SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
NASA's Kilopower nuclear reactor with Stirling converters (not an RTG) has passed key tests:
The Kilopower team conducted the experiment in four phases. The first two phases, conducted without power, confirmed that each component of the system behaved as expected. During the third phase, the team increased power to heat the core incrementally before moving on to the final phase. The experiment culminated with a 28-hour, full-power test that simulated a mission, including reactor startup, ramp to full power, steady operation and shutdown.
Throughout the experiment, the team simulated power reduction, failed engines and failed heat pipes, showing that the system could continue to operate and successfully handle multiple failures.
"We put the system through its paces," said Gibson. "We understand the reactor very well, and this test proved that the system works the way we designed it to work. No matter what environment we expose it to, the reactor performs very well."
The Kilopower project is developing mission concepts and performing additional risk reduction activities to prepare for a possible future flight demonstration. The project will remain a part of the STMD's Game Changing Development program with the goal of transitioning to the Technology Demonstration Mission program in Fiscal Year 2020.
The full system will generate 10 kW of power, but the prototype tested from November to March was designed to produce just 1 kW. The solid uranium-235 core is safe to handle.
The Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology (KRUSTY) prototype exceeded almost all performance metrics.
Multiple units could power missions on the Moon, Mars, or other destinations:
"Kilopower's compact size and robustness allows us to deliver multiple units on a single lander to the surface that provides tens of kilowatts of power," NASA Associate Administrator Steve Jurczyk said in January.
Also at Beyond Nerva. 3m8s video.
Previously: NASA's Kilopower Project Testing a Nuclear Stirling Engine
Initial Tests of NASA's Kilopower Nuclear System Successful
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Thursday May 03 2018, @01:39PM (3 children)
Worst case scenario for mission planners is that the spacecraft blows up before reaching orbit, spreading nuclear material everywhere. But the uranium scattering is not as bad as an RTG:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Radioactive_contamination [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238 [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235 [wikipedia.org]
It's a similar story for other 238Pu replacements, such as Americium-241 with a half life of 432 years.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sgleysti on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:01PM (2 children)
What I can't figure out from the articles: Is this thing a souped up RTG that converts the decay heat of a block of U-235 to electricity with Stirling engines? Or is it a reactor with neutron reflectors/moderators/etc. that uses Stirling engines instead of steam turbines?
The former seems most likely, although they keep calling it a reactor. And I suppose it is in some sense.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:12PM
It's a genuine™ nuclear fission reactor that uses the Stirling engines to convert heat into electricity. In the video they show you where the boron carbide control rod is.
This PDF also has some diagrams:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/kilopower-media-event-charts-final-011618.pdf [nasa.gov]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:27PM
They're technically distinct and always described incorrectly as one.
Part one is the heat source which can be a RTG that has no off switch and is large and heavy and low power and almost infinitely reliable and safe for re-entry, or a fission reactor which is controllable and unreliable and dangerous as heck.
Part two is the thing that turns a pile of hot heat into colder heat squirting out electricity. There are large heavy inefficient no moving part Peltier-like devices, and there's traditional engineering plant stuff like turbines or slightly more obscure like stirling engine tech.
Technically there's no reason you couldn't stick a nice no-moving parts chunk of the "bad" plutonium isotope up against a turbine, or bolt a Peltier-like thermoelectric no moving parts generator up to a reactor, although in practice nobodies ever done it for realsies. Might make an interesting detail for a sci fi story.
As I think about it, hopefully this isn't some bullshit classified stuff from half a century ago, an old fashioned 40s era plutonium production (as opposed to electricity production) plant technically could use a no-moving parts thermoelectric generator to have a ridiculously reliable source of cooling fan air. Sure they're not efficient but no moving parts is cheap and reliable and even in the 40s it should have generated "enough" power to run the cooling fans. Oh shit I hear black helicopters arriving as I type this best hit Submit while I still ca