MECE 5397/6397

Rocket Propulsion
Nuclear Thermal Propulsion
University of Houston
Mechanical Engineering Department
John W. Alred
john.w.alred@nasa.gov

Introduction
Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR)
System that utilizes a nuclear fission reactor
Energy released from controlled fission of
material is transferred to a propellant gas
Fission
Absorption of neutrons in a fuel material
Excitation of nucleus causes fuel atoms to split
Two new nulcei on average (Fission Fragments)
High KE from release of nuclear binding energy
Usually radioactive
1 to 3 free neutrons
Necessary to keep reaction going
Critical if each fission events leads to another
Can be absorbed by reactor material or leak from
reactor

Enthusiasts Dreams

Why Bother?

Why Nuclear?
Compact Size
Can be low mass
(relative to mission)
Long Lifetime
Operations in a hostile
environments
Independent of proximity
to the Sun
Nuclear is usually the best
option of last resort.

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP)

ADVANTAGES
High Isp (2-10x that of
chemical systems)
Low Specific Mass (kg/kW)
High Power Allows High
Thrust
High T/W
Use of Any Propellant
Safety (from reliability)
Reduced Crew Radiation
Dose for Some Missions

Nuclear Propulsion Advantage

Mars Mission Comparison - Round Trip
System

Chemical (H2/O2)

NTR - Solid Core

Payload Mass

100 tonnes

100 tonnes

Travel Time

1 year

1 year

Mission Delta-V

7.7 km/s

7.7 km/s

Isp

500 s

1000 s

Mass Ratio

4.806

2.192

Structural Mass

25 tonnes (e=0.05)

15 tonnes (e=0.10)

Propellant Mass

475 tonnes

137 tonnes

Total Initial Mass in LEO

600 tonnes

252 tonnes

Payload Fraction

0.167

0.397

Nuclear Propulsion History

Nuclear Propulsion and NASA

NASA/DoE developed and ground-tested several nuclear
thermal propulsion systems from 1955 to 1973 in Project
Rover and NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle
Applications).
Post-Apollo, NASA , led by
Von Braun, developed an NTP
Mars mission.

RD-0410 Nuclear Thermal Engine

Background: Review Of Programs (1955-present)

Rover/NERVA, GE-710, ANL (1955-1973)
Soviet Union (195?-1986)
SDI (1983-1988)
SEI (1989-1993)
INSPI (UF) /LUTCH (1993-1997)
INSPI (1992-Present)

10

Comparison of Reactors Tested

in Rover/NERVA Program

Main objective of Rover/NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) was
to develop a flight-rated thermodynamic nuclear rocket engine

Initially program and engine designed for missile applications

1958: NASA use in advanced, long-term space missions

Late 1960's and early 1970's, Nixon Administration cut NASA and NERVA funding cut
dramatically and ultimately project ended in 1973

Kiwi-A Prime Atomic Reactor

Kiwi-A Prime is one of a series of atomic reactors for studying the feasibility of nuclear rocket
propulsion, in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Developed by the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory for
the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, the reactor underwent a highly successful full-power run on
July 8, 1960, at Nevada Test Site in Jackass Flats, Nevada. Kiwi was a project under the National
Nuclear Rocket development program, sponsored jointly by Atomic Energy Commission and
NASA as part of project Rover/NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application).

XECF

The first ground experimental nuclear rocket

engine (XE) assembly, in a "cold flow"
configuration, is shown being installed in
Engine Test Stand No. 1 at the Nuclear Rocket
Development Station in Jackass Flats, Nevada.
Cold flow experiments are conducted using an
assembly identical to the design used in power
tests except that the cold assembly does not
contain any fissionable material nor produce a
nuclear reaction. Therefore, no fission power is
generated. Functionally, the XECF
(Experimental Engine Cold Flow) is similar to
the breadboard nuclear engine system (NERVA
Reactor Experiment/Engine System Test or
NRX/EST) tested in 1966, except that the
experimental engine more closely resembles
flight configuration. In addition to the nozzlereactor assembly, the XCEF has two major
subassemblies: an "upper thrust module"
(attached to test stand) and a "lower thrust
module" containing propellant feed system
components. This arrangement is used to
facilitate remote removal and replacement of
major subassemblies in the event of a
malfunction. The cold flow experiential engine
underwent a series of tests designed to verify
that the initial test stand was ready for "hot"
engine testing, as well as to investigate engine
start up under simulated altitude conditions,
and to check operating procedures not
previously demonstrated. The XECF engine was
part of project Rover/NERVA.

XE ROCKET
LH2 Turbomachinery

Nuclear Core

Nozzle

JFK Visit

President John F. Kennedy departs

from the Nuclear Rocket Development
Station, after a brief inspection visit on
December 8, 1962.
At the President's left are: Dr. Glenn T.
Seaborg, Chairman of the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission; Senator Howard
Cannon, (D-NV); Harold B. Finger,
Manager of the Space Nuclear
Propulsion Office; and Dr. Alvin C.
Graves, Director of test activities for
the Los Alamos Scientific

Destruction Of Kiwi Nuclear Reactor

This KIWI-B type reactor
was deliberately
destroyed on January
1965 by subjecting it to a
fast excursion
This test was intended to
confirm theoretical
models of transient
behavior

Funding

Achievements of ROVER/NERVA

ROVER / NERVA Summary

20 Rocket/reactors designed, built and
tested at cost of ~1.4 B$ (~8.9 B$ in
FY12)
Engine sizes tested
25, 50, 75 and 250 klbf
H2 exit temperatures achieved
2,350-2,550 K (in 25 klbf Pewee)
Isp capability
825-850 sec (NERVA-XE)
850-875 sec (NERVA flight engine)
Burn duration
~ 62 min (single burn)
~ 2 hrs (28 restarts / accumulated
burn time)
The NERVA Expendable Engine (XE) demonstrated
28 start-up/shut-down cycles during tests in 1969.

Nuclear Binding Energy

Fission

Range of Fission Products

Nuclear Rocket Basics

The nuclear reactor is just a dumb heat source.
Flow a propellant (typically hydrogen) through the core as a
coolant; transfers the heat to the propellant; then ducted it
out the nozzle.

Nuclear Propulsion Schematic

Propellant Tank: Similar to
tanks discussed for liquid
propulsion systems. Tank can
also be used as a radiation
shield.

Turbopump: Provides high

pressure propellants to the heat
exchange region of the
propulsion system. Warm gas
from regeneratively cooled
nozzle drives the turbines.
Radiation Shield: Protects the
payload from radiation from the
reactor by absorbing or
reflecting neutrons and gamma
rays.

Reactor Elements

Reactor Schematic

Nuclear Reactor Components

Reflector
Reflects neutrons produced in the reaction
back into the core
Prevents neutron leakage
Maintains reaction balance
Can be used to reduce the size of the
reactor
Typically made of Beryllium

Nuclear Reactor Components

Moderator
Slows down neutrons in the reactor
Typically made of low atomic mass material
LiH, Graphite, D2O
H2O absorbs neutrons (light water reactor)

Slow (or Thermal) Reactor

Uses moderator to slow down neutrons for
efficient fissioning of low activation energy fuels

Fast Reactor
No moderator. Uses high kinetic energy neutrons
for fissioning of high activation energy fuels

Nuclear Reactor Components

Fuel Element
Contains the fissile fuel
Usually Uranium or Plutonium
Contains the propellant flow channels
High thrust requires high contact surface area
for the propellants
Heat exchange in the flow channels critical in
determining efficiency and performance of the
system

Nuclear Reactor Components

Control Rods
Contains material that absorbs neutrons
Decreases and controls neutron population
Controls reaction rate
When fully inserted, they can shut down the reactor

Configuration and placement is driven by the

engine power level requirements
Typically made of Boron
Axial Rods
Raised and lowered into place. Depth of rods in the
reactor controls the neutron population

Drum Rods
Rotated into place with reflecting and absorbing sides

Reactor Example - NERVA

Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications

Power: 300 200,000 MW

Thrust: 890 kN
Isp: 835 sec
Hydrogen propellant

Reactor
Uranium-Carbide fuel
Graphite moderator
12 drum-type control rods
Boron and Beryllium

Reactor Example - PBR

Particle Bed Reactor
Core consists of a number of fuel particles
packed in a bed surrounded by moderator
Maximizes the fuels surface area
Increases the propellant temperature
Propellant directly cools the fuel particles

Advantages over the NERVA

Higher Isp
Higher T
Higher T/W (~20 compared to ~4 for NERVA)

Disadvantages over the NERVA

Maturity
Cost

Reactor Example - CERMET

Fast reactor uses high energy neutrons
(>1 MeV)
No moderator
Uranium-Dioxide fuel in tungsten matrix

Advantages
Long lifetime
Ability to restart
Fuel compatability with hydrogen
propellant

Fuel Element

Nuclear Fuel Materials

Uranium The mother of all nuclear fuels

Uranium found in 1727, discovered as a unique, half-metal in 1789
Concept of nuclear fission first introduced in 1939
U3O8: U234, U235, U238
Pu239 (may also be formed from U238)
Th232 ( U233) Note: BLUE: fissionable fuel, RED: source material
Fuel is highly enriched (90-99% U235 present)

Most important properties: Nuclear properties (cross sections, particle

behavior, burn up), physical, thermal, mechanical, chemical (hot H2)
effects)

About 10 billion nuclear fuel atoms undergoing fission / cm3-sec in reactor

core
May be varied to control temperature very acutely
Fission process is independent of propellant/coolant flow
600,000 pounds of chemical fuel = 1 pound of nuclear fuel

CERMET Fuels
Refractory metal matrix/dispersed fuel
Ceramic fuel particles UO2, UN
Metallic matrix - W, W-Re, Mo

Cladding materials - W, W-Re

Needed to retain fission products

Advantages

Retention of fission product / fuel

Thermal shock resistance
H2 compatible
High thermal conductivity
High strength

CERMET Fuels
CerMets offer several advantages over traditional
uranium-graphite cores such as retention of fission
products and fuels, thermal shock resistance, hydrogen
compatibility, high conductivity, and high strength.
However, uniformity is critical for CerMet fuel materials
because fuel particle clustering can result in localized
hot spots and voids.
Also, because of the reactivity of fuel materials (such as
UN and UO2), the processing must be performed in a
controlled atmosphere (either hydrogen or nitrogen) or a
vacuum.
NASA MSFC and DoE INL are presently investigating
CerMet manufacturing (again).

CERMET Fuel Development

Cermets developed on several nuclear programs

Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program (1946-1961)

General Electric 71 0 Program (1962-1967)
ANL, Nuclear Rocket Program (1961-1967)

Over 100 partial and full length fuel test

Hundreds of additional samples in support

300,000 sample test hours accumulated

12,000 hrs nuclear, >18.000 hrs non-nuclear
Thermal cycling up to 2400K, 100 cycles, 100 hours
Thermal shock in core up to 2870K

CERMET Fuel Element

Cermets are made by
19-Hole
1) Pressing and sintering,
Design
(2 mm)
2) Hot pressing,
3) Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP)
4) Advanced processing techniques such as Vacuum
Plasma Spray (VPS).
5) May have to be formed in a controlled atmosphere
Cermet fuel can operate up to 3000K peak fuel
temperature.
NASA MSFC and DoE INL are re-attempting Cermet
manufacturing.

CerMet Core

Cermet Core Design from INL

151 Fuel Elements
12 Control Drums
Pressure Vessels of
Ti-8Al-Mo-V

Reactor Temperature
DISTRIBUTION MODEL

Model: Single H2 cooling passage within single element

Test sub-section to replicate various portions of cooling path

Match power input, H2 temperature and wall temperature at various x/D, r/D locations
Cooling Hole ID: 0.1-0.125 inches / Cooling Holes OD: 0.183 inches
L/D ~ 500 for NERVA elements

Reactor Power Distribution

42

Reactor Temperature Distribution

Model: Single H2 cooling passage within single element

43

Temperature Distribution: Comments

Note that Tbulk maximum at L=100%
Maximum inner and centerline wall temperatures at L ~ 80%
For metals, Re, Ta, W, TCL and TID close ~ 50 K
For actual NTP materials, TCL and TID exhibit larger DT ~ 100500 K
Location of maximum Twall-Tbulk, Axial Twall, Axial Tbulk all
located in mid-band region
Mid-band region of max corrosion from NERVA reports:
"Corrosion most pronounced in mid-range region, about a
third of distance from cold end
Fuel operating temperatures lower here than fabrication
temperatures, hence thermal stresses higher than at hot
end. Also, neutron flux highest in this region..."
Flow time ~ 6 ms, Velocities ~ 1000 m/s at exit, but M ~ 0.2

55 kW to single cooling channel for H2 simulation

Hot H2 Attack on Core

H2 rapid increase in temperature (300 3000 K) and velocity (100 2000 m/s)
Under such conditions GH2 takes on aggressive characteristics and attacks core
Chemically
Corrodes/erodes away channel wall and protective coatings, Scouring action
Small hard pebble swirling around inside of a soft channel matrix
Greater flow rate, more scouring, enhanced by higher temperatures
Penetrates into fuel-matrix structure and weakens core
Mechanically:
Radial pressure drops (channel to channel) which shakes core modules
Resistance to core attack depends on core type and specific design of protective coating
TiC, ZrC, and NbC are potential coatings which are H2 resistant
Experiment should be able to study these affects over a range of core types

Hydrogen Safety

NTR Performance
Propellant flow through a reactor and into a
diverging nozzle again can be approximated as an
isentropic expansion.
So,

k 1

Pe
2k

ve
RTCore 1
PCore

k 1

For Pe ~0,

v e Max

2k

RTCore
k 1

Performances of Reactors
NERVA

PBR

CERMET

Power (MW)

1570

1945

2000

Max
Propellant
Temp(K)
Isp (s)

2361

3200

2507

825

971

930

Po (MPa)

3.102

6.893

4.136

Propellant

H2

H2

H2

Propellant Selection
For high Isp, low molecular weight propellants
should be used
Molecular hydrogen
Methane
Water

Temperature variation of k can be found by

k

Cp

Cp
mw

where Cp = Cp (T) [Thermally perfect gas

assumption]

Propellant Selection
For H2:

1
1165
0.75
1.5
Cp
560.7T
56.505 702.74T
mw
T

T
T
100

[T in Kelvin]

Knowledge of the thermochemistry lends

itself to the estimation of c*, ve, and Isp.

Required Reactor Power

The heat added to the propellant mass flow is
equal to the steady-state power generated by
the reactor
Assuming no heat losses

This power is used to increase the enthalpy of

the flow
T2

Pcore m hv C p dT mP
T1

where hv is the enthalpy required to vaporize the liquid propellant

and P is the reactor specific power (W s/kg)

Reactor Power
The specific reactor power is dependent on
the maximum propellant temperature
For H2:

P 0.018061T 5.715417
Assumes a linear approximation of empirical
results

Size the Reactor

NTR
Short burn durations where loss of Uranium fuel
due to fission is not a major factor

Pcore
Vcore
PD
where PD is the power density of the reactor (W/m3)

Size the Reactor

NTR
To maintain the required power level over the entire
burn (long duration burns), more fuel must be
added to account for the Uranium lost by fission

Ecore Pcoretburn
The fission of a single Uranium-235 atom produces
200 MeV or 3.206x10-11 J of energy

Ecore
N consumed
11
3.206 x10 J

Size the Reactor

The mass of Uranium consumed is

0.235 N cons
mconsumed
0.6023x1024
The mass density of U-235 is 19,100 kg/m3

mcons
Vconsumed
19100 kg

m3

Size the Reactor

Combining the equations yields

1
19
Vcore Pcore 6.4 x10 tburn
PD

As fuel is lost, the control rods are repositioned

to allow a constant reaction rate throughout the
burn
Critical mass is required to achieve a selfsustaining fission chain reaction
keff 1

Size the Reactor

Reactor Mass
Reactor Type

Core Density (kg/m3)

NERVA

2300

PBR

1600

CERMET

8500

Preliminary design assuming a constant reactor core

density.
Will give a mass estimate at least 90% accurate.
Estimates are for all components of the core.

Reactor Mass

If NTR so Good, Why Hasnt It Happened?

Sounds too much like Buck Rogers!, President Eisenhower (1958)
The day is not far off when nuclear rockets will prove feasible for space flight.
(1965)

Chicken and egg syndrome"

It takes longer to develop a NTP system than to develop a space mission.
Project managers cannot include NTP systems in mission planning until
system has been developed and tested.
If only reactors could be developed, users would emerge to claim them.
NTP ready for flight tests and yet no users have come forward in ensuing
decades.

Cutbacks were made in response to a lack of public interest in human space

flight, end of space race, and growing use of low-cost unmanned, robotic
space probes.
"Post Vietnam Congresses appear more concerned with perceived excesses of
science and technology, hence their abolishment of [NTP] and space
committees.
Cynical maneuvering, vicious attacks and double dealing that led to its
closing after years of toil to prove the successful development of then Project
Rover/NERVA in 1973.
They pushed NASA hard because it was dominated by people who built their
lives around chemical rockets they didn't want to see [nukes] come in cause
they feared it.

If Its Not New What is There to Do?

Fuel sets upper limit of NTP performance
No fuel geometry or material ever totally solved NERVA fuel degradation
problem.
Mass loss limits life by causing significant perturbation to core neutronics.
Crack development in fuel element coating was never completely eliminated.
Non-nuclear testing of coated elements revealed relationship between diffusion
and temperature. For every 205 K increase, mass loss increased by factor of ten.

Limited experimental data at temperature, temperature ratio, heat

flux, L/D for H2

Correlations have not been verified experimentally at heat flux levels present in
coolant channels and accuracy and applicability of these equations is in
question.
Even though Re, Pr, L/D within stated range of accuracy for existing
correlations, Tw/Tbulk ratio exceeds range of database if heat flux is high enough.

"One overriding lesson from NERVA program is fuel and core

development should not be tied simply to a series of engine tests
which require expensive nuclear operation. Definitive techniques for
fuel evaluation in loops or in non-nuclear heated devices should be
developed early and used throughout program..."

Now : AES NCPS

Advanced Exploration Systems Nuclear Cryogenic Propulsion
Stage
AES NCPS Objective: Development of system concepts,
ground test approaches, and reactor fuel elements for nuclear
thermal propulsion.
Lead Center : Marshall Space Flight Center / Nuclear Research
Office

Glenn Research Center

Johnson Space Center
Jet Propulsion Lab
DOE Lab Support : Idaho National Lab, Los Alamos National Lab,
Oak Ridge Nat. Lab
University Support : Center for Space Nuclear Power (Idaho),
Texas A&M University

Biggest Hurdles
Early conceptual designs of nuclear thermal propulsion stages and
missions
Re-development of nuclear fuel manufacturing processes (NASA and DOE)
Uranium fuel type (Carbides versus CerMets; i.e., old vs. new)

Disadvantages of NTRs

Low Technolgy Readiness Level (TRL)

Radiation issues
High Inert Mass
Political/Social Issues

Potential Hurdle