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: 2) by choose another one on Thursday May 03 2018, @06:13PM (5 children)
There are other non-technical tradeoffs too:
1. RTGs are no longer a viable option because NASA doesn't _have_ much more Plutonium (3 missions left I think), no one is making large quantities of it for weapons any more and restarting production for space exploration alone is challenging (and requires a reactor with all the disadvantages listed, albeit not on top of a rocket) - see e.g. http://spacenews.com/plutonium-supply-for-nasa-missions-faces-long-term-challenges/ [spacenews.com]
2. At-launch activity/toxicity level of RTGs has already become a fairly large political / environmental issue
3. For reactors, at-launch is much cleaner, and failure in deep space or on another planet is a _mission_ problem, but not a political / environmental issue - yes, the reactor is a smoking stinking ruin of almost random extremely radioactive isotopes, but by that time it is in deep space or at worst it is on the moon/mars, and hardly anyone gives a shit, really. The _only_ issue would be if there is a live reactor on a sample-return mission or an earth-slingshot, which isn't proposed and probably wouldn't fly for exactly that reason...
So, yeah the tradeoff is exactly as you describe, IF we (well NASA) had plenty more Pu, AND was intending to stick reactors in earth-return missions.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:33PM (4 children)
The French could fix that for you, they're not afraid of breeders.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday May 04 2018, @05:23AM (1 child)
The problem is that Pu-238 is harder to make/separate and if IRC needs more then a simple breeder reactor. Basically neutron irradiation of neptunium-237 or Americium.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 04 2018, @03:04PM
We, the French, the Canadians (probably not the French Canadians), and many other countries have had the technology for over 50 years. What we lack is the will to use it.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday May 04 2018, @03:13PM (1 child)
One of the plutonium isotopes is literally thermally hot in bulk which makes for crappy bombs because of fizzle danger (self triggered at the wrong instant resulting in bad yields) and great RTGs, the other isotope is the opposite. So you need a military bomb focused breeder program along with a bomb-focused processing plant.
You can make a-bombs that are not isotopically clean, they just work better if cleaned up (much hand waving about engineering effort vs manufacturing effort removed). Likewise already big RTGs would be immense if they used mixed or a-bomb grade Pu.
AFAIK the French are not into RTG generation but thats political and has varied from decade to decade.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 04 2018, @04:02PM
It is all VERY political, and has been from the beginning.
I'd like to see the US take a Space 1999-esque style leadership role on the moon - build breeder reactors there, preferably not on the "dark side", and keep them open from day 1 for true international inspection and verification of activities. Load the "bad" isotopes on rockets to the sun (WCGW?), and distribute/sell the good ones for the betterment of mankind. I know, the 1999 plot was just a waste dump, and this one would require full-court-press to be running by 2099, but it seems like a good use for the real-estate, and I'd rather put the resources into something like that than bashing each other for control of the remaining oil reserves.
🌻🌻 [google.com]