Four years from now, if all goes well, a nuclear-powered rocket engine will launch into space for the first time. The rocket itself will be conventional, but the payload boosted into orbit will be a different matter.
KSP is finally starting to become reality! For those who haven’t played, there is an equivalent engine in the game called the “Nerv” which functions on the same principle, and is an incredibly useful engine. It’s cool to see this idea finally be developed into a real system
It’s incredibly useful in the game because it runs on the same liquid fuel that jet engines and rockets use (rockets also need oxidiser). It wouldn’t be as useful without that crossover.
Edit: I just realised that’s pretty much what’s happening here. The nuclear rocket uses hydrogen, and while it isn’t the most common rocket fuel these days hydrogen + oxidiser would be a functional rocket fuel. You could even run jets off it.
KSP also uses hydrogen fuel cells, which I think use liquid fuel to generate power. So it’s all pretty close.
Yeah is basically the exact same, originating from the same theory. I’m pretty sure liquid fuel in KSP is canonically liquid hydrogen too
So excited to see nuclear thermal propulsion actually flying. We were so close with project NERVA back in the 70s
Sounds risky AF
- If the rocket explodes, nuclear fuel could fall back to earth
- If not de-orbited properly, the nuclear fuel could end up scattered across a country - This already happened… multiple times… in 1973 1977, 1983
- If something goes wrong in orbit, now we have radioactive space junk… numerous accidents have already happened many times
The higher orbit should mitigate most of those issues. There’s more space, so a dead craft is less of an issue. It takes long enough to reenter that most of the radioactivity will have decayed. The biggest issue would be a launch failure.
The biggest hazard is launching the payload, if it fails it falls out over a large area causing contamination of the nuclear fuel. The high orbit of the test vehicle lowers the risks for the other outcomes you identified, and they are planned to remain in these so called “disposal orbits” for many hundreds of years. Things can get very very far apart in space. The Russian recon satellites were operated in low earth orbit and their failures were well documented and even attempted to mitigate by the soviets, though they did fail with very bad consequences at least three times.
I’m really excited for the potential for truly massive deep space probes, even though my favorite propulsion system is solar-thermal
Definitely a mission to keep an eye on, but when Orion drive?
The US government is taking a serious step toward space-based nuclear propulsion
“NASA is looking to go to Mars with this system.”
Four years from now, if all goes well, a nuclear-powered rocket engine will launch into space for the first time. The rocket itself will be conventional, but the payload boosted into orbit will be a different matter.
NASA announced Wednesday that it is partnering with the US Department of Defense to launch a nuclear-powered rocket engine into space as early as 2027. The US space agency will invest about $300 million in the project to develop a next-generation propulsion system for in-space transportation.
“NASA is looking to go to Mars with this system,” said Anthony Calomino, an engineer at NASA who is leading the agency’s space nuclear propulsion technology program. “And this test is really going to give us that foundation.”
Back to the future
Traditional chemical propulsion is great for blasting rockets off the surface of the Earth, but such machines are terribly inefficient for moving around the Solar System. They don’t sip fuel; they guzzle it. To go as far as Mars would require a huge amount of propellant and liquid oxidizer and take at least six months. For humans to truly become a spacefaring species, there needs to be a better way.
Wernher von Braun, the German engineer who defected to the United States after World War II, recognized the potential of nuclear thermal propulsion even before his Saturn V rocket landed humans on the Moon with chemical propulsion. Eventually, this led to a project called NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application). It was eventually canceled to help pay for the Space Shuttle.
The basic idea is straightforward: A nuclear reactor rapidly heats up a propellant, probably liquid hydrogen, and then this gas expands and is passed out a nozzle, creating thrust. But engineering all of this for in-space propulsion is challenging, and then there is the regulatory difficulty of building a nuclear reactor and safely launching it into space.
And so nuclear thermal propulsion technology sat on the shelf for a long, long time. Finally, in 2020, the curious folks at the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency said they wanted to test a flyable nuclear thermal propulsion system. This planted the seed for a program called the Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO). The military was interested in efficiently moving payloads around Earth and the Moon—hence the inclusion of cislunar.
NASA later joined in, with the goal of developing similar technology for a Mars mission. The reason is obvious: A lot of scientists and engineers believe that the only sustainable way to develop a Mars exploration program is through the use of nuclear propulsion.
The plan forward
On Wednesday, NASA and DARPA announced they had selected Lockheed Martin to serve as the primary contractor to assemble the experimental nuclear thermal reactor vehicle (X-NTRV) and its engine. BWX Technologies will be one of Lockheed Martin’s partners, and it will develop the nuclear reactor and fabricate the high-assay low-enriched uranium fuel to power the reactor.
The value of the award is $499 million, said Tabitha Dodson, program manager for the effort at DARPA, in a teleconference with reporters.
NASA will take the lead on developing the nuclear engine, and DARPA will oversee a host of other issues, from the nuclear regulatory requirements to the mission’s operations and all analyses of the vehicle’s safety. The nuclear reactor will launch in “cold” mode for safety reasons and will not be turned on until it reaches a sufficiently high orbit.
This final orbit has yet to be determined, but it is likely to be 700 to 2,000 km above the surface of the Earth, such that the vehicle’s reentry into the planet’s atmosphere will take place hundreds of years after any nuclear reactions occur.
The nuclear-powered vehicle will launch within the payload fairing of a Falcon 9 or Vulcan rocket, Dodson said, and look much the same as the upper stage of a conventional rocket. It will consist of a large hydrogen fuel tank, a nuclear reactor, a supporting spacecraft structure, and a nozzle. Once it reaches a safe orbit, the reactor will be turned on. The liquid hydrogen will then be heated from 20 Kelvin—just 20° Celsius above absolute zero—to 2,700 Kelvin in less than a second.
And then? Well, we’ll see. There are some unknowns about the performance of a reactor and its uranium fuel in zero gravity.
“It’s important to keep in mind that this is a demonstration engine,” Dodson said. “And just like any other test of a rocket engine, NASA may need to do a series of follow-on engine development work in order to get closer to their perfect operational engine.”
Don’t forget about the hydrogen
This experiment is exciting beyond just the testing of the nuclear engine. While plenty of new technology will go into developing a nuclear reactor that can operate in microgravity, a lot of effort will also go into managing the vehicle’s liquid hydrogen propellant.
Until now, liquid hydrogen has only been successfully stored in space for days since it boils above the extremely cold temperature of 20 Kelvin. Dodson said this mission would attempt to store liquid hydrogen in its ultra-cold state for a couple of months, allowing enough time for multiple tests of the nuclear thermal engine.
After the propellant runs out, the engine will no longer be able to operate, even though mission controllers on the ground will still retain communication with the spacecraft. The mission could be extended if it could be robotically refueled, and Dodson said the spacecraft designers are attempting to allow for this possibility.
Perhaps NASA and DARPA will have learned enough by then, however, to move into the development of an operational engine that will fly somewhere.
I wondered what the actual power difference or advantage is, and found answers in the second link:
Even in favorable scenarios where Earth and Mars line up every 26 months, a humans-to-Mars mission still requires 1,000 to 4,000 metric tons of propellant.
If that’s difficult to visualize, consider this. When upgraded to its Block 1B configuration, NASA’s Space Launch System rocket will have a carrying capacity of 105 tons to low-Earth orbit. NASA expects to launch this rocket once a year, and its cost will likely be around $2 billion for flight. So to get enough fuel into orbit for a Mars mission would require at least 10 launches of the SLS rocket, or about a decade and $20 billion. Just for the fuel.
The bottom line: if we’re going to Mars, we probably need to think about other ways of doing it.
Nuclear propulsion requires significantly less fuel than chemical propulsion, often less than 500 metric tons. That would be helpful for a Mars mission that would include several advance missions to pre-stage cargo on the red planet. Nuclear propulsion’s fuel consumption is also more consistent with the launch opportunities afforded by the orbits of Earth and Mars. During some conjunctions, which occur about every 26 months, the propellant required to complete a Mars mission with chemical propellants is so high that it simply is not feasible.
And what of the Starship concept that SpaceX is building to send humans to Mars? The project seeks to address the problem of needing a lot of chemical propellant by developing a low-cost, reusable launch system. SpaceX engineers know it will take a lot of fuel to reach Mars, but they believe the problem is solvable if Starship can be built to fly often and for relatively little money. The basic concept is to launch a Starship to orbit with empty tanks and transfer fuel launched by other Starships in low-Earth orbit before a single vehicle flies to Mars.
Braun said SpaceX is developing a plan to send humans to Mars with different assumptions than NASA. “I think there’s a fundamental difference in the assumptions that NASA tends to make for what kind of infrastructure is needed at Mars,” he said.
That’s not to say Starship cannot work. However, it does illustrate the challenge of mounting a mission to Mars with chemical-only propulsion. To use traditional propulsion, one needs to push the boundaries of reuse and heavy lift rockets to extreme limits—which is precisely what SpaceX is trying to do with its fully reusable launch system.
Now this feels futuristic
ah yes, instead of using nuclear energy to power countries, we’re shooting the fuel into space
I don’t see much of a difference between this and current technology. NASA has been using nuclear reactors in probes and rovers for quite some time. Presently deep space probes use nuclear reactors to generate electricity. Propulsion is produced by using electricity to accelerate ions. The ions come from gas stored in cold liquid form.
I don’t see any breakthrough technology here. From what I can tell reading the article, it’s just a lightly different way of creating propulsion, pressurizing the gas with heat instead of accelerating it with an electromagnetic field. Seems like a step back actually.
Some satellites and rovers have used Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs), which are very different from a nuclear reactor. They use polonium-210, which generates heat, and that heat is converted to electricity with thermocouples. They are low power and inefficient.
To my knowledge no satellite, with an RTG, has ever used ion propulsion. Few interplanetary satellites have ever even used ion thrusters. Dawn, Hayabusa, and Deep Space 1 are the only I can think of, and they all used solar arrays.
Ion thrusters are super efficient, but produce extremely small amounts of thrust. They aren’t practical for getting large spacecraft to Mars. These proposed nuclear engines produce large thrust while have efficiency somewhere between regular chemical propulsion and ion propulsion.
