NERVA
MW | |
References | |
---|---|
References | [1] |
Notes | Figures for XE Prime |
The Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA;
NERVA had its origins in
The AEC, SNPO, and NASA considered NERVA a highly successful program in that it met or exceeded its program goals. It demonstrated that nuclear thermal rocket engines were a feasible and reliable tool for
Origins
During
The public revelation of
In 1953,
Bussard's study also attracted the attention of
All work on the nuclear rocket was consolidated at LASL, where it was given the codename
Project Rover
Underlying concepts
Nuclear rocket engines use a nuclear reactor to provide the energy to heat the fuel instead of a chemical reaction. Because nuclear reactions are much more powerful than chemical ones, a large volume of chemicals can be replaced by a small reactor. As the heat source is independent of the working mass, the working fluid can be selected for maximum performance for a given task, not its underlying reaction energy. For a variety of reasons, hydrogen is normally used. This combination of features allows a nuclear engine to outperform a chemical one; they generally aim to have at least twice the specific impulse of a chemical engine.[18]
Design concepts
In general form, a nuclear engine is similar to a liquid chemical engine. Both hold the working mass in a large tank and pump it to the reaction chamber using a turbopump. The difference is primarily in that the reaction chamber is generally larger, the size of the reactor. Complicating factors were immediately apparent. The first was that a means had to be found of controlling reactor temperature and power output. The second was that a means had to be devised to hold the propellant. The only practical means of storing hydrogen was in liquid form, and this required temperatures below 20 K (−253.2 °C). The third was that the hydrogen would be heated to a temperature of around 2,500 K (2,230 °C), and materials were required that could both withstand such temperatures and resist corrosion by hydrogen.[19]
For the fuel, plutonium-239, uranium-235 and uranium-233 were considered. Plutonium was rejected because it forms compounds easily and could not reach temperatures as high as those of uranium. Uranium-233 is slightly lighter than uranium-235, releases a higher number of neutrons per fission event on average, and has higher probability of fission, but its radioactive properties make it more difficult to handle, and it was not readily available. Uranium-235 was therefore chosen.[20][21]
For structural materials in the reactor, the choice came down to graphite or metal.
To control the reactor, the core was surrounded by control drums coated with graphite or beryllium (a neutron moderator) on one side and boron (a neutron poison) on the other. The reactor's power output could be controlled by rotating the drums.[24] To increase thrust, it is sufficient to increase the flow of propellant. Hydrogen, whether in pure form or in a compound like ammonia, is an efficient nuclear moderator, and increasing the flow also increases the rate of reactions in the core. This increased reaction rate offsets the cooling provided by the hydrogen. Moreover, as the hydrogen heats up, it expands, so there is less in the core to remove heat, and the temperature will level off. These opposing effects stabilize the reactivity and a nuclear rocket engine is therefore naturally very stable, and the thrust is easily controlled by varying the hydrogen flow without changing the control drums.[25]
NERVA incorporated a radiation shield to protect personnel and external components from the intense neutron and photon radiation it emitted. An efficient lightweight shield material was developed by the
LASL produced a series of design concepts, each with its own codename: Uncle Tom, Uncle Tung, Bloodhound and Shish.
Test site
Nuclear reactors for Project Rover were built at LASL Technical Area 18 (TA-18), also known as the Pajarito Site. The reactors were tested at very low power before being shipped to Jackass Flats in the Nevada Test Site. Testing of fuel elements and other materials science was done by the LASL N Division at TA-46 using several ovens and later the Nuclear Furnace.[30]
Work commenced on test facilities at Jackass Flats in mid-1957. All materials and supplies had to be brought in from Las Vegas. Test Cell A consisted of a farm of hydrogen gas bottles and a concrete wall 1 meter (3 ft) thick to protect the electronic instrumentation from radiation produced by the reactor. The control room was located 3.2 kilometers (2 mi) away. The reactor was test fired with its plume in the air so that radioactive products could be safely dissipated.[20]
The reactor maintenance and disassembly building (R-MAD) was in most respects a typical hot cell used by the nuclear industry, with thick concrete walls, lead glass viewing windows, and remote manipulation arms. It was exceptional only for its size: 76 meters (250 ft) long, 43 meters (140 ft) wide and 19 meters (63 ft) high. This allowed the engine to be moved in and out on a railroad car.[20]
The "Jackass and Western Railroad", as it was light-heartedly described, was said to be the world's shortest and slowest railroad.
Organization
Transfer to NASA
By 1957, the Atlas missile project was proceeding well, and the need for a nuclear upper stage had all but disappeared.
NACA had long been interested in nuclear technology. In 1951, it had begun exploring the possibility of acquiring its own nuclear reactor for the
Space Nuclear Propulsion Office
Project Rover became a joint NASA–AEC project.[43] Silverstein, whom Glennan had brought to Washington, DC, to organise NASA's spaceflight program,[45] appointed Harold Finger to oversee the nuclear rocket development as head of NASA's Office of Space Reactors.[15] Senator Anderson had doubts about Finger's suitability for the job. He felt that Finger lacked enthusiasm for it. Glenn met with Anderson on 13 April 1959, and convinced him that Finger would do a good job.[46] On 29 August 1960, NASA created the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (SNPO) to oversee the nuclear rocket project.[47] Finger was appointed as its manager, with Milton Klein from AEC as his deputy.[48] Finger was also the Director of Nuclear Systems in the NASA Office of Advanced Research and Technology.[49] A formal "Agreement Between NASA and AEC on Management of Nuclear Rocket Engine Contracts" was signed by NASA Deputy Administrator Robert Seamans and AEC General Manager Alvin Luedecke on 1 February 1961. This was followed by an "Inter-Agency Agreement on the Program for the Development of Space Nuclear Rocket Propulsion (Project Rover)", which they signed on 28 July 1961.[49] SNPO also assumed responsibility for SNAP, Armstrong becoming assistant to the director of the Reactor Development Division at AEC, and Lieutenant Colonel G. M. Anderson, formerly the SNAP project officer in the disbanded ANP Office, became chief of the SNAP Branch in the new division.[48] It soon became apparent that there were considerable cultural differences between NASA and AEC.[15]
SNPO Headquarters was co-located with AEC Headquarters in
Finger called for bids from industry for the development of the nuclear engine for rocket vehicle application (NERVA) based upon the Kiwi engine developed by LASL.
In March 1961, President
Towards Reactor In-Flight Tests
The SNPO set an objective for NERVA of 99.7 percent reliability, meaning that the engine would fail to perform as designed no more than three times in every thousand starts. To achieve this, Aerojet and Westinghouse estimated that they would require 6 reactors, 28 engines and 6 reactor in-flight test (RIFT) flights. They planned for 42 tests, considerably fewer than the 60 tests that the SNPO had thought might be required.[54] Unlike other aspects of NERVA, RIFT was solely a NASA responsibility.[61] NASA delegated responsibility for RIFT to Wernher von Braun's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama.[54] Von Braun created a Nuclear Vehicle Projects Office at MSFC, headed by Colonel Scott Fellows, a USAF officer who had worked on ANP.[62]
At this time, NASA was engaged in planning for the lunar landing mission that Kennedy had called for. In the process the agency considered several booster concepts, including what became the Saturn family and the larger Nova. These were chemical rockets, although nuclear upper stages were also considered for Nova.[63] The December 1959 Silverstein Committee had defined the configuration of the Saturn launch vehicle,[64] including the use of liquid hydrogen as the fuel for the upper stages.[65]
In a 1960 paper, Schmidt proposed replacing the upper stages with nuclear NERVA stages. This would deliver the same performance as Nova, but for half the cost. He estimated the cost of putting a pound of payload into lunar orbit as $1,600 for an all-chemical Saturn, $1,100 for Nova, and $700 for a chemical-nuclear Saturn.[66] MSFC issued a study contract for a RIFT with NERVA as the upper stage of a Saturn C-3, but the C-3 was replaced soon after by the more powerful C-4 and ultimately the C-5, which became the Saturn V.[67] Only in July 1962, after much debate, did NASA finally settle on lunar orbit rendezvous, which could be performed by Saturn V, negating the need for the larger and more expensive Nova, which was abandoned.[68]
The RIFT test vehicle would be 111 meters (364 ft) tall, about the same as the Saturn V; the
The SNPO planned to build ten S-N stages, six for ground tests and four for flight tests. Launches were to take place from
To support RIFT, LASL established a Rover Flight Safety Office and SNPO created a Rover Flight Safety Panel. Since RIFT called for up to four reactors to fall into the Atlantic Ocean, LASL attempted to determine what would happen when a reactor hit the water at several thousand kilometers per hour. In particular, whether it would go critical or explode when flooded with sea water, a neutron moderator. There was also concern about what would happen when it sank 3.2 kilometers (2 mi) down to the bottom of the Atlantic, where it would be under a crushing pressure. The possible impact on marine life, and indeed what marine life was down there, all had to be considered.[69]
The main bottleneck in the NERVA program was the test facilities at Jackass Flats. Test Cell C was supposed to be complete in 1960. NASA and AEC did not request funds for further construction, but Anderson provided them anyway. There were construction delays, forcing Anderson to intervene personally. He assumed the role of de facto construction manager, with the AEC officials reporting directly to him.[70]
In August 1961, the Soviet Union ended the nuclear test moratorium that had been in place since November 1958, so Kennedy resumed US nuclear weapons testing in September.[71] With a second crash program at the Nevada Test site, labor became scarce, and there was a strike. When that ended, the workers had to come to grips with the difficulties of dealing with hydrogen, which could leak through microscopic holes that were too small for other fluids to pass through. On 7 November 1961, a minor accident caused a violent hydrogen release. The complex finally became operational in 1964. SNPO envisaged the construction of a 20,000 MW nuclear rocket engine, so Boyer had the Chicago Bridge & Iron Company construct two gigantic 1,900,000-litre (500,000 US gal) cryogenic storage dewars. An engine maintenance and disassembly building (E-MAD) was added. It had thick concrete walls and shield bays where engines could be assembled and disassembled. There was also an engine test stand (ETS-1); two more were planned.[67]
In March 1963, SNPO and MSFC commissioned
Engine development
Kiwi
The first phase of Project Rover, Kiwi, was named after the New Zealand kiwi bird.[20] A kiwi cannot fly, and the Kiwi rocket engines were not intended to do so either. Their function was to verify the design, and test the behavior of the materials used.[23] The Kiwi program developed a series of non-flyable test nuclear engines, the primary focus being to improve the technology of hydrogen-cooled reactors.[74] In the Kiwi A series of tests conducted between July 1959 and October 1960, three reactors were built and tested. Kiwi A was considered a success as a proof of concept for nuclear rocket engines. It demonstrated that hydrogen could be heated in a nuclear reactor to the temperatures required for space propulsion and that the reactor could be controlled.[75]
The next step was the Kiwi B series of tests, which commenced with Kiwi B1A on 7 December 1961. This was a development of the Kiwi A engine, with a series of improvements. The second test in the series, Kiwi B1B on 1 September 1962, resulted in extreme structural damage to the reactor, fuel module components being ejected as it was ramped up to full power. A subsequent full-power Kiwi B4A test on 30 November 1962, along with a series of cold flow tests, revealed that the problem was vibrations that were induced when the hydrogen was heated as the reactor was being brought up to full power rather than when it was running at full power.[76] Unlike a chemical engine that would likely have blown up after suffering catastrophic damage, the nuclear rocket engine remained stable and controllable even when tested to destruction. The tests demonstrated that a nuclear rocket engine would be rugged and reliable in space.[77]
Kennedy visited LASL on 7 December 1962 for a briefing on Project Rover.
In January 1963, Senator Anderson became chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences. He met privately with Kennedy, who agreed to request a supplemental appropriation for RIFT if a "quick fix" to the Kiwi vibration problem that Seaborg promised could be implemented. In the meantime, Finger called a meeting. He declared that there would be no "quick fix". He criticized LASL's management structure and called for LASL to adopt a project management structure. He wanted the case of the vibration problems thoroughly investigated, and the cause definitely known before corrective action was taken. Three SNPO staff (known at LASL as the "three blind mice") were assigned to LASL to ensure that his instructions were carried out. Finger assembled a team of vibration specialists from other NASA centers, and along with staff from LASL, Aerojet and Westinghouse, conducted a series of "cold flow" reactor tests using fuel elements without fissionable material.[80][81] RIFT was cancelled in December 1963. Although its reinstatement was frequently discussed, it never occurred.[61]
A series of design changes were made to address the vibration problem. In the Kiwi B4D test on 13 May 1964, the reactor was automatically started and briefly run at full power with no vibration problems. This was followed by the Kiwi B4E test on 28 August in which the reactor was operated for twelve minutes, eight of which were at full power. On 10 September, Kiwi B4E was restarted, and run at full power for two and a half minutes, demonstrating the ability of a nuclear rocket engine to be shut down and restarted.
NERVA NRX
SNPO chose the 330,000-newton (75,000 lbf) Kiwi-B4 nuclear thermal rocket design (with a specific impulse of 825 seconds) as the baseline for the NERVA NRX (NERVA Reactor Experiment[84]). Whereas Kiwi was a proof of concept, NERVA NRX was a prototype of a complete engine. That meant that it would need actuators to turn the drums and start the engine, gimbals to control its movement, a nozzle cooled by liquid hydrogen, and shielding to protect the engine, payload and crew from radiation. Westinghouse modified the cores to make them more robust for flight conditions. Some research and development was still required. The available temperature sensors were accurate only up to 1,980 K (1,710 °C), far below what was required. New sensors were developed that were accurate to 2,649 K (2,376 °C) , even in a high-radiation environment. Aerojet and Westinghouse attempted to theoretically predict the performance of each component. This was then compared to the actual test performance. Over time, the two converged as more was understood. By 1972, the performance of a NERVA engine under most conditions could be accurately forecast.[85]
The first test of a NERVA engine was of NERVA A2 on 24 September 1964. Aerojet and Westinghouse cautiously increased the power incrementally, to 2 MW, 570 MW, 940 MW, running for a minute or two at each level to check the instruments, before finally increasing to full power at 1,096 MW. The reactor ran flawlessly, and only had to be shut down after 40 seconds because the hydrogen was running out. The test demonstrated that NERVA had the designed specific impulse of 811 seconds (7.95 km/s);
The next test was of NERVA A3 on 23 April 1965. This test was intended to verify that the engine could be run and restarted at full power. The engine was operated for eight minutes, three and a half of them at full power, before the instruments indicated that too much hydrogen was going into the engine. A scram was ordered, but a coolant line became clogged. Power increased to 1,165 MW before the line unclogged, and the engine shut down gracefully. There were fears for the integrity of the tie rods that held the fuel clusters together. They were supposed to operate at 473 K (200 °C), with a maximum of 651 K (378 °C). The sensors recorded that the tie rods had reached 1,095 K (822 °C), which was the maximum that the sensors could record. Laboratory tests later confirmed that the rods might have reached 1,370 K (1,100 °C). There was also what appeared to be a hole in the nozzle, but this turned out to be soot. The robust engine was undamaged, so the test continued, and the engine was run for thirteen minutes at 1,072 MW. Once again, the test time was limited only by the available hydrogen.[86][87]
Testing of NASA's NERVA NRX/EST (Engine System Test) commenced on 3 February 1966.[88] The objectives were:
- Demonstrate the feasibility of starting and restarting the engine without an external power source.
- Evaluate the control system characteristics (stability and control mode) during startup, shutdown, cooldown and restart for a variety of initial conditions.
- Investigate the system stability over a broad operating range.
- Investigate the endurance capability of the engine components, especially the reactor, during transient and steady-state operation with multiple restarts.[89]
The NRX/EST was run at intermediate power levels on 3 and 11 February, with a full power (1,055 MW) test on 3 March, followed by engine duration tests on 16 and 25 March. The engine was started eleven times.[88] All test objectives were successfully accomplished, and NRX/EST operated for a total of nearly two hours, including 28 minutes at full power. It exceeded the operating time of previous Kiwi reactors by nearly a factor of two.[89]
The next objective was to run the reactors continuously for an extended length of time. The NRX A5 was started up on 8 June 1966, and run at full power for fifteen and a half minutes. During cooldown, a bird landed on the nozzle and was asphyxiated by the nitrogen or helium gas, dropping onto the core. It was feared that it might block the propellant lines or create uneven heating before being blown out again when the engine was restarted, so the Westinghouse engineers rigged a television camera and a vacuum hose, and were able to remove the bird while safely behind a concrete wall. The engine was restarted on 23 June and run at full power for another fourteen and a half minutes. Although there was severe corrosion, resulting in about $2.20 of reactivity lost, the engine could still have been restarted, but the engineers wanted to examine the core.[90][91]
An hour was now set as the goal for the NRX A6 test. This was beyond the capacity of Test Cell A, so testing now moved to Test Cell C with its giant dewars. NRX A5 was therefore the last test to use Test Cell A. The reactor was started on 7 December 1966, but a shutdown was ordered 75 seconds into the test due to a faulty electrical component. This was followed by a postponement due to inclement weather. NRX A6 was started up again on 15 December. It ran at full power (1,125 MW) with a chamber temperature of over 2,270 K (2,000 °C) and pressure of 4,089 kilopascals (593.1 psi), and a flow rate of 32.7 kilograms per second (4,330 lb/min). It took 75.3 hours to cool the reactor with liquid nitrogen. On examination, it was found that the beryllium reflector had cracked due to thermal stress. The test caused the abandonment of plans to build a more powerful NERVA II engine. If more thrust was required, a NERVA I engine could be run longer, or it could be clustered.[90][91]
NERVA XE
With the success of the A6 test, SNPO cancelled planned follow-on tests A7 and A8 and concentrated on completing ETS-1. All previous tests had the engine firing upwards; ETS-1 would permit an engine to be reoriented to fire downward into a reduced-pressure compartment to partly simulate firing in the vacuum of space. The test stand provided a reduced atmospheric pressure of about 6.9 kilopascals (1.00 psi) – equivalent to being at an altitude of 60,000 feet (18,000 m). This was done by injecting water into the exhaust, which created superheated steam that surged out at high speeds, creating a vacuum.[92][93]
ETS-1 took longer for Aerojet to complete than expected, partly due to shrinking budgets, but also because of technical challenges. It was built from pure aluminum, which did not become radioactive when irradiated by neutrons, and there was a water spray to keep it cool. Rubber gaskets were a problem, as they tended to turn into goo in a radioactive environment; metal ones had to be used. The most challenging part was the exhaust ducts, which were required to handle much higher temperatures than their chemical rocket counterparts. The steel work was carried out by Allegheny Technologies, and the Air Preheater Company fabricated the pipes. The work required 54,000 kilograms (120,000 lb) of steel, 3,900 kilograms (8,700 lb) of welding wire and 10.5 kilometers (6.5 mi) of welds. During a test the 234 tubes would have to carry up to 11,000,000 litres (3,000,000 US gal) of water. To save money on cabling, Aerojet moved the control room to a bunker 240 meters (800 ft) away.[92]
The second NERVA engine, the NERVA XE, was designed to come as close as possible to a complete flight system, even to the point of using a flight-design turbopump. To save time and money, components that would not affect the engine's performance were selected from what was available at Jackass Flats. A radiation shield was added to protect external components.[94] The test objectives included testing the use of ETS-1 at Jackass Flats for flight engine qualification and acceptance.[95] Total run time was 115 minutes, including 28 starts. NASA and SNPO felt that the test "confirmed that a nuclear rocket engine was suitable for space flight application and was able to operate at a specific impulse twice that of chemical rocket system[s]."[96] The engine was deemed adequate for Mars missions being planned by NASA. The facility was also deemed adequate for flight qualification and acceptance of rocket engines from the two contractors.[96]
The final test of the series was XE Prime. This engine was 6.9 meters (23 ft) long, 2.59 meters (8 ft 6 in) in diameter, and weighed approximately 18,144 kilograms (40,001 lb). It was designed to produce a nominal thrust of 246,663 newtons (55,452 lbf) with a specific impulse of 710 seconds (7.0 km/s). When the reactor was operating at full power, about 1,140 MW, the chamber temperature was 2,272 K (2,000 °C), chamber pressure was 3,861 kilopascals (560.0 psi), and the flow rate was 35.8 kilograms per second (4,740 lb/min), of which 0.4 kilograms per second (53 lb/min) was diverted into the cooldown system.[1] A series of experiments were carried out between 4 December 1968 and 11 September 1969, during which the reactor was started 24 times,[93] and ran at full power for 1,680 seconds.[1]
Reactor and engine test summary
Reactor | Test date | Starts | Average full power (MW) |
Time at full power (s) |
Propellant temperature (chamber) (K) |
Propellant temperature (exit) (K) |
Chamber pressure (kPa) |
Flow rate (kg/s) |
Vacuum specific impulse (s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NERVA A2 | September 1964 | 2 | 1096 | 40 | 2119 | 2229 | 4006 | 34.3 | 811 |
NERVA A3 | April 1965 | 3 | 1093 | 990 | 2189 | >2400 | 3930 | 33.3 | >841 |
NRX EST | February 1966 | 11 | 1144 | 830 | 2292 | >2400 | 4047 | 39.3 | >841 |
NRX A5 | June 1966 | 2 | 1120 | 580 | 2287 | >2400 | 4047 | 32.6 | >841 |
NRX A6 | November 1967 | 2 | 1199 | 3623 | 2406 | 2558 | 4151 | 32.7 | 869 |
XE PRIME | March 1969 | 28 | 1137 | 1680 | 2267 | >2400 | 3806 | 32.8 | >841 |
Source: [97]
Cancellation
At the time of the NERVA NRX/EST test, NASA's plans for NERVA included a visit to Mars by 1978, a permanent
Defending NERVA from its critics like Hornig, the chairman of the
NERVA had plenty of proposed missions. NASA considered using Saturn V and NERVA on a "Grand Tour" of the Solar System. A rare alignment of the planets that occurs every 174 years occurred between 1976 and 1980, allowing a spacecraft to visit Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. With NERVA, that spacecraft could weigh up to 24,000 kilograms (52,000 lb). This was assuming NERVA had a specific impulse of only 825 seconds (8.09 km/s); 900 seconds (8.8 km/s) was more likely, and with that it could place a 77,000-kilogram (170,000 lb) space station the size of Skylab into orbit around the Moon. Repeat trips to the Moon could be made with NERVA powering a nuclear shuttle. There was also of course the mission to Mars, which Klein diplomatically avoided mentioning,[105] knowing that, even in the wake of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, the idea was unpopular with Congress and the general public.[106]
Program element | AEC | NASA |
---|---|---|
Kiwi | 21.9 | 136.9 |
NERVA | 334.4 | 346.5 |
RIFT | 19.1 | |
Research and technology | 200.7 | 138.7 |
NRDS operations | 75.3 | 19.9 |
Equipment obligations | 43.4 | |
Facilities | 82.8 | 30.9 |
Total | 873.5 | 567.7 |
Richard Nixon replaced Johnson as president on 20 January 1969, and cost cutting became the order of the day. NASA program funding was somewhat reduced by Congress for the federal budget, shutting down the Saturn V production line.[108] On 4 January 1970, NASA Administrator Thomas O. Paine announced the cancellation of Apollo 20 to make its Saturn V available to launch Skylab.[109] The cancellation of Apollo 18 and 19 followed in September 1970.[110] But NERVA remained; Klein endorsed a plan whereby the Space Shuttle would lift a NERVA engine into orbit, then later return with fuel and a payload. This could be repeated, as NERVA was restartable.[105][111] NERVA now needed the shuttle, but the shuttle did not need NERVA.[112] NERVA still had the steadfast support of Anderson and Cannon in the Senate, but Anderson was aging and tiring, and now delegated many of his duties to Cannon. NERVA received $88 million in fiscal year (FY) 1970 and $85 million in FY 1971, funds coming jointly from NASA and the AEC.[113]
In December 1970, the Office of Management and Budget recommended the cancellation of NERVA and Skylab, but Nixon was reluctant to do so, as their cancellation could cost up to 20,000 jobs, mostly in California,[114] a state that Nixon felt he needed to carry in the 1972 election.[115] He decided to keep it alive at a low funding level, and cancel Apollo 17 instead. The concern about Apollo 17 was about the political fallout if it failed rather than the cost, and this was ultimately addressed by postponing it to December 1972, after the election.[116] When Nixon tried to kill NERVA in 1971, Senator Anderson and Senator Margaret Chase Smith instead killed Nixon's pet project, the Boeing 2707 supersonic transport (SST). This was a stunning defeat for the president.[117] In the budget for FY 1972, funding for the shuttle was cut, but NERVA and Apollo 17 survived.[118] Although NERVA's budget request was only $17.4 million, Congress allocated $69 million; Nixon only spent $29 million of it.[113][a]
Congress supported NERVA again in 1972. A bipartisan coalition headed by Smith and Cannon appropriated $100 million for the small NERVA engine that would fit inside the shuttle's cargo bay that was estimated to cost about $250 million over a decade. They added a stipulation that there would be no more reprogramming NERVA funds to pay for other NASA activities. The Nixon administration decided to cancel NERVA anyway. On 5 January 1973, NASA announced that NERVA was terminated. Staff at LASL and SNPO were stunned; the project to build a small NERVA had been proceeding well. Layoffs began immediately, and the SNPO was abolished in June.[119] After 17 years of research and development, Projects Nova and NERVA had spent about $1.4 billion, but NERVA had never flown.[120]
Post-NERVA research
In 1983, the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") identified missions that could benefit from rockets that are more powerful than chemical rockets, and some that could only be undertaken by more powerful rockets.[121] A nuclear propulsion project, SP-100, was created in February 1983 with the aim of developing a 100 KW nuclear rocket system. The concept incorporated a particle/pebble-bed reactor, a concept developed by James R. Powell at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, which promised a specific impulse of up to 1,000 seconds (9.8 km/s) and a thrust to weight ratio of between 25 and 35 for thrust levels greater than 89,000 newtons (20,000 lbf).[122]
From 1987 to 1991 this was funded as a secret project codenamed
In 2013, an engine for
Congress approved $125 million in funding for the development of nuclear thermal propulsion rockets on 22 May 2019.
See also
- RD-0410, a Soviet nuclear thermal rocket engine
- SNAP-10A, an experimental nuclear reactor launched into space in 1965
- Project Prometheus, NASA nuclear generation of electric power 2003–2005
Footnotes
- ^ With the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Congress would strip the president of this ability.[113]
Notes
- ^ a b c Finseth 1991, pp. 117, C-2.
- ^ Robbins & Finger 1991, p. 2.
- Ulam, S.M. (August 1955). "On a Method of Propulsion of Projectiles by Means of External Nuclear Explosions. Part I" (PDF). Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. Archived(PDF) from the original on 25 July 2012. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 7.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 4.
- ^ "Leslie Shepherd". The Telegraph. 16 March 2012. Archived from the original on 6 July 2019. Retrieved 6 July 2019.
- ^ a b Dewar 2007, pp. 10, 217.
- ^ Bussard 1953, p. 90.
- ^ Bussard 1953, p. 5.
- ^ Bussard 1953, p. ii.
- ^ a b Dewar 2007, pp. 10–11.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 11–13.
- ^ a b c Dewar 2007, pp. 17–19.
- ^ Corliss & Schwenk 1971, pp. 13–14.
- ^ a b c d Dewar 2007, pp. 29–30.
- ^ "Rocket Propulsion". NASA. Archived from the original on 24 April 2022. Retrieved 16 April 2022.
- ^ "Rocket Fuels". Mars Society. 25 March 2021. Archived from the original on 30 September 2022. Retrieved 16 April 2022.
- ^ "6 Things You Should Know About Nuclear Thermal Propulsion". US Department of Energy. 10 December 2021. Archived from the original on 17 April 2022. Retrieved 16 April 2022.
- ^ Spence 1968, pp. 953–954.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Dewar 2007, pp. 17–21.
- ^ Borowski 1987, p. 7.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 171–174.
- ^ a b Corliss & Schwenk 1971, p. 14.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 61.
- ^ Corliss & Schwenk 1971, pp. 37–38.
- ^ Capo & Anderson 1972, pp. 449–450.
- ^ Kaszubinski 1973, pp. 3–4.
- ^ Poindexter 1967, p. 1.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 21–22.
- ^ Sandoval 1997, pp. 6–7.
- ^ Corliss & Schwenk 1971, p. 41.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 112.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 56.
- ^ Corliss & Schwenk 1971, pp. 14–15.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 23.
- ^ Logsdon 1976, pp. 13–15.
- ^ Brooks, Grimwood & Swenson 1979, p. 1.
- ^ Swenson, Grimwood & Alexander 1966, pp. 101–106.
- ^ Bowles & Arrighi 2004, pp. 25–26.
- ^ Bowles & Arrighi 2004, p. 42.
- ^ a b Rosholt 1969, p. 43.
- ^ Rosholt 1969, p. 41.
- ^ a b Rosholt 1969, p. 67.
- ^ Ertel & Morse 1969, p. 13.
- ^ Rosholt 1969, pp. 37–38.
- ^ Huntley 1993, pp. 116–117.
- ^ a b Rosholt 1969, p. 124.
- ^ a b Engler 1987, p. 16.
- ^ a b c Rosholt 1969, pp. 254–255.
- ^ Robbins & Finger 1991, p. 3.
- ^ Heppenheimer 1999, p. 106.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 47.
- ^ a b "Moon Rocket Flight 'In Decade'". The Canberra Times. Vol. 35, no. 9, 934. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. Australian Associated Press. 9 June 1961. p. 11. Archived from the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 12 August 2017 – via National Library of Australia.
- ^ a b c d Dewar 2007, p. 50.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 234.
- ^ Esselman 1965, p. 66.
- ^ Bowles & Arrighi 2004, p. 65.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 36–37.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 40–42.
- ^ "Excerpt from the 'Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs'". NASA. 24 May 2004. Archived from the original on 1 March 2021. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
- ^ a b Finseth 1991, p. 5.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 52.
- ^ Brooks, Grimwood & Swenson 1979, pp. 44–48.
- ^ Rosholt 1969, p. 114.
- ^ Sloop 1978, pp. 237–239.
- ^ Schmidt & Decker 1960, pp. 28–29.
- ^ a b c d Dewar 2007, pp. 52–54.
- ^ Brooks, Grimwood & Swenson 1979, pp. 83–86.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 179.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 54–55.
- ^ "Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". JFK Library. Archived from the original on 19 July 2019. Retrieved 12 July 2019.
- ^ Chovit, Plebuch & Kylstra 1965, pp. I-1, II-1, II-3.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 87.
- ^ Koenig 1986, p. 5.
- ^ Koenig 1986, pp. 7–8.
- ^ a b Koenig 1986, pp. 5, 9–10.
- ^ a b Dewar 2007, p. 64.
- ^ "Los Alamos Remembers Visit by JFK". Los Alamos Monitor. 22 November 2013. Archived from the original on 15 July 2019. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 66–67.
- ^ Finseth 1991, p. 47.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 67–68.
- ^ Paxton 1978, p. 26.
- ^ Orndoff & Evans 1976, p. 1.
- OSTI 1364367. Retrieved 16 January 2024.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 78–79.
- ^ a b Dewar 2007, pp. 80–81.
- ^ a b Finseth 1991, pp. 90–97.
- ^ a b Finseth 1991, pp. 97–103.
- ^ a b Robbins & Finger 1991, p. 8.
- ^ a b Dewar 2007, pp. 101–102.
- ^ a b Finseth 1991, pp. 103–110.
- ^ a b Dewar 2007, pp. 112–113, 254–255.
- ^ a b Finseth 1991, p. 121.
- ^ Robbins & Finger 1991, pp. 9–10.
- ^ "NERVA Rocket". The Canberra Times. Vol. 43, no. 12, 306. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. Australian Associated Press. 8 May 1969. p. 23. Archived from the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 12 August 2017 – via National Library of Australia.
- ^ a b Robbins & Finger 1991, p. 10.
- ^ Finseth 1991, p. C-2.
- ^ "$24,000m for Trip to Mars". The Canberra Times. Vol. 43, no. 12, 381. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 4 August 1969. p. 4. Archived from the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 12 August 2017 – via National Library of Australia.
- ^ "Nuclear Power Will Make It Possible in Due Course to Colonise the Moon and the Planets". The Canberra Times. Vol. 42, no. 11, 862. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 4 December 1967. p. 2. Archived from the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 12 August 2017 – via National Library of Australia.
- ^ Fishbine et al. 2011, p. 23.
- ^ Finseth 1991, p. 102.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 91–97.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 99–101.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 103–104.
- ^ a b Dewar 2007, pp. 115–120.
- ^ Heppenheimer 1999, pp. 178–179.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 206.
- ^ Koenig 1986, p. 7.
- ^ Uri, John (4 January 2020). "50 Years Ago: NASA Cancels Apollo 20 Mission". NASA. Archived from the original on 14 April 2022. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
- ^ Logsdon 2015, pp. 120–122.
- ^ Heppenheimer 1999, p. 139.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 124–125.
- ^ a b c Heppenheimer 1999, pp. 423–424.
- ^ Logsdon 2015, pp. 151–153.
- ^ Logsdon 2015, p. 234.
- ^ Logsdon 2015, pp. 157–159.
- ^ Dewar 2007, pp. 123–126.
- ^ Heppenheimer 1999, pp. 270–271.
- ^ Dewar 2007, p. 130.
- ^ Haslett 1995, p. 2-1.
- ^ Haslett 1995, p. 3-1.
- ^ a b Haslett 1995, pp. 1–1, 2-1–2-5.
- ^ Lieberman 1992, pp. 3–4.
- ^ Haslett 1995, p. 2-4.
- ^ Miller & Bennett 1993, pp. 143–149.
- ^ Haslett 1995, p. 3-7.
- ^ Smith, Rick (10 January 2013). "NASA Researchers Studying Advanced Nuclear Rocket Technologies". Space Media Network. Archived from the original on 16 February 2019. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
- ^ Fishbine et al. 2011, p. 17.
- ^ "How long would a trip to Mars take?". NASA. Archived from the original on 20 January 2016. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
- ^ Burke et al. 2013, p. 2.
- ^ Borowski, McCurdy & Packard 2013, p. 1.
- ^ Cain, Fraser (1 July 2019). "Earth to Mars in 100 days: The Power of Nuclear Rockets". Universe Today. Archived from the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 10 July 2019 – via phys.org.
- ^ Foust, Jeff (22 May 2019). "Momentum Grows for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion". SpaceNews. Archived from the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
- ^ "Ultra Safe Nuclear Technologies Delivers Advanced Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Design To NASA". Ultra Safe Nuclear Technologies. 19 October 2020. Archived from the original on 1 November 2020. Retrieved 27 October 2020.
- ^ Szondy, David (25 October 2020). "New Nuclear Engine Concept Could Help Realize 3-Month Trips to Mars". New Atlas. Archived from the original on 27 October 2020. Retrieved 27 October 2020.
- ^ Frazier, Sarah; Thompson, Tabatha (25 January 2023). "NASA, DARPA Will Test Nuclear Engine for Future Mars Missions" (Press release). NASA. 23-012. Archived from the original on 1 April 2023. Retrieved 27 March 2023.
- ^ Dumond, Chris; Jacobson, Chase (26 July 2023). "BWXT to Provide Nuclear Reactor Engine and Fuel for DARPA Space Project" (Press release). BWX Technologies. Archived from the original on 1 September 2023. Retrieved 1 September 2023.
References
- Borowski, S. K. (18–22 July 1987). Nuclear Propulsion - A Vital Technology for the Exploration of Mars and the Planets Beyond (PDF). Case for Mars III. Boulder, Colorado: NASA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 August 2019. Retrieved 7 August 2019.
- Borowski, S. K.; McCurdy, D. R.; Packard, T. W. (2013). "Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP): A Proven Growth Technology for Human NEO / Mars Exploration Missions" (PDF). 2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 2012. Piscataway, New Jersey: IEEE. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 June 2019. Retrieved 16 July 2019.
- Bowles, Mark D.; Arrighi, Robert S. (August 2004). NASA's Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility (PDF). Monographs in Aerospace History. Washington, DC: NASA. SP-4533. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 December 2017. Retrieved 9 July 2019.
- Brooks, Courtney G.; Grimwood, James M.; Swenson, Loyd S. Jr. (1979). Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. NASA History Series. Washington, DC: Scientific and Technical Information Branch, NASA. from the original on 14 July 2019. Retrieved 20 July 2010.
- Burke, L. M.; Borowski, S. K.; McCurdy, D. R.; Packard, T. W. (2013). "A One-Year, Short-Stay Crewed Mars Mission Using Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Electric Propulsion (BNTEP) – A Preliminary Assessment". NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI). Conference Proceedings, March 2012. Hampton, Virginia: NASA/Langley Research Center. ProQuest 2128302586.
- Bussard, Robert (1953). Nuclear Energy for Rocket Propulsion (Report). Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Archived from the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 6 July 2019.
- Capo, M. A.; Anderson, S. L. (1 January 1972). "Application of Transport Techniques to the Analysis of NERVA Shadow Shields". Proceedings of the National Symppsium on Natural and Manmade Radiation in Space (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: NASA. pp. 449–459. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 29 September 2023.
- Chovit, A. R.; Plebuch, R. K.; Kylstra, C. D. (1 March 1965). Mission Oriernted Advanced Nuclear System Parameters Study (PDF) (Report). Redondo Beach, California: NASA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 July 2019. Retrieved 19 July 2019.
- Corliss, William R.; Schwenk, Francis C. (1971). Nuclear Propulsion for Space. Understanding the Atom. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Technical Information. from the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 7 July 2019.
- Dewar, James (2007). To The End of the Solar System: The Story of the Nuclear Rocket (2nd ed.). Burlington, Ontario: Apogee. OCLC 1061809723.
- Engler, Richard (1987). Atomic Power in Space: a History. Washington, DC: United States Department of Energy. doi:10.2172/6427889. Archivedfrom the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
- Ertel, Ivan D.; Morse, Mary Louise (1969). The Apollo Spacecraft – A Chronology. Volume I: Through November 7, 1962 (PDF). NASA Historical Series. Washington, DC: NASA. (PDF) from the original on 16 July 2019. Retrieved 9 July 2019.
- Esselman, W. H. (May 1965). "The NERVA Nuclear Rocket Reactor Program" (PDF). Westinghouse Engineer. 25 (3). (PDF) from the original on 11 July 2019. Retrieved 12 July 2019.
- Finseth, J. L. (1991). Overview of Rover Engine Tests – Final Report (PDF) (Report). Washington, DC: NASA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 July 2019. Retrieved 8 July 2019.
- Fishbine, Brian; Hanrahan, Robert; Howe, Steven; Malenfant, Richard; Scherer, Carolynn; Sheinberg, Haskell; Ramos, Octavio Jr. (2011). "Nuclear Rockets: To Mars and Beyond" (PDF). National Security Science. No. 1. pp. 16–24. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 August 2020. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
- Haslett (May 1995). Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Program Final Report (PDF) (Report). Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico: Phillips Laboratory. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 December 2018. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
- OCLC 634841372. SP-4221.
- Huntley, J.D., ed. (1993). The Birth of NASA: The Diary of T. Keith Glennan (PDF). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. SP-4105. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 July 2019. Retrieved 28 July 2019.
- Kaszubinski, Leonard (July 1973). Shield Materials Recommended for Space Power Nuclear Reactors (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: NASA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 29 September 2023.
- Koenig, Daniel R. (May 1986). Experience Gained from the Space Nuclear Rocket Program (Rover) (PDF) (Report). Los Alamos National Laboratory. LA-10062-H. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 April 2019. Retrieved 8 July 2019.
- Lieberman, Robert J. (16 December 1992). Audit Report on the Timber Wind Special Access Program (PDF) (Report). Arlington, Virginia: United States Department of Defense. 93-033. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 August 2019. Retrieved 18 July 2019.
- OCLC 849992795.
- OCLC 908614202.
- Miller, Thomas J.; Bennett, Gary L. (1993). "Nuclear propulsion for space exploration". Acta Astronautica. 30: 143–149. ISSN 0094-5765.
- Orndoff, J.D.; Evans, A.E. (9 October 1976). "STF Simulation With PARKA And Application To Diagnostic Instrumentation Evaluation". Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. LA-UR-76-2067. Archived from the original on 4 August 2020. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
- Paxton, Hugh C. (March 1978). Thirty Years at Pajarito Canyon Site (PDF) (Report). Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. LA-7121-H. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 August 2020. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
- Poindexter, A.M. (August 1967). Aluminum-Titanium Hydride-Boron Carbide Composite Provides Lightweight Neutron Shield Material (PDF) (Report). AEC-NASA Tech Brief. AEC-NASA. 67-10265. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 29 September 2023.
- Robbins, W. H.; Finger, H. B. (July 1991). An Historical Perspective of the NERVA Nuclear Rocket Engine Technology Program (PDF) (Report). NASA Lewis Research Center. NASA Contractor Report 187154/AIAA-91-3451. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 July 2019. Retrieved 6 July 2019.
- Rosholt, Robert L. (1969). An Administrative History of NASA, 1958–1963 (PDF). NASA Historical Series. Washington, DC: NASA. (PDF) from the original on 14 July 2019. Retrieved 9 July 2019.
- Sandoval, Steve (November 1997). "Memories of Project Rover" (PDF). Reflections. Vol. 2, no. 10. pp. 6–7. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 September 2023. Retrieved 14 July 2019.
- Schmidt, Howard R.; Decker, Ralph S. (March 1960). The Nuclear Rocket: New Powerplant for Space Vehicle Propulsion (Report). Oak Ridge, Tennessee: United States Atomic Energy Commission. doi:10.2172/4182161. Archivedfrom the original on 10 July 2019. Retrieved 11 July 2019.
- Sloop, John L. (1978). Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 1945–1959 (PDF). NASA Historical Series. Washington, DC: NASA. SP-4104. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 July 2019. Retrieved 6 August 2019.
- Spence, Roderick W. (31 May 1968). "The Rover Nuclear Rocket Program". PMID 17768883.
- Swenson, Loyd S. Jr.; Grimwood, James M.; Alexander, Charles C. (1966). This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury. The NASA History Series. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. OCLC 569889. SP-4201. Archived from the originalon 17 June 2010. Retrieved 28 June 2007.
External links
- Nuclear Space Propulsion: NASA 1968 on YouTube