Pulsed NTR (not Orion, but TRIGA + NERVA "hybrid")

Archibald

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
6 June 2006
Messages
14,953
Reaction score
21,262
Completely unrelated to Orion. The gist of the idea is to improve NERVA applying TRIGA technology to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIGA
It is kind of fourth way to improve NTR - beyond solid (isp 900 seconds), liquid (= 1200 seconds) and gasesous core (2000+).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_nuclear_thermal_rocket
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php
The pulsed nuclear thermal rocket is a type of solid-core nuclear thermal rocket concept developed at the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Spain and presented at the 2016 AIAA/SAE/ASEE Propulsion Conference. It isn't a torchship but it is heading in that direction. Thanks to Isaac Kuo for bringing this to my attention.

As previously mentioned, solid core nuclear thermal rockets have to stay under the temperature at which the nuclear reactor core melts. Having your engine go all China Syndrome on you and shooting out what's left of the exhaust nozzle in a deadly radioactive spray of molten reactor core elements is generally considered to be a Bad Thing. But Dr Francisco Arias found a clever way to get around this by pulsing the engine like a TRIGA reactor. The engine can be used bimodally, that is, mode 1 is as a standard solid-core NTR (Dr. Arias calls this "stationary mode"), and mode 2 is pulsed mode.

Pulse mode can be used two ways:


Direct Thrust Amplification: Garden variety solid core NTRs can increase their thrust by shifting gears. You turn up the propellant mass flow. But since the reactor's energy has to be divided up to service more propellant per second, each kilogram of propellant gets less energy, so the exhaust velocity and specific impulse goes down.

But if you shift to pulse mode along with increased propellant mass flow, the reactor's effective energy output increases. So you can arrange matters in such a way that each kilogram of propellant still gets the same share of energy. Bottom line: the thrust increases but the specific impulse is not degraded.


Specific Impulse Amplification: This is really clever. For this trick you keep the propellant mass flow the same as it was.

In a fission nuclear reactor 95% of the reactor energy comes from fission-fragments, and only 5% come from prompt neutrons. In a conventional solid-core NTR the propellant is not exposed to enough neutrons to get any measurable energy from them. All the energy comes from fission fragments.

But in pulse mode, that 5% energy from neutrons could be higher than the 95% fission-fragment energy in stationary mode. The difference is that fission fragment energy heats the reactor and reactor heat gives energy to the propellant. And if the reactor heats too much it melts. But neutron energy does not heat the reactor, it passes through and directly heats the propellant.

The end result is that in pulse mode, you can actually make the propellant hotter than the reactor. Which means a much higher specific impulse than a conventional solid-core NTR which running hot enough to be right on the edge of melting.

Thermodynamics will not allow heat energy to pass from something colder to something hotter, so it cannot make the propellant hotter than the reactor. But in this case we are heating the propellant with neutron kinetic energy, which has zippity-do-dah to do with thermodynamics.

The drawback of course is that the 95% fission-fragment energy is increased as well as the neutron energy. The important point is by using pulsing you can use an auxiliary cooling system to cool the reactor off before the blasted thing melts, unlike a conventional NTR.

Apparently Dr. Arias' paper claims the pulsed NTR can have a higher specific impulse than a fission fragment engine. I am no rocket scientist but I find that difficult to believe. Fission fragment can have a specific impulse on the order of 1,000,000 seconds.
....
So if N is between 600 and 6,000, the specific impulse will increase by a factor of 5.57 to 17.35. With a basic NERVA having a specific impulse of about 800 seconds, a pulsed version would have instead 4,460 to 13,880 seconds!

Would that work ? Would it have high thrust and thus could we get a viable NTR SSTO out of this ? I'm thinking of something akin to Gurkolyot > https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/myasishchev-m-19-projects.18507/
 
A very basic calculation show that thing, applied to a spaceplane, could lift 1200 metric tons (three freakkin' ISS !) from Earth solid ground to Earth escape - approximately 12 km/s.

9.81*10000*ln((200+1200)/(40+1200) = 11905 m/s

Basically, a Gurkolyot spaceplane look-alike. Except without the zoo of engines; just one pulsed-NTR engine.
200 metric tons liftoff weight - Airbus or Boeing order of magnitude.
Propellant mass fraction 0.80, so 40 metric ton of structure.
Specific impulse: 10 000 seconds (Atomic rockets says 7000 to 13 000 seconds, so I picked the middle number)

Oh, and also: with zero payload, that thing has a delta-v of 158 km/s.
For the sake of comparison:
Earth surface to Earth orbit: 9 km/s
Earth surface to Earth escape: 12 km/s
Escape from the solar system: 42 km/s

Un-be-lie-va-ble. If that's even remotely workable, we have now a second potential interstellar drive with present state of the art - the other one being Orion / Medusa: nuclear pulse.

Even better: with such colossal payload numbers, a pulsed-NTR spaceplane could lift a freakkin' Orion to Earth escape (EML-2, SEL-2 libration points FAR AWAY from Earth to start Orion whacky engine) in merely two or three flights.

Now we only need to find a payload bay and undercarriage able to withstand 1200 metric tons of payload - LMAO.

One could fly the Arc of Triumph or Eiffel tower in orbit, with that engine ROTFL.
 
Last edited:
This concept demonstrates why nobody takes our field seriously... It's quite disappointing to see all of this work done for nothing because one crucial factor has been overlooked. The concept falls apart immediately after you consider the rocket equation. Try running a simple jet power calculation using the 5% neutron-gamma heating power and see how low the mass flow rate actually is in practice. Spoiler: it's not much. Most of the people in this industry seem to need the practice, so do the calculation yourself. For the specs on Atomic Rockets and in his paper, it's on the order of tens to hundreds of grams of LH2 per second at most. Now, considering a core running at several GWs of power, how do you expect less than a kg/s of hydrogen to meaningfully capture any neutrons or gammas? This is without even considering the fact that this mass has to be split a thousand times because the paper claims kHz pulsing rates (which are also completely arbitrary and not based on anything scientific, like material limits and cyclic stresses). You can't just add more LH2 because it only gets so much coupling power (5% of total core power), so doing that would cripple the Isp back down to NTR-like levels—so no dice. Very depressing, unfortunately.
(the pulsed nature doesn't save it here, any pulsed operation has an average power value, used for this argument)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom