For Humans to Reach Mars, Advances Are Needed in Space Nuclear Propulsion Technologies
WASHINGTON (National Academies PR) — Using nuclear propulsion technologies to support a human mission to Mars in 2039 will require NASA to pursue an aggressive and urgent technology development program, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
NASA should commit within the year to conducting an extensive and objective assessment of the merits and challenges of using different types of space nuclear propulsion systems and to making significant technology investments this decade. Such a program must include subsystem development, prototype systems, ground testing, and cargo missions as a means of flight qualification prior to first crewed use, the report says.
Space Nuclear Propulsion for Human Mars Exploration assesses the primary challenges, merits, and risks for developing a nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) system and a nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) system for a human mission to Mars. While NEP converts the thermal energy from a nuclear reactor into electrical energy to power electric thrusters, NTP uses the thermal energy from a nuclear reactor to heat a rocket propellant and create thrust. Each system has its own advantages and limitations for use in a crewed mission to Mars.
“Safely transporting astronauts to and from Mars will require advances in propulsion systems to develop spacecraft that are up to the challenge,” said Roger Myers, owner of R. Myers Consulting and co-chair of the committee that wrote the report. “Nuclear propulsion systems have the potential to substantially reduce trip time compared to non-nuclear approaches. Synergy with other space mission applications and terrestrial power programs is also significant and will bring about added value.”
Studies comparing NEP and NTP systems are needed to assess the viability of each system for a crewed mission to Mars. Given the need to send multiple cargo missions to Mars prior to the first crewed mission, NASA should use those cargo missions as a means of flight qualification of the selected nuclear propulsion system before it is incorporated into the first crewed mission.
NEP and NTP each have challenges, which are identified in the report. The fundamental challenge for developing an NEP system is scaling up the operating power for each subsystem, something that requires power levels that are orders of magnitude greater than have ever been achieved to date. Another challenge is developing a compatible chemical propulsion system to provide the primary thrust when departing Earth’s orbit and when entering and departing Mars’ orbit.
The fundamental challenge facing an NTP system is the ability to heat its propellant to the proper temperature, approximately 2,700 K. Other challenges include the long-term storage of liquid hydrogen in space with minimal loss; the need to rapidly bring an NTP system to full operating temperature, preferably in under one minute; and the need to develop full-scale ground test facilities that can safely capture the NTP exhaust.
“Space nuclear propulsion technology shows great potential to facilitate the human exploration of Mars,” said Bobby Braun, director for planetary science at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and co-chair of the committee that wrote the report. “However, significant acceleration in the pace of technology maturation is required if NASA and its partners are to complete this mission within the stated timeline.”
The study — undertaken by the Space Nuclear Propulsion Technologies Committee — was sponsored by NASA. The National Academies are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln.
15 responses to “For Humans to Reach Mars, Advances Are Needed in Space Nuclear Propulsion Technologies”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Of course hopefully as all the spacecraft and rovers already on Mars prove regular propulsion works. Hurry up Elon as I am 76 and getting very absent minded. My mother lived to be 99 but forgot who I was. Dad died from smoking. I have never smoked. I beat colon cancer and have not got COVID-19 so far. So I have a few years I can wait to land someone on Mars.
NTP (or NTR), and NEP, are both dead ends. Nuclear Pulse Propulsion is the only practical system for human missions to the outer solar system.
Then I guess we’re screwed, as the Test Ban Treaty (which forbids nuclear testing in the atmosphere, underwater, or in space) has no exception for space detonations for propulsive purposes. Nor am I holding my breath on one happening.
Besides, Nuclear Thermal Rocketry’ doesn’t just mean the solid-core variety, there still gas-core NTRs, and its more powerful but trickier variation, the Nuclear Salt Water Rocket.
https://delphinus100.angelf…
When someone says there is only One True Way, it’s a dead giveaway that they don’t understand the field, and not just in spaceflight.
Actually, not being able to identify that single path to success is a dead giveaway of a very small mind. I am not claiming to be the one identifying that path- it was Stanislaw Ulam, an Einstein-level genius that stated Nuclear Pulse Propulsion was his greatest work. And Freeman Dyson, another bona-fide genius, validated the original design, and a short list of luminaries, including Wernher von Braun, Carl Sagan (an anti-nuclear activist) and Arthur C. Clarke endorsed the concept.
You don’t have a clue.
The “Nuclear Salt Water Rocket” is…an extremely bad design.
You guess you are “screwed” because of a piece of paper that only requires the superpowers to amend. Ridiculous. Especially considering it is a simple matter of transporting the bomb pits on a human-rated vehicle with an escape system and packaging them to survive as much as practical a launch anomaly. Transporting them directly to the vicinity of the Moon outside the Earth’s magnetosphere, then assembling, testing, and launching nuclear missions there would satisfy amended conditions of the treaty. Such spaceships would be perfectly capable of using their “pulse units” (bombs) to deflect impact threats and this by itself would justify the treaty being rewritten.
https://iceonthemoon.org/wa…
“…a piece of paper that only requires the superpowers to amend.”
‘Only.’ You make that sound so simple…if it even gets to this stage of discussion, all involved will want explicit details of the bomb elements as part of any new agreement.
A non-starter, right there. No one will give that up. Those still around from the Orion days *still* can’t openly discuss some of that.
And given past public apoplexy over RTGs, there will be an insurmountable PR problem where outright explosives are concerned, Lunar vicinity departure or not, making reaching the foregoing stage of discussion unlikely.
Yes, what you propose *could* be done, but not all problems are technical ones, or nuclear pulse would already be happening.
You make it sound impossible. Far from it.
International politics, like money, is never a problem in ChurchWorld.
Troll…blow your dogwhistle. Disgusting creep.
“A non-starter, right there.”
And yet, NTR’s are being studied and millions pointed at the concept.
Puh-leez.
It would already be happening except for one thing…those who have their own agendas screaming bloody murder about nuclear weapons in space.
“And yet, NTR’s are being studied and millions pointed at the concept.
Puh-leez.”
And why not?
Those who wrote the Test Ban Treaty knew the difference between nuclear power sources, and nuclear explosive devices in space. Surely you do?
Issues with the former merely make the country of origin responsible for damage, as the Soviets were with the reactor-powered Cosmos 954 that came down in Canada. That’s in the Outer Space Treaty, a whole other document.
Okay…you have a point? Surely you know the difference between a valid argument and just arguing to argue?
I’m answering *your* points. NTR development has nothing to do with the Test Ban Treaty or nuclear pulse propulsion as you implied. Their ‘agenda’ was to decrease the chance of nuclear conflict.
And to address your next point, I have already noted that this is technically possible. But politically, no, it is not. There is no groundswell of desire to change that, on the part of any of the signatories, as much as you (or I) might wish otherwise. Not ‘simple,’ not at all likely to happen.
No, it wouldn’t violate any law of physics, but it’s not the way to bet.
Politically anything is possible. The last four years is proof of that.
Not a good argument and you are betting defeatist, which means you will never win.