskii's concept was viewed very favourably.

Details of ZETA became public in a series of articles in Nature later in January. To

Shafranov's surprise, the system did use the "frozen in" field concept. He remained sceptical,
but a team at the Ioffe Institute in St. Petersberg began plans to build a similar machine
known as Alpha. Only a few months later, in May, the ZETA team issued a release stating
they had not achieved fusion, and that they had been misled by erroneous measures of the
plasma temperature.

T-1 began operation at the end of 1958. It demonstrated very high energy losses through
radiation. This was traced to impurities in the plasma due to the vacuum system causing
outgassing from the container materials. In order to explore solutions to this problem, another
small device was constructed, T-2. This used an internal liner of corrugated metal that was
baked at 550 °C (1,022 °F) to cook off trapped gasses

Working Principle of a Nuclear Fusion Reaction:

In nuclear chemistry, nuclear fusion is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei are
combined to form one or more different atomic nuclei and subatomic particles
(neutrons or protons). The difference in mass between the reactants and products is

7
manifested as either the release or absorption of energy. This difference in mass arises due to
the difference in atomic "binding energy" between the atomic nuclei before and after the
reaction. Fusion is the process that powers active or "main sequence" stars, or other high
magnitude stars.

A fusion process that produces a nucleus lighter than iron-56 or nickel-62 will generally yield
a net energy release. These elements have the smallest mass per nucleon and the
largest binding energy per nucleon, respectively. Fusion of light elements toward these
releases energy (an exothermic process), while a fusion producing nuclei heavier than these
elements will result in energy retained by the resulting nucleons, and the resulting reaction
is endothermic. The opposite is true for the reverse process, nuclear fission. This means that
the lighter elements, such as hydrogen and helium, are in general more fusible; while the
heavier elements, such as uranium, thorium and plutonium, are more fissionable. The
extreme astrophysical event of a supernova can produce enough energy to fuse nuclei into
elements heavier than iron.

The release of energy with the fusion of light elements is due to the interplay of two opposing
forces: the nuclear force, which combines together protons and neutrons, and the Coulomb
force, which causes protons to repel each other. Protons are positively charged and repel each
other by the Coulomb force, but they can nonetheless stick together, demonstrating the
existence of another, short-range, force referred to as nuclear attraction. Light nuclei (or
nuclei smaller than iron and nickel) are sufficiently small and proton-poor allowing the
nuclear force to overcome repulsion. This is because the nucleus is sufficiently small that all
nucleons feel the short-range attractive force at least as strongly as they feel the infinite-range
Coulomb repulsion. Building up nuclei from lighter nuclei by fusion releases the extra energy
from the net attraction of particles. For larger nuclei, however, no energy is released, since
the nuclear force is short-range and cannot continue to act across longer atomic length scales.
Thus, energy is not released with the fusion of such nuclei; instead, energy is required as
input for such processes.

Fusion powers stars and produces virtually all elements in a process called nucleosynthesis.
The Sun is a main-sequence star, and, as such, generates its energy by nuclear fusion of
hydrogen nuclei into helium. In its core, the Sun fuses 620 million metric tons of hydrogen
and makes 606 million metric tons of helium each second. The fusion of lighter elements in
stars releases energy and the mass that always accompanies it. For example, in the fusion of

8
two hydrogen nuclei to form helium, 0.7% of the mass is carried away in the form of kinetic
energy of an alpha particle or other forms of energy, such as electromagnetic radiation. [3]

It takes considerable energy to force nuclei to fuse, even those of the lightest
element, hydrogen. When accelerated to high enough speeds, nuclei can overcome this
electrostatic repulsion and brought close enough such that the attractive nuclear force is
greater than the repulsive Coulomb force. The strong force grows rapidly once the nuclei are
close enough, and the fusing nucleons can essentially "fall" into each other and the result is
fusion and net energy produced. The fusion of lighter nuclei, which creates a heavier nucleus
and often a free neutronor proton, generally releases more energy than it takes to force the
nuclei together; this is an exothermic process that can produce self-sustaining reactions.

Energy released in most nuclear reactions is much larger than in chemical reactions, because
the binding energy that holds a nucleus together is greater than the energy that
holds electrons to a nucleus. For example, the ionization energy gained by adding an electron
to a hydrogen nucleus is 13.6 eV—less than one-millionth of the 17.6 MeV released in
the deuterium–tritium (D–T) reaction shown in the adjacent diagram. The complete
conversion of one gram of matter would release 9×1013 joules of energy. Fusion reactions
have an energy densitymany times greater than nuclear fission; the reactions produce far
greater energy per unit of mass even though individual fission reactions are generally much
more energetic than individual fusion ones, which are themselves millions of times more
energetic than chemical reactions. Only direct conversion of mass into energy, such as that
caused by the annihilatory collision of matter and antimatter, is more energetic per unit of
mass than nuclear fusion.

Research into using fusion for the production of electricity has been pursued for over 60
years. Successful accomplishment of controlled fusion has been stymied by scientific and
technological difficulties; nonetheless, important progress has been made. At present,
controlled fusion reactions have been unable to produce break-even (self-sustaining)
controlled fusion.[4] The two most advanced approaches for it are magnetic confinement
(toroid designs) and inertial confinement (laser designs).

Workable designs for a toroidal reactor that theoretically will deliver ten times more fusion
energy than the amount needed to heat plasma to the required temperatures are in
development.

9
Mars Mission Propulsion Requirements:

The true potential of a nuclear rocket is not just for providing power for observation satellites
and anti-ballistic weapon systems, but for a possible space mission to Mars. The higher
specific impulse of the nuclear rocket can reduce the mission time for a Mars mission from
about a year for a chemical rocket, to about 2-3 weeks in the case of a nuclear rocket. This
may be crucial to avoid the effects of space radiation from solar flares on the astronauts, as
well as avoiding the effects of gravity's absence on the muscular bone, and other bodily
functions from exposure to space radiation and solar flares in long duration space missions.

Figure 25 compares the chemical and nuclear fission vehicles required to perform a manned
Mars exploration mission. Assuming that the space vehicle has been assembled in an Earth
orbit, with the components supplied by a space transport vehicle, or reusable rockets, the all-
chemical vehicle would have an initial weight in Earth orbit of almost 10 million pounds. The
nuclear vehicle weight would be about 1/10 this value, at about 950 thousand pounds. The
weight advantage is here clear.

A nuclear rocket would be crucial for the return of the astronauts. The USA NERVA reactor
as well as Russian designs used U235 as the fuel. New fuels consisting of tricarbide fuel:
(U235, Zr, Nb) C. The use of Pu239 is precluded by United Nations agreements on the use of
space. The use of a nuclear rocket cannot be used for landing and return from Mars. Because
of its radioactive exhaust, and the added need for surrounding, rather than just shadow
shielding of the crew, the landing and return must use chemical rockets, with the nuclear
rocket left in orbit around Mars. This is necessary, since the effective dose rate from an
unshielded NERVA engine after being fired can be in the range of 10,000 rem/hr, so that the
crew cannot stay close to it, should it be landed on Mars. As an illustration, the fission
product activity produced from a run lasting 1,000 seconds from a 2,000 MWth nuclear
rocket would produce more than 109 Curies (Ci) of

Fission products, which is 1/10 what is produced over two-year operational period for a
typical land-based 3,411 MWth nuclear power plant.

The Orbitech Company developed in-situ resource utilization systems to exploit the Martian
atmosphere for ground transportation, flight propulsion, and power. Solid CO and C are used
as fuels in hybrid rocket propulsion systems. Small-scale solid CO/O2 hybrid motors,

10
cryogenic solid hybrid rocket engines, vortex combustion ramjets, scramjets, and solid
oxygen/liquid hydrogen hybrid engines were pursued.

Because of planetary alignments a window of opportunity for a trip to Mars opens every 26
months, with some windows being better than others. The year 2016 offers a good window.
NASA's Johnson Space Center estimates the cost of a mission including 3 trips to Mars at
$50 billion. A scaled down approach could be done for 20-30 billion in 2000 dollars.

On Mars, nuclear power would be needed. Because of dust storms and high wind speeds, a
Mars colony would have to be sheltered underground, and need a reliable power supply for
heat, transportation, food production, water supply, communications and other life supporting
measures. The environment on Mars is very harsh. Temperatures average at below 273 K,
and are at 148 K at the Polar Regions. The climate is dry and hostile, threatening the
astronauts at every turn.

Providing energy, particularly heating for the astronauts cannot depend on solar energy or on
radioisotope generators, and needs a nuclear reactor source. A mission composed of 4
astronauts would need a power supply of about 140 kWe. Most radioisotope generators have
used plutonium238, and assuming a dynamic conversion system's efficiency of 30 percent,
the thermal energy needed for the astronauts is 140 x (100 / 30) = 466.66 kWth. One needs
about 1.8 kg of Pu238 per kWth produced. Thus one needs: 1.8 x 466.66 = 840 kgs of Pu238.
This amount is beyond any possible existing supply, and suggests that such a mission, for
reliability reasons, would require at least two nuclear reactors producing a thermal power of
0.5 MWth each, for a total of 1 MWth of power. During the Martian day, three solar power
systems at 10 kWe each may supplement their needs.

It will take at least a decade of research and development, with an expense of at least $50
billion to prepare for a Mars mission. NASA has been lately trying a strategy of "faster,
cheaper, better," in its exploration of Mars, leading to about a 2 out of 3 as a success rate.
With manned space mission, a higher degree of reliability will be needed. The pressurized,
air-tight habitat must be constructed in phases in the way the International Space Station
(ISS) was built. A secure, long-term food supply would be crucial. A company is working on
3-D printers that would combine powders and concentrates to create foods that replicate the
textures, flavors, and smells of natural foods. Martian farmers could grow food in pressurized
greenhouses, using genetically modified crops to compensate for the planet's high radiation

11
and low intensity sunlight. Life on Mars can be envisioned to be stunning, frightening, lonely,
cramped, and busy, all at the same time

According to astronaut John Grunsfeld: "Single-planet species do not survive. He is among

the researchers, astronauts, and space exploration firms who see establishing an outpost on
the Red Planet not just as a scientific challenge, but as essential to mankind's survival.
Cosmologist Stephen Hawking shares the thought: "The human race should not have all its
eggs in one basket, or on one planet. I believe that we will eventually establish self-sustaining
colonies on Mars and other bodies in the solar system. He figures it could happen "within the
next 100 years."

Should a nuclear winter, shrinking resources, a growing population, climate change, or a visit
by hostile aliens threaten humankind on Earth, a colony on Mars could serve as a Noah’s Ark
to keep life going.

The health risks of long-term exposure to space radiation, reduced gravity, longer days, and
extraterrestrial atmospheric conditions pose a challenge. Astronauts are known to experience
bone degradation, muscle loss, and swollen optic nerves from spending too much time in zero
gravity. A Russian-sponsored experiment called Mars 500, in which six men were confined
for 500 days under conditions meant to emulate a Mars mission, showed that Mars travelers
could face severe sleep disturbances, lethargy, and depression. To shorten the Mars mission’s
time to a few weeks rather than years, a high specific-impulse nuclear rocket appears as a
necessity, not just a luxury.

12
1.3 Types of Nuclear Propulsion Systems:

The nuclear rocket involves a combination of the principles of rocketry and nuclear
reactor technology. Most of them involve the delivery of energy as heat or kinetic energy to
the rocket itself or to a working medium such as liquid hydrogen. The working medium is
then expanded through a nozzle and accelerated to high ejection velocities reaching 6,000 to
10,000 m/sec.
The heating of the gas is not achieved by chemical reactions like in chemical
rockets, but from nuclear reactions including fission, radioactive decay, fusion, and
miniature nuclear explosions. In chemical rockets, energy is obtained from the propellants
themselves, whereas in nuclear rockets the energy source and the propellant are separate.
Several concepts have been proposed:

1. Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NPT):

In this case a fission reactor produces the energy generated from the fission of uranium. This
energy is transferred to liquid hydrogen as a working fluid. The reactor core operates at high
temperature above 2,200 degrees Celsius. A diagram of a solid core reactor thermal system is
shown in Fig. 8.
Many concepts for both the power generation and the propulsion aspects are under
consideration. These include solid liquid and gaseous fuel reactors and liquid metal and gas
cooled reactors. Solid core reactors include pellet beds, particle beds, wire core, and foil
reactors. Liquid cores include a droplet core and a liquid annulus core. Gaseous cores include
an open cycle, a vapor core and “light-bulb” concepts. Thermal to electric conversion cycles
include dynamic cycles: Potassium Rankine and Brayton, as well as static cycles: thermionic
and HYTEC.

13
 Figure 1.3.1: NERVA solid core rocket design.

Figure 1.3.2: Solid Reactor Core for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion, NPT.

14
 2. Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP):

The nuclear electric power generated from the fission reaction or from the decay of
radioisotopes is used to accelerate ions or other subatomic particles, which are ejected from
the back of the rocket providing in a continuous low thrust. Such a system is shown in figure,
together with the other components of the nuclear electric vehicle including the payload,
shield, radiators, thrusters, power conversion, and power conditioning equipment. The
propulsion concepts include steady state and pulsed electromagnetic engines, pulsed
electrochemical and steady state electrostatic engines.

Figure 1.3.3: Schematic of Nuclear Electric Propulsion, NEP Vehicle and System.

3. Nuclear Fusion Propulsion:

In this case, nuclear fusion using charged particles fusion reactions such as the reaction:
2
1D + 2He3 1H1 + 2He4,
would produce only charged particles whose kinetic energy can be directed by a magnetic
field from a nozzle at the back of the engine. Figure 15 shows a schematic of a fusion
propulsion system including a thermonuclear plasma enclosed in a magnetic mirror generated
by the conducting magnet coils surrounding the plasma.

15
 Figure 1.3.4: Schematic of a nuclear fusion rocket.

4. External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion, EPPP:

This concept using miniature nuclear explosive charges has been explored in the past and
designated as the Orion project. The charges are ejected in the back of the rocket, and their
energy is transferred to spring loaded plates at the back of the rocket. Figure 18 shows
schematics of such a concept studied for a Mars mission.

16
Figure 1.3.5: Mars exploration modules based on External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion, EPPP
for a Mars mission.

17
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Realizing "2001: A Space Odyssey": Piloted Spherical Torus Nuclear Fusion

Propulsion Craig H. Williams, Leonard A. Dudzinski, Stanley K. Borowski, and Albert
J. Juhasz ,National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Abstract:
A conceptual vehicle design enabling fast, piloted outer solar system travel was created
predicated on a small aspect ratio spherical torus nuclear fusion reactor. The initial
requirements were satisfied by the vehicle concept, which could deliver a 172 mt crew
payload from Earth to Jupiter rendezvous in 118 days, with an initial mass in low Earth orbit
of 1,690 mt. Engineering conceptual design, analysis, and assessment was performed on all
major systems including artificial gravity payload, central truss, nuclear fusion reactor, power
conversion, magnetic nozzle, fast wave plasma heating, tankage, fuel pellet injector,
startup/re-start fission reactor and battery bank, refrigeration, reaction control,
communications, mission design, and space operations. Detailed fusion reactor design
included analysis of plasma characteristics, power balance/utilization, first wall, toroidal field
coils, heat transfer, and neutron/x-ray radiation. Technical comparisons are made between the
vehicle concept and the interplanetary spacecraft depicted in the motion picture 2001: A
Space Odyssey.

2. A COMPARISON OF NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKETS WITH TRADITIONAL

CHEMICAL ROCKETS FOR SPACE TRANSPORT by Joshua T. Hanes

Abstract:
The Solar System has multiple destinations that private and governmental space agencies are
planning to explore. Missions within the Solar System are both exorbitantly expensive and
time intensive projects that involve high risks for the organizations involved. In planning a
mission to Mars and other similar targets, a critical design parameter to consider is the most
effective propulsion system to transport the crew and payload to the destination in a given
time frame. To understand the most effective propulsion system for space exploration, this
analysis will use current parameters for a mission to Mars to compare the advantages and

18
disadvantages of the chemical rocket with nuclear thermal propulsion.
Through numerical, graphical, and simulation data, this study validates that nuclear thermal
propulsion, operating under an initial thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.11, can complete a mission
from low Earth orbit to low Mars orbit within the same ten-month time frame as a chemical
rocket. The numerical data in this analysis also shows that the nuclear thermal rocket is able
to deliver 127,727.11 kilograms of payload to low Mars orbit, which is an extra 50,807
kilograms of payload when compared to a chemical rocket of the same size. By utilizing the
extra payload carried by a nuclear thermal rocket, and an estimated budget of $23 billion for
NASA to develop a chemical rocket as part of the Space Launch System to be used for a
crewed mission beyond the moon’s orbit , this paper shows that a nuclear thermal rocket
would decrease the overall payload cost per kilogram by $430,000.

3. Nuclear Propulsion through Direct Conversion of Fusion Energy: The Fusion Driven
Rocket by John Slough, Anthony Pancotti, David Kirtley, Christopher Pihl, Michael
Pfaff

Abstract:
The future of manned space exploration and development of space depends critically on the
creation of a dramatically more proficient propulsion architecture for in-space transportation.
A very persuasive reason for investigating the applicability of nuclear power in rockets is the
vast energy density gain of nuclear fuel when compared to chemical combustion energy.
Current nuclear fusion efforts have focused on the generation of electric grid power and are
wholly inappropriate for space transportation as the application of a reactor based fusion-
electric system creates a colossal mass and heat rejection problem for space application. The
Fusion Driven rocket (FDR) represents a revolutionary approach to fusion propulsion where
the power source releases its energy directly into the propellant, not requiring conversion to
electricity. It employs a solid lithium propellant that requires no significant tankage mass.
The propellant is rapidly heated and accelerated to high exhaust velocity (> 30 km/s), while
having no significant physical interaction with the spacecraft thereby avoiding damage to the
rocket and limiting both the thermal heat load and radiator mass. In addition, it is believed
that the FDR can be realized with little extrapolation from currently existing technology, at
high specific power (~ 1 kW/kg), at a reasonable mass scale .

19
4. The VASIMR Engine: Project Status and Recent Accomplishments by F.R. Chang
Díaz , J. P. Squire , T. Glover , A. J. Petro1 , E. A. Bering III , F. W. Baity , R. H.
Goulding3 , M. D. Carter , R. D. Bengtson , B. N. Breizman.

Abstract:
The development of the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) was
initiated in the late 1970s to address a critical requirement for fast, high-power interplanetary
space transportation. Its high-power and electrodeless design arises from the use of radio
frequency (RF) waves to create and accelerate plasma in a magnetic nozzle. While not being
a fusion rocket, it nevertheless borrows heavily from that technology and takes advantage of
the natural topology of open-ended magnetic systems. In addition the system lends itself well
for Constant Power Throttling (CPT,) an important ability to vary thrust and specific impulse
over a wide operational range, while maintaining maximum power. This allows inflight
mission-optimization of thrust and specific impulse to enhance performance and reduce trip
time.
A NASA-led, research team, involving industry, academia and government facilities is
pursuing the development of this concept in the United States.

The technology can be validated, in the near term, in venues such as the International Space
Station, where it can also serve as both a drag compensation device and a plasma contactor
for the orbital facility. This paper outlines the most recent advances in VASIMR research and
presents the near-term experiments being pursued in the development of the technology.

5. The role of nuclear power and nuclear propulsion in the peaceful exploration of space
by Andreyev, P.V., Baranov, G.D

Abstract:
A space exploration mission requires power at many stages: for the initial launch of the space
vehicle and for subsequent manoeuvering; for instrumentation and communication systems;
for warming or cooling vital systems; for lighting; for experiments and many more uses,
especially in manned missions. To date, chemical rocket thrusters have been used for

20
launching. It would be tempting to believe that all power could be supplied by solar means
since the sun is available and free. However, in many cases the mission may take place in the
dark and large solar panels are not always suitable for a mission. Figure 1 shows the regimes
of possible space power applicability. For short durations of up to a few hours, chemical fuels
can provide energy of up to 60 000 kW, but for durations of a month use is limited to a
kilowatt or less. Owing to the diffuse nature of solar power, it is not practicable to provide
rapid surges of large amounts of energy. On the other hand, solar power is most efficient for
power levels of some 10–50 kW for as long as it is needed.

6. Nuclear & Plasma space pro[ulsion by M. Ragheb

Abstract:
In their role as stewards of life on Earth and perhaps in the whole known universe, humans
feel an innate mission to preserve and spread life; not just their own species. With their
acquired intelligence, science and technology, they feel that it is their sacred destiny to
preserve life, starting with the equivalent of Noah’s Arks on both the moon and Mars and
maybe on the Asteroids. In fact, with their wealth in water and rare minerals, the asteroids are
prime candidates for Noah’s Arks and for human colonies using their water for survival,
dissociating it into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel, and mining their minerals for fuel,
construction, food-production and trade.
Life can be subject to extinction on Earth either from within through volcanic eruptions or
viral epidemics or from astral assailants as asteroid or comets impacts from space, as we
know did indeed happen in the past. It is urgent to keep backup copies of life, like we keep
for files on computers, on the moon and Mars and some asteroid; protected from the possible
unexpected calamities that could extinguish life on Earth.
Large amounts of chemical energy must be used in space travel to propel a space vehicle,
especially out of the main pull of the Earth's gravity.
The first stage of the Saturn V rocket used in the Moon missions Apollo program generated
as much energy as 1 million automobile engines.
The rocket engine as well as the propellant fuel must also be compact and lightweight,
before the space vehicle can carry them.

21
 7. ‘Lifting the Human Species Out of Its Ordinary Existence’

Abstract:
Today we are in the midst of a pivotal moment in history, which will decide much about the
fate of mankind for the coming century, and beyond. Despite the chaos being fomented in the
United States against the Trump administration, this moment is an incredibly optimistic one.
The system that has controlled the world for centuries, the system of geopolitics, has
collapsed. Along with it have collapsed (unless we are foolish enough to cling to them) the
failed ideas and axioms that have governed how people think—what they value, what they
believe to be true, or powerful, and what policies they will accept.
For example: the notion that money is equivalent to wealth. There is more money in the
financial system than ever before in mankind’s history, yet look at how far the standard of
living for the average American has fallen compared to 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago!
Add to that the spike in the death rate in the United States due to drug overdoses and
suicides. Take the idea that one nation’s rise is a threat to every other nation—a central tenet
of geopolitics.
This lie is being completely overturned by China’s “One Belt One Road” policy of win-win
cooperation, which is based on the common aims and common good of all nations, and has
already begun to revolutionize the economies of Eurasia and Africa.

22
 CHAPTER 3

THEORETICAL STUDIES
CHAPTER 3: THEORITICAL STUDIES

3.1 Model of FDR and Mission Assumptions:

An analytical model, based on a mission driven approach, was used to examine a direct Mars
Transit utilizing a Fusion Drive Rocket (FDR). This was similar to the methodology
employed by NASA’s Copernicus to determine accurate mission profile and V requirements
as a function of mission transfer time and thruster burn time. Analysis was focused on a 90-
day transit time to Mars. It was felt that this timescale was an appropriate balance between
fast transfer time, required to protect astronauts from harmful space radiation, while still
providing high payload mass fraction and low initial launch masses. Moreover, a 90-day trip
can easily be accomplished with a conservative estimate of fusion gains that will be discussed
in detail later. While faster trip times are possible, they come of course at the cost of
decreased payload mass fraction. These numbers can be greatly improved by simply attaining
large fusion gain with a consequent higher Isp from the FDR. However it was the intent of
this work to focus on how, even with conservative estimates of fusion yield, FDR could
revolutionize interplanetary space travel. In addition to the primary 90-day mission, more
ambitious mission profiles such as a 30-day Mars transit were examined in particular with
regard to increased fusion ignition yields. While these higher gains are quite feasible they are
not certain at this time, and therefore were not assumed for the first implementation studies of
FDR, but rather analyzed to illustrate, once the physics of the FDR has a sound footing in
both experiment and theory, what the potential of this technology could provide to manned
space exploration

3.1.1 Physics of Inductively Driven Liner Compression (IDLC)

For the purposes of the analysis given here, a very conservative liner kinetic energy, EL =
560 kJ was assumed from the existing 1.4 MJ capacitor bank based on modeling and other
inductive liner compression experiments. The dynamics of the liner implosion are governed
by the equation:

d 2 r  Bin B 
2
Ml 2    ext 2rw
dt  2  2  

23
where ML is the liner mass, and w the liner width. During the liner acceleration very little
flux leaks through the liner (Bin << Bext). On energizing the driver coil, due to the small gap
and the inertia of a solid metal liner, the magnetic field rapidly increases and is then
maintained at a roughly constant amplitude (Bext ~ const.) during the inward motion of the
liner as the increasing flux from the driver circuit into the gap between the coil and liner is
countered by the increasing gap cross-sectional area. This liner/magnetic behavior was
confirmed by 3D modeling with the Maxwell® 3D electromagnetic code. With this
approximation Eq. (1) is readily integrated. Given the liner mass ML = 2rLwL, where 
is the liner thickness and L the liner density, the liner velocity is:

 r t   2 
vL    B ext t  125 Bext 2
 2 rLL  
where  is the period of acceleration at constant Beat. An aluminum liner was assumed in
evaluating the right hand side.
The energy within the FRC separatrix at peak compression is dominated by plasma energy
that must be in radial pressure balance with the edge axial magnetic field B0, so that one can
write:
1 4 B2
E L  M L v L  3n kT  .r3    .r3
2

2 3 

where the zero subscript indicates values at peak compression. The last expression in Eq. (3)
reflects the reasonable assumption that rs ~ r0 and magnetic pressure balance (2n0kT0= B0 2
/20). One has then for the fusion energy produced in the FRC during the shell’s dwell time
D at peak compression:
E fus  1.2 10 12 n2 v   .r3 D
4
3

where n0 and T0 are the peak density and temperature, and where the liner shell dwell time at
peak compression, D, ~ 2r0/vL. The dwell time can actually be much longer for a thick
liner, but the more conservative dwell time is assumed here. Liner compressive effects are
also ignored in this zero order analysis. The usual approximation for the D-T fusion cross
section in this temperature range:   1.1x10-31 T2 (eV) was also assumed. Pressure
balance, together with expressions (3) and (4) yields for the fusion gain:

24
 E fus ML
G  1.73 10 3 Bo
EL lo

where l0 (= 2r0) is the length of the FRC at peak compression. The last expression is
obtained from the adiabatic scaling laws for the FRC.
E fus  EL  15
 G   4.3 10 M L8 vL4.75
8

ML  ML 

The most relevant metric of the Fusion Driven Rocket is the energy gain of the fusion
reaction. Thus the mission analysis included a trade study of various fusion gains. The
primary fusion gain can be stated as a function of the liner mass, ML, and the terminal
velocity, VL, (i.e. liner energy) at which the liner converges.

Where GI is the ignition gain, C is a fusion constant15 equal to 4.3x10-8 and Ein is the
energy input into the fusion reaction and is described by,

Specific impulse can be determined as a function of the total gain (= fusion gain  a variable
ignition multiplier) as shown in figure and described by the following equation,

2 Ek ML
I sp 
g0

In addition to this fusion gain, there is a likely possibility of an ignition gain due to additional
heating of the plasma from the magnetically confined fusion product alpha (4He) ions. The
additional energy from fusion heated fuel varies significantly depending on assumptions of
the liner dynamical behavior as well as the fusion burn propagation.

25
 Figure 3.1: Projected Isp accounting for frozen flow losses as a
function of total fusion gain.

The resulting minimum expected Isp for FDR is therefore 2,440 s, and could range as high as
5,720 s. Notice that the Isp drops quickly at lower fusion gains. This is due to the rising
significance of the lithium liner’s ionization cost.

By knowing the exhaust products of the fusion reaction determined above and this ∆V
requirement, the mass ratio, MR, is set by the simple rocket equation

. The mass of the fusion system is defined as energy input into the fusion reaction divided by
the specific mass of the capacitors, αcap, required to supply that energy, and the mass of the
solar panels is defined as the power required to charge the fusion caps divided by the solar
panel specific mass, αSEP. Finally the actually power need to run the fusion reactor is simple
the energy input divided by the frequency of operation as written.

26
Where, MR = mass ratio
Mi = Initial mass of the spacecraft
Mf = Final mass of the spacecraft
MPL = Mass of payload
Ms = Mass of structure
MP = Mass of propellant
Ein = Initial Energy
αcap = Capacitor specific mass
αsep = Solar panel specific mass

27
3.2 : Components of Spacecraft

1. Centrifuge
Used to create artificial gravity for human traveling during manned missions.
Creates an inertial force that mimics the effect of gravitational force similar to that on the
earth, usually by rotation.

2. Inflatable space modules

Artificial habitats or expandable habitats that are pressurised structures which are capable of
supporting life in outer space. The volume of these modules can be varied and they expand
after launch.

3. CMG cluster
This is an attitude control device which is generally used to control a system.
A CMG consists of a spinning rotor and one or more motorized gimbals that tilt the
rotor’s angular momentum as the rotor tilts, the changing angular momentum causes
a gyroscopic torque that rotates the spacecraft.

4. Docking port
This port is the only joining point for any two space vehicles (joints may be temporary or
semi-permanent)
Docking simply implies the joining of two different free flying space vehicles.

5. Observation deck
All the system working or are worked on, are contained in the observation deck with all
communication systems and command panels.

6. Airlock
Airlock is the permitting passage for people and objects between pressure vessel and it's
surrounding.
This minimizes change of pressure in vessel and loss of air from it.

28
 7. Start-up thrusters
These are propulsive devices used by spacecrafts for station keeping, attitude control in long
duration-low thrust accelerations.

8. Hard nodes & transit tunnel

Support for the whole centrifuge is greatly affected by the hard node used.
The transit tunnel it the pressurized air passage from the centrifuge.
Hard node and transit tunnel, due to symmetry requirements, are often designed facing each
other.

9. Solar array
Used to generate power to run sensors, active heating and cooling.
Used as secondary propulsion systems in many cases.

10. Communication array

Signal antennas used for on-earth communications of the spacecraft. These help keep the
check on the spacecraft. Eg. Tracking systems.

11. Propulsion integration collors

Integration of engines to the airframe is of great importance as the structural stability is
greatly affected by them. This integration is the assembly of the engine and propulsion
system to the mainframe of spacecraft.

12. Radiators
For the cooling approach for the engine, heat dissipation is very important and is carried out t
every stage during the travel time. Radiators give out the waste heat in the surrounding
resulting in ultimate reduction of temperature of the engine.

29
 CHAPTER 4

CATIA MODELS
CHAPTER 4: CATIA MODELS

4.1 Computer Aided Design

Fig 4.1: Docking Port

Fig 4.2: Central Liner Sub-components

30
 Fig 4.3: Truss structure for observation desk

Fig 4.4: Structure joining propulsion system to main body

31
 Fig 4.5: Centrifuge

Fig. 4.6: Propulsion system with propellant tank

32
Fig 4.7: Hard node and Transit Tunnel

Fig 4.8: Inflatable space modules

33
Fig 4.9: Solar panel and radiators

Fig 4.10: Propulsion System

34
 Fig 4.11: Propulsion System

Fig 4.12(a): Nozzle scale model

35
 Fig 4.12(b): Dimensions of Nozzle

Fig 4.12(c): Nozzle exported to ANSYS

36
 CHAPTER 5

MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION
CHAPTER 5: MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION

5.1 Spacecraft Calculations:

As per the mission requirements, the initial conditions as stated were considered such that the
spacecraft performs at maximum efficiency.
Thus below values are taken into the same consideration.

Taking pressure conditions via computational results,

Pressure conditions = 9.0×105 Pa

Inlet Pressure = 9.9×105 Pa
Exit Pressure = 1.64×105 Pa
Calculated Mass for the spacecraft:

Spacecraft Component Description Mass (kg)

Spacecraft structure Fairings, support structure, communication, data 30300
handling ACS, Batteries
Propellant tank Lithium containment vessel 2100
FRC Formation Hardware responsible for formation and 9000
injection of
Fusion material (FRC)
Propellant Feed Mechanism responsible for formation and 19000
insertion of
propellant liner
Energy storage Capacitors 20000
Liner driver coils Electromagnetic coil used to drive inductive 16000
liner
Switches and cables Pulsed power electronic components need to 3900
charge
and discharge capacitor bank
Solar Panels Solar panel array needed to supply power to 27000
propulsion
system
Thermal Management Radiator to coil fusion components 18000
Nozzle Magnetic nozzle used to protest spacecraft 9000
structure and direct fusion products
Total 154300
Spacecraft Mass 279000

37
 Crew habitat Crewed compartment, atmospheric 31400
conditioners,
oxygen, food water,
Propellant Lithium 418264
Total Mass(kg) 883,000

Table 5.1: Mass calculation

So we get,
Mo =883,000 kg
Mf =464,000 kg

Mo
MR   1.903
Mf

The exit velocity obtained with above pressure conditions is, Ve=31.4 km/s.

Thus by applying,

 Mo 
V  Ve  ln Mf  -(1)
 

From (1), we get,

V  31.4103ln(1.9)

V  20.125103 m/s

Mo  Mf  Mp

Mp  Mo  Mf  418264kg

So taking the relation of Mass ration interms of Isp, we get,

 
MR  e  IspV
 g 
  
V
ln(MR) 
Isp.g

Isp  3.20010 3sec

38
 Isp  3200sec

Fig 5.1: Payload mass fraction as a function of burn time and total gain

4.2 Chemical Fusion Reaction calculations:

Virtually all previous fusion propulsion systems needed to employ alternate fusion reactions
that produce primarily charge particles as fusion products to avoid the large energy loss from
fusion neutrons. The most tenable were D-3He Þ P(14.7 MeV) + 4He(3.6 MeV) and P-11B Þ 3
4He(2.9 MeV). These reactions require much higher plasma temperatures and are orders of
magnitude more difficult to achieve than the D-T Þ n(14.1 MeV) + 4He(3.5 MeV) which is
the most readily achieved reaction and the only one seriously considered for earth based
fusion reactors. With the much lower fusion gain for these advanced fuels, the recirculating
power needed to produce the fusion reaction becomes enormous dooming it to being no better
than the fission reactor based alternatives.

Fortunately, the critical mass/scale for fusion ignition can be much smaller. The criteria to
achieve D-T fusion ignition, at a nominal fuel (plasma) temperature of 10 keV, is the

39
 attainment of a density-radius product of r×R ~ 0.1 g/cm2. This can be accomplished with a
three dimensional compression of a spherical cryogenic fuel pellet of millimeter scale. Here it
is assumed that the inertia of the small pellet is sufficient to confine the plasma long enough
for the burn to propagate through the pellet and thereby produce an energy gain G ~ 200 or
more (G = fusion energy/initial plasma energy).

Chain Nuclear Fusion Rection:

D  D  He 3(0.82 MeV)  N (2.45 MeV)

The only energy that can be utilized is derived from helium molecules,so we get,

Useful energy for thrust =0.82 MeV

We know that, for Deuterium isotope, 4.028 g = 1 Mole

Therefore, 1 mole of Deuterium isotope produces 0.82 MeV.Thus it can be calculated that,

Energy produced from 8.056 g = 0.82 MeV

Total mass of propellant used (Mp) = 418264 kg

Therefore,total energy produced in the spacecraft by fusion reaction will be,

Total Energy (T.E) = (Total Mass of propellant × energy produced per mole)
(Grams in one mole Deuterium)

 418264000 0.82 
 T E 
 
8.056 


Total Energy produced in Fusion = 4.257×106 MeV

For the fusion reaction to take place,appropriate value of mass flow rate, mo should be
between 12-17.
So,assuming for best results,we chose mo = 17.

Calculating, Thrust generated (T) = Isp×mo

T  (320017)

T  54,400N

40
 Thus for calculating temperature, we have relation,

T
Isp   A  Cf  Tc
m M
Where, A = performance factor
Cf = Thrust coefficient
Tc = Chamber Temperature
T = Thrust
Isp = Specific Impulse
k = 1.66(Helium)

From Richard-Nakka’s rocket experiment, we have,

k 1 k 1
2k 2  2  k 1  e  k eAe*
  1 
Cf   k 1 k 1   i  i  A

Thus by putting values in equation given, we get,

Cf  3.58

Therefore, performance factor of the nozzle as taken from analytical method,

A= 0.75

We know that,
Tc
Isp  A  Cf 
 M



From the above equation, we get

Tc=5721o C
OR
Tc = 5994.20 K

41
 CHAPTER 6

COMPARISON
with
CHEMICAL ROCKET
PROPULSION
CHAPTER 6: Comparison with chemical rocket propulsion

Methodology:
To compare the advantages and disadvantages of a chemical rocket with the NTR, we seek to
evaluate the amount of payload each system can deliver to low Mars orbit within a ten-month
mission window. To ensure each rocket can complete the mission within ten months, each
rocket’s trajectory and orbit paths will be simulated numerically using specific mission
parameters. Once the rockets’ trajectory simulations confirm that each rocket completes the
mission, the rockets’ efficiencies can be compared by calculating various rocket parameters
such as Isp, Wengine, payload mass, propellant mass, and structure mass. Using these
calculated parameters, it will then be possible to create a graphical analysis to understand the
advantages and disadvantages of each rocket design. By knowing how the rockets compare
during the mission to Mars, along with the current budgets for developing the different rocket
systems, this study will create a breakdown of the cost per kilogram of payload.
In order to simulate the rockets’ trajectory paths, NASA’s mission simulation software,
“General Mission Analysis Tool” (GMAT), can be used to plot each rocket’s orbit and
trajectory in time. GMAT is open source software maintained by NASA, which is used for
“real-world engineering studies” and “to fly operational spacecraft” [9]. GMAT can be used
to calculate mission flight parameters such as mission duration, required propellant mass, and
flight trajectories. By using GMAT to simulate the mission to Mars, this study is able to
validate that the rockets are able to complete the mission within ten months under the various
mission conditions. The GMAT simulation is also used to calculate the required delta
velocity ( v), or change in velocity of the rocket during each maneuver.
Using specifications set by our Nuclear Thermal Propulsion project for a mission to Mars ,
we set the mass constraint for the total initial mass in low Earth orbit (IMLEO) for both
spacecraft to 300,000 kg. By using 300,000 kg for IMLEO and a v of
5.6 km/s, each rocket’s required total thrust, number of engines, and propellant mass can be
derived to create a simulation of the rocket from LEO to LMO. The following section defines
the equations used to calculate the rocket parameters needed for GMAT and the rocket
comparison.
To generate a GMAT simulation from LEO to LMO, GMAT requires multiple parameters
from the rocket structure, fuel tank, engines, initial position, and launch date. This section
will be used to specify and derive each equation and parameter necessary for both the
simulation and the rocket comparison analysis. To fully describe the rocket’s structure in

42
GMAT, GMAT requires the rocket’s dry mass and surface area. The dry mass is the mass of
the rocket and payload without the propellant.
GMAT uses both the dry mass and propellant mass independently throughout the simulation,
which is why the two terms are separated. The surface area is incorporated into GMAT to
allow calculations for the radiation pressure experienced during the transit from Earth to
Mars.
As mentioned earlier, the advantage of setting the vehicle’s gross mass to 300,000 kg is that
the propellant mass fraction (PMF) can then be used to solve for the total propellant mass –
which is a required GMAT input to run the program. PMF is the ratio of the amount of
propellant at LEO to the gross mass. Once the propellant mass (mprop) is found, the dry mass
can be calculated by subtracting mprop from IMLEO.

Chemical Rocket NTR Units

IMLEO 300,000.00 300,000.00 kg
Dry Mass 84,300.63 159,096.20 kg
Propellant Mass 215,699.37 140,903.80 kg
Payload Mass 76,920.48 127,727.11 kg
Total Thrust 323,730.00 323,730.00 N
Engine Isp 449.70 3200.00 sec
Propellant Vol. 645.07 2,038.82 m^3
Surface Area 637.16 1,133.95 m^2

Table 6.1: The calculated parameters that are require before running the GMAT simulation

Along with the mission duration, the other goal of this analysis is to understand the payload
delivered to Mars by each rocket. This can be calculated through the payload ratio (λ). The
payload ratio is equal to the mass of the payload divided by IMLEO.
To derive an equation for λ, the different structural and propellant mass terms which affect λ
must first be found. The equation derivations are provided by Kirk Sorensen in his “Rocket
Design Theory” .This study utilizes the assumption that the structure has parts dependent on
the propellant mass (mpl) and the gross mass.
The propellant mass- dependent term is referred to as the structural coefficient (ε), which in
this study relates to the propellant tank. This is apparent when considering that for each
kilogram of propellant added to the tank, the volume, and consequently the mass of the tank,
must increase by a proportional amount. The amount of mass by which the tank increases is
found through the mass estimating relationship tables (MERs). MERs are tables which

43
include mass estimating ratios for different tank designs.
In the table, each tank’s corresponding ratio is the tanks mass divided by the propellant mass
carried within the tank.
These ratios are used to find the total tank mass required once the total propellant mass is
known.
The gross mass-dependent term can be found by using the gross mass coefficient (ϕ). For the
simplified rocket designs used in this study, ϕ only relates to the thrust structure mass and the
total mass of the engines. The thrust structure is the frame of the rocket.
Thus after calculating all the parameters through the software, we represented them in a
tabular form given below.

Chemical Rocket NTR Units

LH2 Density ρfuel 71.25 71.25 kg/m3
LOX Density ρox 1,141.00 n/a kg/m3
LH2 Tank Factor (MERFT) 9.48 9.48 kg/m3
LOX Tank Factor (MEROT) 12.88 n/a kg/m3
Ullage Factor (fullage) 0.03 0.03
Thrust Structure Factor (fTSF) 0.003 0.003
Stage Radius 4.20 4.20 m
Dome Factor .71 .71
Delta-V (Δv) 5.60 5.60 km/s
Initial T/W Rocket (T/W)initial 0.11 0.11
Gross Mass (mgross) 300,000.00 300,000.00 kg
Specific Impulse (Isp) 449.70 3200.00 sec
Mixture Ratio (MXR) 5.50 0
Engine Thrust 101,819.76 111,205.50 N
Engine Weight (WEngine) 1,868.25 40,245.33 N
Engine Vacuum T/W (T/W)Engine-Vacuum 54.50 2.76
Structural Coefficient (ε) .0309 .1372
Mass Ratio (MR) 3.56 1.89
Propellant Mass Fraction (PMF) 0.72 0.47
Gross Mass Coefficient (ϕ) 0.0023 0.0401
Payload Ratio (λ) 0.2564 0.426
Propellant Mass (mprop) 215,699.37 140,903.80 kg
Payload Mass (mpl) 76,920.48 127,727.11 kg
Propellant Sensitive Mass (Tanks) 6,675.65 19,327.38 kg
Fuel Mass (LH2) 33,184.52 140,903.80 kg
Oxidizer Mass (LOX) 182,514.85 n/a kg
Fuel Tank Volume (VFT) 480.17 2,038.82 m3
Oxidizer Tank Volume (VOT) 164.91 n/a m3
Fuel Tank Mass (mFT) 4,551.83 19,327.38 kg
Oxidizer Tank Mass (mOX) 2,123.82 n/a kg
Gross Sensitive Mass (Engines / mTS) 704.5 12,041.72 kg
Required Thrust (Thrust total) 323,730.00 323,730.00 N
Number of Engines (n) 3.18 2.91
Total Engine Weight (n*WEngine) 5,940.00 117,158.07 N
Thrust Structure Weight (WTS) 971.19 971.19 N

Table 6.2: Numeric comparison of the chemical rocket with an NTR for a mission from LEO
to LMO.

44
 CHAPTER 7

COMPUTATIONAL
RESULTS
CHAPTER 7: COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS

Test over different nozzles are carried out in a commercial software to analyze flow pattern
and compare them with theoretical results to choose the best suited nozzle for the mission.
The models are analyzed with velocity, pressure, energy and enthalpy contours.
The basic step is to create a model in commercial CAD software and save it in the. igs file
format and then import the same geometry in the pre-processing software to generate the
mesh. After importing the geometry, check for multiple edges and curves since they will
generate errors while creating faces on the geometry. Once the multiple edges and curves are
deleted, split the curve of the domain and body to obtain multiple faces.
Nodes must be generated on the edges, adjust the nodes amount while adjusting nodes we
have to provide high concentration where we want to catch boundary layer and other minute
parameter. Concentration of nodes depends upon the model length. While creating the mesh
on the different faces, the number of elements on the opposite face must be equal to generate
the proper mesh.
For starting the iterations, set all the values that is required including the material, inlet and
outlet conditions.

45
7.1 Computational Analysis

Fig. 7.1: Meshing of Nozzle & setting Helium exhaust

Fig 7.2. Static Pressure contour

46
Fig 7.3: Density Contour

Fig 7.4: Velocity Contour

47
Fig 7.5: Energy Contour

Fig 7.6: Enthalpy Contour

48
Fig 7.7:Mach Number achieved in the analysis

Fig 7.8: Inlet Conditions

49
7.2 Flow Visualisation

Fig 7.9(a): Flow simulation in the nozzle (converging section)

Fig 7.9(b): Flow simulation in the nozzle (diverging section)

50
Fig 7.9(c): Flow simulation in nozzle (exhaust)

51
CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION

Though the NTR still requires many years of design and testing, the system offers
great potential for opening new possibilities in space exploration. The analysis has
theoretically shown that the NTR system launching from LEO can have payload ratios 40%
greater than that of a chemical rocket for missions with low initial thrust-to-weight ratio
requirements. The significant factor impacting the efficiency of an NTR system is the higher
exhaust velocity, which allows the NTR to obtain an Isp that is double the chemical rocket’s
Isp.
The limiting factor for the NTR is its large engine mass. This causes a dramatic
decrease in the NTR’s payload capacity for large T/W ratios. Though the NTR’s efficiency is
hindered by the engine mass, it is still a viable option for space exploration because these
missions require smaller T/W ratios. During missions similar to the mission analyzed in this
study, the NTR can provide large payload cost differences when compared to the chemical
rocket, assuming development costs are similar. The payload cost difference for the mission
analysis in this study is approximately $9.18 billion dollars, based upon previously selected
assumptions. This cost difference, along with the numeric and graphic analysis, help show
that at low T/W ratios, the NTR’s potential to provide economic and efficiency advantages
over the chemical rocket in space exploration is significant.
There are currently multiple organizations such as the Center for Space Nuclear
Research in Idaho and the “Cryogenic Nuclear Propulsion Stage” project being developed by
NASA which are working towards improving the efficiency and cost of the NTR. These
organizations are focusing on creating nuclear rocket engines that can be applied
commercially by using commercial grade uranium instead of the highly enriched uranium
used in the Pewee engine. NASA is also testing new research techniques in order to decrease
the cost of developing and testing future NTR technology. These decreases in costs are
emphasized by a quote from the manager of the Marshall testing facility when he said, “The
cost savings is remarkable. Whereas it costs tens of millions of dollars to perform full-scale
testing of nuclear rocket fuel elements in specially designed nuclear reactors, our research
costs just tens of thousands – and no radiation protection is required!” This quote highlights
the fact that from current advancements in technology, and new testing procedures, the NTR
shows great potential for improvements in efficiency, safety, and cost. This is not true for the
chemical rocket, as it is based on combustion engine technology, which has likely reached a

52
relative maximum point due to the years of development, testing, and use the engine has
undergone.
It is the recommendation of this study that an in-depth analysis of the total cost to
design, build and launch an NTR be performed. With an in-depth cost analysis, along with
the data in this study, companies and governments will have the ability to understand how
NTR technology can be applied to provide economic benefits for space exploration. If a cost
analysis is performed, and the NTR provides overall savings when compared to a chemical
rocket, it should be seriously considered for the main propulsion system used in future space
exploration missions throughout the Solar System.

53
.

CHAPTER 9

FUTURE SCOPE
CHAPTER 9: FUTURE SCOPE

One of the key objectives was to formulate a path forward for the Fusion Driven Rocket.
FDR offers a major change for the future of interplanetary travel. It was felt that it was
important to determine the key technological milestones and the time frame for their
completion. The technological roadmap for the FDR can be found. Several technologies, such
as the Solar Power and Energy Storage, are already of a flight qualified level. The Charging,
Shielding, and Thermal systems are all of a moderate TRL as these would mainly be
adaptations of those currently employed in fully developed space systems.
The overall FDR system ranges from relative high TRL components (such as the FRC
formation system) down to very low TRL components (such as the fusion compression
chamber). The lower TRL components have been the focus of the phase I effort and will be
developed to higher TRL throughout the phase II of this project. It is expected at this point
that we will have a strong interest in fully developing this system, and integrating it into their
future space flight planning. With adequate resources a subscale ground demonstration could
be realized as soon as 2017 and an in-space demonstration mission as early as 2023.
It is well known that vast benefits could accrue to humankind once space stations,
interplanetary transportation and planetary residence become commonplace. However, these
potential benefits are as yet ill defined. Much research is being pursued in both the Russian
Federation and the USA towards the development of new nuclear powered propulsive units
and nuclear powered electrical generators for onboard use and for planetary surface activities.
India, China and Japan are also engaged in research with the same long term aims. However,
all this research does not indicate much more than speculation about the material benefits of
space exploration. Below are six areas of technology are listed which could benefit from
advances in the work of preparing for and undertaking space exploration. Some benefits will
arise from the preparation through the innovations that are required in information
transmission, the use of materials in extreme conditions, in precision and miniaturization
technologies, and in human existence in space. Other benefits will only arise following the
exploitation of the resources of the planets perhaps fifty years from now.
The benefits to earth can be divided into the following broad categories:
(a) The development of materials capable of withstanding very severe environments;
(b) The development of small nuclear power generators in remote locations
(And perhaps in harsh environments) under remote control;
(c) The development of direct energy conversion systems;

54
(d) Knowledge of the medical effects of zero gravity and long term confinement on humans;
(e) Precision technology (optics, lasers, time keeping, electronic devices,etc.);
(f) The use of rare earths and other materials known to exist elsewhere in the solar system.
Given these potential benefits to earth, the international community is encouraged to pursue
multidisciplinary research and development in areas such as space, nuclear engineering,
energy cycles and material sciences. Within this context, we have a role to play in attaining a
better understanding of the benefits to be gained, in promoting their use and in facilitating
their incorporation into planning for terrestrial applications.

55
 BIBLIOGRAPHY:

 Borowski, S. K., et al, "Nuclear Thermal Rockets: Key to Moon - Mars Exploration,"
Aerospace America, Vol. 30, No. 7, July 1992, pp. 34-37.

 Williams, C.H., Borowski, S.K., Dudzinski, L.A., and Juhasz, A.J., “A Spherical Torus
Nuclear Fusion Reactor Space Propulsion Vehicle Concept for Fast Interplanetary
Piloted and Robotic Missions”, 35th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference, AIAA 99- 2704, June 1999.

 Drake, R.P., Hammer, J.H., Hartman, C.W., Perkins, L.J., and Ryutov, D.D.,
“Submegajoule liner implosion of a closed field line configuration” Fusion Technology,
Vol. 30, pg. 310 (1996)

 M.M. Basko, A.J. Kemp, J. Meyer-ter-Vehn, “Ignition conditions for magnetized target
fusion in cylindrical geometry”, Nuclear Fusion, 40, 59 (2000).

 Cnare, E.C., “Magnetic Flux Compression by Magnetically Imploded Metallic Foils”,

Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 27, No. 10, pg. 3812, (1967)

 Y. H. Matsuda, F. Herlach, S. Ikeda, and N. Miura, “Generation of 600 T by

electromagnetic flux compression with improved implosion symmetry”, Rev. Sci. Instrum.
73 4288 (2002).

 Slough J., et al., "Confinement and Stability of Plasmas in a Field Reversed

Configuration",Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 9, 2212 (1992)

 G. Votroubek and J. Slough, “The Plasma Liner Compression Experiment”, Journal of

Fusion Energy 29, 571 (2010)

 Slough J.T., et al “Transport, energy balance, and stability of a large field-reversed

configuration”, Physics of Plasmas 2, 2286 (1995)

 A.A. Harms, K.F. Schoepf, G.H. Miley, D.R. Kingdom, 2002 Principles of Fusion
Energy, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore 912805, pgs. 267-277.

 J. H. DEGNAN, ET AL. "Compression of Plasma to Megabar Range using Imploding

Liner".Phys. Rev. Lett., 82, 2681(1999).

 E.C. CNARE, “Magnetic Flux Compression by Magnetically Imploded Metallic

Foils”,Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 27, No. 10, pg. 3812, (1967).