NERVA-Derived Concept for a Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket

Steven P. Fusselman1, Stanley K. Borowski2, Patrick E. Frye1, Stanley V. Gunn1, Calvin Q. Morrison1
1

The Boeing Company, Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power, P. O. Box 7922, Canoga Park, CA 91309-7922 2 NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio (818) 586-2724, steven.p.fusselman@boeing.com

Abstract. The Nuclear Thermal Rocket is an enabling technology for human exploration missions. The bimodal NTR (BNTR) provides a novel approach to meeting both propulsion and power requirements of future manned and robotic missions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate tie-tube cooling configurations, NTR performance, Brayton cycle performance, and LOX-Augmented NTR (LANTR) feasibility to arrive at a point of departure BNTR configuration for subsequent system definition.

INTRODUCTION
The Nuclear Thermal Rocket is an enabling technology for human exploration missions (Borowski, Culver and Bulman, 1995). The bimodal NTR (BNTR) provides a novel approach to meeting both propulsion and power requirements of future human missions. Boeing/Rocketdyne conceptually designed and evaluated a NERVA-derived BNTR concept for NASA GRC in 1993 (Gunn et al., 1994; Zweig and Hundal, 1994). In the present context of Project Prometheus, it was decided to reexamine this work and update the results to reflect current NASA mission objectives and technology improvements. The purpose of this paper is to update the previously developed concept (Gunn et al., 1994; Zweig and Hundal, 1994) for a 15,000 pounds force (lbf) thrust BNTR engine design. Objectives were to: (1) examine the issues related to energy extraction from the reactor core tie tubes; (2) analyze power mode operation using a closed Brayton cycle engine; and (3) evaluate liquid oxygen thrust augmentation schemes for the NERVA-derived BNTR concept. Based on the findings from these analyses, a point of departure configuration was selected and analyzed for follow-on system definition effort.

BNTR SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Propulsion is the primary function of the BNTR, with power generation capability incorporated into the system to take advantage of the heat source (the NTR core) for generation of electric power over long-duration missions. The NTR includes the reactor assembly, turbomachinery (for hydrogen feed), thrust chamber assembly, and associated lines, valves, and support hardware. The power system integrates with the NTR by way of power cycle working fluid circulation through the tie tubes for heat extraction during power mode. The primary consideration for selecting power system characteristics is that the power system not negatively impact propulsion system functionality. To that end, the most attractive means for extracting heat from the NTR is by way of the tie tubes. Tie tubes extend from the core support plate, through the core to a pedestal at the hot end of the core. They retain the pedestal, thus supporting the fuel elements by carrying the aerodynamic (pressure drop) and weight loads. Within the core, the tie tube assemblies have a hexagonal shape and are surrounded on all sides by fuel elements of the
CP746, Space Technology and Applications International ForumSTAIF 2005, edited by M. S. El-Genk 2005 American Institute of Physics 0-7354-0230-2/05/$22.50

512

same hexagonal shape. Concentric tubing runs the length of the tie tubes, providing coolant passages for the cooling fluid as well as space for the moderator (ZrH or YH) and an insulator. The space between the outermost (insulator) tube and fuel elements is filled with graphite. The earlier study (Zweig and Hundal, 1994) had identified composite fuel as the lowest weight reactor configuration. Also, use of TZM (a molybdenum-based alloy) for the outermost tie tube, along with yttrium hydride (YH) moderator, was projected to enable a temperature limit above 2,000F (1,370 K). These attributes were chosen as the technology baseline for the NTR in this updated concept evaluation. The power cycle selected for the BNTR concept was a Brayton cycle consistent with the technology baseline defined for NASA GRC by Rocketdyne under contract NAS3-02204, Brayton Power Conversion System Study to Advanced Technology Readiness for NEP.

TIE TUBE CONFIGURATION EVALUATION

The tie tube cooling configuration selected in the 1993 study was a closed, all-hydrogen system that dumped heat to NTR propellant during propulsion mode and dumped heat to the power system working fluid during power mode. The overall BNTR system schematics for propulsion and power modes of operation for the 1993 concept are depicted in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1. Tie Tube Heat Removal Process During Propulsion Mode (Left) and Power Mode (Right).

With selection of the Brayton cycle for power conversion, the choice of tie-tube cooling cycle was revisited in the current study, expanding the trade space to consider the configurations depicted in Figure 2. In each of these configurations, hydrogen propellant will flow through the reactor core and be heated directly by the fuel elements. This evaluation is limited to tie tube heat extraction. The five tie tube configurations were evaluated qualitatively based on weight impact to system, performance impact, technical risk, and system complexity impacts. Each attribute was evenly weighted. Configurations 2-5 were evaluated for each attribute relative to configuration 1 and assigned scores ranging from -2 (much worse) to +2 (much better). Rating scores and rationale for rating (relative to Configuration 1) are summarized in Table 1. Configuration 3, with separate passages within each tie tube for H2 coolant in propulsion mode and He-Xe coolant during propulsion and power mode, was determined to be the most attractive configuration for the BNTR concept. This configuration was subsequently modeled in the NTR and Brayton cycle performance balances. As a follow-on activity, we recommend development of dual-coolant passage tie tube design concepts, with thermalhydraulic analysis of the tie tube assemblies and surrounding fuel elements, screening of tie tube fabrication

513

feasibility (especially given the assumption of TZM as the principal material of construction), evaluation of core criticality versus core operating time, and evaluation of reactor integration impacts.

From H2 Pump (fraction of total flow)

H2 Propellant H2 Coolant - Propulsion

H2 from T/P H2 to Thrust Chamber H2 to Turbine

Radiator

HEX C Rejoins main H2 flow upstream of turbine T

H2 Coolant - Power He-Xe

He-Xe

Radiator

HEX

Motor

Heat Pipe Manifold

Heat Pipe Manifold

Tie Tube

Tie Tube

Altntr

Altntr

Recuperator

Recuperator

Configuration #1 (Reference)
H2 from T/P H2 to Thrust Chamber H2 to Turbine He-Xe Radiator

Configuration #2
H2 from T/P HEX He-Xe Coolant - Propulsion H2 to Turbine He-Xe Coolant - Power C
Heat Pipe Manifold

Radiator

Heat Pipe Manifold

T Altntr C

Altntr

Recuperator

Recuperator

Configuration #3
H2 Propellant He-Xe Coolant - Propulsion HEX C T Radiator He-Xe Coolant - Power

Configuration #4
Configuration 1: A closed circuit with H2 coolant for propulsion and power modes (the reference configuration). Configuration 2: H2 cooling during propulsion mode, He-Xe cooling (the Brayton cycle working fluid) during power mode, in same tie tube assembly. Configuration 3: H2 cooling during propulsion mode, He-Xe cooling in propulsion and power mode, using separate passages in the same tie tube assembly. Configuration 4: H2 cooling during propulsion mode, He-Xe cooling in propulsion and power mode, using separate tie tube assemblies.

Heat Pipe Manifold

Tie Tube

Altntr

Recuperator

Configuration 5: He-Xe cooling in propulsion and power Configuration #5

modes. FIGURE 2. Tie Tube Assembly Cooling Configurations Evaluated in the Present Study.

514

TABLE 1. Rating of Tie Tube Cooling Configurations Relative to Configuration 1.

Config. 2 Overall Score +0.5 Pros Lower weight, complexity due to elimination of propulsion-mode HEX system. Lower weight, complexity due to elimination of propulsion-mode HEX system. Eliminates need for leak-proof valves, increasing reliability. Eliminated H2-to-HeXe heat exchanger, H2 compressor for power mode. Eliminated HEX and compressor from H2 leg for power mode. Cons Leak-proof valves to prevent He-Xe bleed via H2 system. Increased valve count. Increased complexity of tie tubes with dual coolant passages.

+4

4 5

+0.5 +1

Technical risk from tie tubes not cooled during power mode. Uncertain neutron moderation impact due to replacing H2 coolant with He-Xe.

LOX-AUGMENTED NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKET (LANTR) EVALUATION

The LANTR concept consists of injecting gaseous oxygen into the diverging section of the NTR rocket nozzle, reacting with the hot hydrogen emerging from the NTR core to generate additional thrust. This opens up a broad trade space for system mass reduction and mission optimization. Key potential benefits relative to non-augmented NTR include reduced reactor burn time, lower system mass, reduced trip time, and utilization of in-situ LOX (Borowski, Culver and Bulman, 1995). Maximizing propulsive performance requires heat addition to occur at the maximum pressure, minimum velocity and maximum temperature in the system to minimize the entropy gain, or Rayleigh losses, of heat addition. For the LANTR configuration the maximum O2 propulsive performance is obtained by combustion on the subsonic side to the nozzle throat. Heat addition on the subsonic side of the nozzle requires either a variable nozzle throat area capable of maintaining constant chamber pressure as the O2 injection rate is throttled or a variable chamber pressure with a pump system capable of operating over the range of chamber pressures required for O2 throttling. These are both design issues, however, these subsonic combustion configurations provide an estimate for the upper end of performance obtainable from an LANTR configuration. Figure 3 provides ISP performance estimates for an LANTR operating at chamber pressures of 784 psi and a nozzle area ratio of 500 based on CEA (McBride and Gordon, 1996) equilibrium combustion performance.
1000
Specific Impulse (sec)

900 800 700 600 500 400 0 2 4 Mixture Ratio (O/H) 6 8

FIGURE 3: LANTR ISP Performance with Subsonic Combustion.

For ease of design, O2 injection downstream of the nozzle throat with combustion in the supersonic flow of the nozzle has often been the preferred configuration. The supersonic flow of the nozzle decouples the O2 combustion

515

process from the flow processes occurring in the NTR and allows the O2 injection rate to be freely altered without affecting the operating conditions of the NTR. While this decoupling is attractive from an operation standpoint, the low pressure, supersonic combustion in the nozzle flow leads to performance losses. Preliminary modeling and analyses are underway evaluating the extent to which finite rate kinetics influence the achievable performance with supersonic GOX injection.

BRAYTON CYCLE ANALYSIS RESULTS

Brayton cycle analysis was based on direct cooling of the tie-tubes by the power cycle He-Xe working fluid, with a turbine inlet temperature of 1,300 K. Cycle schematic and operating conditions are shown in Figure 4. Performance parameters and weights are summarized in Table 2.
0.0 0 0

kPa(d) W kg
0 0

Size = Mass =

(HxWxL)

RADIATOR

252

kg

0 kg(wet)

AUXILIARY STATOR COOLER

0.016 kg/s

K kPa kg/s

22

REACTOR
8
911.81 1.201

Pt =

164.642

kWt

9
1284

K kg/s

1280.28 K 1015.06 kPa 1.201

426 K K 544.75 kPa kPa 1.224 kg/s 1.224 kg/s

16

2 Area = 50.147 m 209.8 Mass = kg 119.15 = PthermalHEAT REMOVALkWt Mercury HPfluid = HEAT EXCHANGER* Carbon-C HPmatl = Fluid = NaK-78 0 kWt Pthermal = HEAT PIPE MANIFOLD 2 0 W/m -K Uoverall = *Size to accountx 0.40 units sized = 0.60 all PCS x 12.60 m(HxWxL) 0 kg Mass = 252 Mass = kg

23

0 0

K kPa kg/s

15

690.89 K K kPa 555.87 kPa 1.224

kg/s kg/s

1023.97 kPa

1018.29 kPa 1.201 kg/s

kg/s

10

413.0 K

360.0 K

6 1 17
426 542.94 6 1.224 0.03228 kg/s

Alternator Turbine
Dia = Pr = Ns = = 0.12 m 1.812 74.52 0.9081 RING WOUND TPTL PMG Power = 37 = 0.9500 Nshaft = 50000 kW rpm

Compressor
Dia = Pr = Ns = = 0.11 m 1.90 63.55 0.8201

K kPa kg/s

12 2
1034.17 K 560.16 kPa 1.201

0.05488 0.02261 1022.1 K 557.92 kPa 1.224 kg/s 690.89 K 557.9 kPa 1.224 578.09 K

kg/s

kg/s

1031.58 kPa 1.201 kg/s

kg/s

kg/s

13

RECUPERATOR
0.760 HEX = FIN = 0.8001 0.8688 2325 2325 W / K UA = 20.5 kg Mass =

14

1 6
578.09 K 1029.39 kPa 1.201 kg/s

7
915.54

Legend: Duct locator State Point locator

1027 1.201

K kPa kg/s

FIGURE 4. Brayton Cycle Schematic for the 37 KWe Point-of-Departure Configuration.

NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKET PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

A product of the 1993 study was an NTR balance code for prediction of NTR performance, weight and internal operating conditions. For this study, parameters for the 15 klbf NTR balance were updated to reflect the following: Hydrogen tie tube coolant comes directly from pump discharge and returns to turbine inlet, eliminating the closed loop H2 tie tube cooling system. Turbopump changed from axial pumps to centrifugal configuration to assess impact on NTR. Pump impeller and turbine efficiencies consistent with state-of-the-art centrifugal pumps. 0.40 MWt heat deposition per tie tube during propulsion mode, based on theoretically dense ZrC insulator at 86% porosity, reduced size and number of gaps in tie tubes, and use of TZM as the outer tube material. Chamber discharge conditions for hydrogen of 5.4 MPa (784 psia) and 2,555 K (4600 R) were retained from the 1993 study. Nozzle regneratively cooled for full length, with 200:1 area ratio.

516

TABLE 2. Brayton Cycle Point-of-Departure Configuration Performance Parameters and Mass Estimates.
Performance Parameters Power at terminals, kW Gross shaft power, kW Bearing loss, kW Windage loss, kW Net shaft power, kW Alternator efficiency Alternator output, kWA Carnot efficiency Cycle efficiency Cycle beta Compressor efficiency Turbine efficiency Comp. Spec speed Speed, rpm Comp pressure ratio Recup effectiveness Molecular weight 37.00 40.26 0.5651 0.7438 38.90 0.95 41.10 1.0000 0.2251 0.9537 0.8201 0.9081 65.0 50,000 1.90 0.760 56.50 MASS Parameter Turbo Alternator Assembly Recuperator Ducting Power Conversion System HSA IHX (kg) HRA (kg) Total System Mass (kg) Mass (kg) 33.4 20.5 45.3 99.3 17.6 461.8 579

The dual turbopump configuration from the 1993 study was retained for this point-of-departure configuration analysis, providing redundancy enabling ~70% NTR thrust level in the event of a single pump failure. Should reliability trades indicate that a single pump is preferred, a design very similar to that of the Rocketdyne MB-60 fuel pump, or scaled down Mark 25 pump, would be appropriate. The updated NTR balance is shown in Figure 5.
H2
P = 32 T = 37.8 w = 8.68 P = 992 T = 992 w = 3.13 P = 2199 T = 66.4 w = 8.68
P = 44

H2
P = 32 T = 37.8 w = 8.68

P = 1984 T = 1091 w = 3.13

P = 992 T = 992 w = 3.13

P = 1984 T = 1091 w = 3.13

P = 2199 T = 66.4 w = 8.68

P = 44

MFV

MFV

P = 2155 T = 66.8 w = 8.68

P = 2045 T = 1837 w = 4.34

Turbine Bypass Control Valve

w = 5.55 w = 5.55

P = 2155 T = 66.8 w = 8.68

Tie Tubes
P = 10

P = 117

P = 117

P = 2101 T = 406.1 w = 1.74 P = Pressure, Total (psia) T = Temperature (deg-R) w = Flow (lb/sec) DP = Press. Drop (psid) H2 Fuel:

P = 784 T = 4600 w = 17.36 Pc = 784 psia Tc = 4600 R At = 11.0 in2 Area Ratio = 200

P = 2101 T = 406.1 w = 1.74 Vac. Thrust (lbf Vac. Isp (sec Pc (psia) Reactor Power (MW) Fuel Element Power (MW) Core Thermal Power (MW MCC Jacket Power (MW Nozzle Jacket Power (MW) Tie Tubes Power (MW) Reflector Power (MW) = = = = = = = = = = 15,000 863.7 784 313.2 244.1 302.5 5.4 4.8 58.4 10.7

FIGURE 5. NTR Balance Schematic for 15 klbf System with Centrifugal Pump Parameters and 0.40 MW/Tie Tube Thermal Deposition.

517

P = 10

Reflector and Reflector Coolant

P = 1984 T = 362.6 w = 4.34 P = 1984 T = 322.9 w = 2.60

P = 2045 T = 1837 w = 4.34 P = 1984 T = 322.9 w = 2.60

P = 1984 T = 362.6 w = 4.34

The effect of increasing the thermal deposition in the tie tubes more than offsets the lower efficiencies of centrifugal pumps incorporated in the updated balance, resulting in 64% of the hot hydrogen bypassing the turbine at the given chamber pressure. This presents the opportunity for further optimization of the NTR corresponding to system level optimization criteria. Total mass estimated for the NTR system based on the 1993 balance code (not including the Brayton cycle or shielding) is 2,480 kg (5,470 lbm), for a T/W of 2.74. Core optimization, along with optimization of other NTR components, is expected to yield propulsion system T/W greater than 3 for a 15 klbf rocket. A more expansive development effort, encompassing composite fuel elements, broad insertion of advanced materials, and enhanced design development techniques, could lead to an engine capable of producing 925 sec Isp with a doubling of T/W (Black and Dunn, 1991).

BNTR CONCEPT CONFIGURATION

Characteristics of the integrated Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket point-of-departure configuration, reflecting the preferred tie-tube cooling configuration, updated NTR analysis, and Brayton power cycle, are summarized in Table 3. These characteristics are consistent with anticipated Brayton cycle technology developments, and the NTR technology baseline defined in the 1993 study. A concept layout corresponding to this configuration is in work. TABLE 3. Characteristics of Point-of-Departure BNTR Configuration.
Parameter NTR Thrust Core Thermal Power NTR Specific Impulse Brayton Cycle Net Power Brayton Cycle Specific Power BNTR Mass Value 15,000 lbf 313.2 MWt 863.7 sec 37 kWe 15.6 kg/kWe 3,059 kg (6,744 lbm) Parameter BNTR Length NTR Length NTR Nozzle Exit Diameter Radiator Length Radiator Diameter Value 448 (11.4 m) 208 (5.3 m) 54 (1.4 m) 180 (4.6 m) 172 (4.4 m)

This concept is appropriate as a point-of-departure for evaluating system-level benefits of BNTR, serving as a basis for developing system concepts from which BNTR requirements and optimization criteria can be derived. A followon activity defining a reference mission (or missions) from which to assess BNTR impact and develop missiontraceable optimization criteria is highly recommended. This should be followed by trade studies to optimize the BNTR for the reference mission, and development of a technology roadmap that supports the optimized BNTR configuration. Of particular importance is establishing the feasibility of assumed reactor core parameters and design approaches where advances beyond demonstrated capability are assumed.

CONCLUSIONS
A point-of-departure BNTR configuration has been established as a basis for follow-on system definition studies, based on demonstrated or near term technologies as defined in the 1993 NERVA study and the recent Brayton cycle study performance for NASA GRC. Further evaluation of LANTR performance is recommended, in particular with an emphasis on understanding the impact of finite rate kinetics on achievable performance with supersonic GOX injection. Follow-on effort to establish mission-traceable requirements and LANTR optimization criteria is strongly recommended, to be followed by LANTR trade studies and optimization using higher fidelity analytical tools. Similarly, mission-traceable requirements and optimization criteria for the overall BNTR system should be developed, followed by BNTR optimization studies and technology roadmap definition. Definition of reactor core technology assumptions and development needs are especially important.

518

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was performed under NASA GRC contract NA3-02204. The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Diego Gabrieli (Brayton analysis), Tony Tu (NTR analysis), Cliff Carroll (BNTR layout) and Bill Determan (system analysis) of Rocketdyne to this effort.

REFERENCES
Black, D. L., and Gunn, S. V., A Technical Summary of Engine and reactor Subsystem Design Performance During the NERVA Program, AIAA/NASA/OAI Conference on Advanced SEI Technologies, Sept 1991. (AIAA 1991-3450). Borowski, S. K., Culver, D.W., and Bulman, M. J., Human Exploration and Settlement of the Moon Using LUNOX-Augmented NTR Propulsion, in Proc. 12th Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 324, January 1995, Vol. 1, pp. 409-420. Gunn, S. V., Hedstrom, J., and Hundal, R., Power Generation Capabilities of Tie Tube Assemblies, 11th Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1994. McBride, B.J., and Gordon, S., Computer Program for Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium Compositions and Applications, NASA-Lewis RP-1311, 1996. Zweig, H.R., and Hundal, R., NERVA-Derived Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Dual Mode Operation, 11th Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1994.

519