Alpharetta graduate seeking 'Holy Grail' of rocket propulsion system

Jul 25, 2012 By Ray Garner

(Phys.org) -- Can a device formerly used to test nuclear weapons effects find a new life in rocket propulsion research? That is the question in which researchers at The University of Alabama in Huntsville seek an answer.

A new massive device is being assembled at the university’s Aerophysics Research Center on Redstone Arsenal, where a team of scientists and researchers from UAHuntsville’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Boeing and Marshall Space Flight Center’s Propulsion Engineering Lab are busy putting together a strange looking machine they’re calling the “Charger-1 Pulsed Power Generator.” It’s a key element in furthering the development of nuclear fusion technology to drive spacecraft.

The huge apparatus, known as the Decade Module Two (DM2) in its earlier life, was used on a contract with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) for research into the effects of nuclear weapons explosions.

UAHuntsville was first informed about its availability in 2009, several years after the research contract for which it was originally designed came to an end.

Reassembling several huge pieces of industrial equipment, the components were delivered in five shipments to the Aerophysics Research Center from San Leandro, Calif. When assembled, the unit will tip the scales at nearly 50 tons, and will be “one of the largest, most powerful pulse power systems in the academic world,” according to university officials.

With all units now in place, UAHuntsville engineering professor and project head Dr. Jason Cassibry says the team is busy cleaning up the components, which picked “a lot of dirt” after sitting in a lab for nearly 10 years, then being shipped across the country.

Refurbishment will include replacement of about 100 large resistors, and securing 15,000 gallons of transformer oil for the Marx tank, which holds the capacitors and prevents arcing between them. “That’s a big hurdle, but we’ll get there,” says Cassibry.

“We’re interested in deep space exploration,” Cassibry says. “Right now humans are stuck in low earth orbit, but we want to explore the solar system. We’re trying to come up with a system that will demonstrate ‘break even’ for thermonuclear propulsion.”

Despite the hydrogen bomb images this machine may evoke, Cassibry cautions it is completely safe. More importantly, research using the Charger-1 pulse power generator could change the entire way rockets are propelled and revolutionize space travel.

Since the dawn of spaceflight in the late 1950s, the world’s rockets have relied on chemical reactions of various fuels, such as kerosene or liquid hydrogen, to provide the thrust needed to launch and propel spacecraft. Launch vehicles have to be designed to carry thousands of tons of fuel, and rocket engines that could lift these massive loads along with the relatively lightweight payloads.

Nuclear fusion propulsion would reduce fuel needed to a few tons instead of thousands of tons. More importantly, it could reduce a trip to Mars to six weeks instead of six months, which reduces bone density loss and other effects of prolonged weightlessness on crew members.

A launch would be somewhat like assembling the international space station, Ross Cortez explains. He is an aerospace engineering Ph. D candidate from Alpharetta, Ga. (Milton High School). Multiple launch vehicles would put the required components into orbit, where the spacecraft would then be assembled. The pulsed fusion engine would then launch the spacecraft from this higher Earth orbit. After achieving mission velocity, the engines would be turned off and the spacecraft would coast to its destination.

Crew members would feel the power as a series of pulses like a light tapping – not the common misconception of a full-throttle acceleration that would keep them pinned to the backs of their seats.

Cortez describes the fusion principle as “taking two light atoms and smashing them together, which releases massive amounts of energy.” Similar to the process used by the Sun for billions of years, atoms of heavy hydrogen, or deuterium, combine with isotopes of lithium to release the energy required for thrust.

Another way to look at it, Cortez says, is to liken it to a lightning strike, when an electrical current blasts through the fuel to compress the atoms, which achieve the reactions needed.

Cortez likes to use a colorful analogy to explain the process. “Imagine using a 1-ton TNT equivalent explosive and putting it out the back end of a rocket. That’s what we’re doing here.”

Those pulses come from a bank of large capacitors, known as a Marx bank, which stores electrical charges for release on command. The wires, some composed of lithium 6 and others of lithium deuteride, provide the power pulses.

“We plug the wire array into this machine,” explains Cortez, “and a massive jolt of energy is fed into the array, which vaporizes into a plasma which we collapse into a Z-pinch.”

The Z-pinch effect, he explains, is the compression derived from the plasma’s own magnetic fields. Cassibry says the Z-pinch is “the equivalent to 20 percent of the world’s power output in a tiny bolt of lightning no bigger than your finger.”

Energy gain is another important factor in nuclear fusion propulsion where, Cortez says, “we need to get more energy from the reaction than we use to initiate it.”

That would be a major breakthrough, but Cassibry says an important milestone will be to simply achieve “break even” – the point where the energy derived from the pulse system equals the energy put into it.

Though the concept of nuclear propulsion has been around for decades, Cortez says it has only been recently that engineers have been able to create the needed reactions and control them.

“This has been the Holy Grail of energy propulsion technology. The massive payoff is that energy gain, where we get more energy out of the reaction than we put in. This is what everyone has pursued since the time we first started thinking about this.”

The researchers say Charger – 1 is an important tool that will help them ultimately achieve the goal of practical thermonuclear propulsion.

“Charger 1 won’t come close to break even, but will give us ability to conduct experiments that optimize fusion energy output,” says Cassibry. “Our ultimate goal is to build a break even fusion system that will propel humans throughout the solar system.”

Explore further: Scientists developing pulsed nuclear fusion system for distant missions

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Putting an airplane on a distant moon

Jan 25, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- In addition to its rivers, oceans, mountains, sand dunes and winds, Saturn’s moon Titan may someday share another similarity with Earth: airplanes.

Could primordial black holes be dark matter?

Sep 21, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- “We know that about 25% of the matter in the universe is dark matter, but we don’t know what it is,” Michael Kesden tells PhysOrg.com. “There are a number of different theories about what da ...

Zubrin claims VASIMR is a hoax

Jul 13, 2011

A next-generation plasma rocket being developed by former NASA astronaut Franklin Chang Diaz called the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) has been touted as a way to get astronauts to ...

Recommended for you

Mars rover Opportunity examines clay clues in rock

17 hours ago

(Phys.org) —NASA's senior Mars rover, Opportunity, is driving to a new study area after a dramatic finish to 20 months on "Cape York" with examination of a rock intensely altered by water.

NASA's STEREO detects a CME from the sun

May 17, 2013

On 5:24 a.m. EDT on May 17, 2013, the sun erupted with an Earth-directed coronal mass ejection or CME, a solar phenomenon that can send billions of tons of solar particles into space that can reach Earth ...

Nine-year-old Mars rover passes 40-year-old record

May 17, 2013

While Apollo 17 astronauts Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt visited Earth's moon for three days in December 1972, they drove their mission's Lunar Roving Vehicle 19.3 nautical miles (22.210 statute miles ...

Bright explosion on the Moon

May 17, 2013

For the past 8 years, NASA astronomers have been monitoring the Moon for signs of explosions caused by meteoroids hitting the lunar surface. "Lunar meteor showers" have turned out to be more common than anyone ...

User comments : 22

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
Energy gain is another important factor in nuclear fusion propulsion where, Cortez says, we need to get more energy from the reaction than we use to initiate it.


I assume he's meaning that the fusion reaction needs to produce more net thrust than that obtainable from the same mass worth of the "primer" fuel, since break even in terms of rocketry would be different than break even in terms of commercial electricity production. After all, a rocket is simply a directed explosive device used for propulsion, whereas a power plant must convert heat energy to electricity.

So you should have a primer fuel to produce the electricity, and then your fusion reaction produces somewhere around a hundred thousand to one energy return, further, I assume the daughter products, helium, other particles, and the photons are the propellant, although you could mix it with a more efficient propellant if that is not sufficient.
Lurker2358
4.5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2012
What about having large solar panel array charge a capacitor bank, and then fire the energy into the device to produce fusion? This way you need no primer fuel at all, and you have a more passive system with fewer explosive components.

The advantage of this over a pure solar sale would be well, 100,000 to 1 return on the solar energy, and far more flexibility and control and applications. It would seem to be the most practical method of design, as the solar constant even as far out as Mars is large enough to be useful for these purposes.

If a solar array breaks down due to a glitch or something, astronauts might be able to rewire it. But if a liquid hydrogen fuel cell or an RTG breaks down, it could destroy the ship or kill people for other reasons, much like the Apollo 13 accident nearly did.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
I assume he's meaning that the fusion reaction needs to produce more net thrust than that obtainable from the same mass worth of the "primer" fuel


No, he literally means what he said. In this type of device there's a lot of waste. It takes a lot of energy to get just a little bit of the fuel to react. They will be looking for ways to get more fuel to react with a smaller, more efficient Zpinch.

It's worth noting that the goal of "break even" is rather arbitrary, and that would just be a milestone as opposed to an end goal. There's a ton of room for improvement in all parts of this type of device. One of the biggest challenges are those capacitors, since they are heavy and you would need a bunch of them to sustain high frequency pulses.

or an RTG breaks down, it could destroy the ship or kill people


RTG's are very safe. The Russians have been using them on ocean bouyees for decades.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2012
What about having large solar panel array charge a capacitor bank, and then fire the energy into the device to produce fusion?

Won't work because of energy needs/stability.

The propulsion system requires large amounts of energy. And since it's a fusion process the most sensible thing to do is use part of the released energy to power the device.

Using solar sails would take forever to charge for one pulse and you'd need huge ones (read: lots of mass, which diminishes the acceleration you get per pulse). At even small accelerations a huge, lightweight (i.e. flimsy) structure would collapse, and a huge rigid structure would be far too massive.

The further away you get from the sun (e.g. on a trip to Mars) the less effective solar panels become, too. So the number of pulses decreases. (For Mars the solar constant is between half and one third of that of Earth)
Harryrob
4 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
How about making huge solar arrays in Earth and mars orbit.
Collect the solar energy and store it (how to store part we'll need to figure out though). Then when the space craft is in earth orbit , it could attach to this storage array and charge the capacitors. Then detach from this and fly to mars, when in mars orbit it could repeat the same process and fly back to earth. But for continuous bursts the energy will have to be stored in space craft itself so that the capacitors can be charged again and again.
So I guess what we actually need is the technology to store huge amounts of energy...
Moebius
not rated yet Jul 25, 2012
This doesn't sound feasible to me. We can't even get a fusion reactor working here. Even if it works, the weight in fuel saved would probably be eaten up by the reactor and power generating equipment. And contrary to popular belief, fusion creates a radioactive mess to deal with too eventually. All the metal in the reactor will become extremely radioactive if I recall correctly.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
Energy itself doesn't make you move unless you dump it out the back as photons - and that would be a pitiful return any kind of electrical (or even chemical) energy storage system.

Huge solar arrays in orbit are a no-go. They'd be awesomly susceptible to space weather (CMEs) or the occasional meteor shower. In LEO they'd be wrecked by space junk in no time (and in high orbit they'd be basically unreachable for repairs)
Something THAT huge you can't just move out of the way easily.

So I guess what we actually need is the technology to store huge amounts of energy...

We have that. It's called hydrogen (or deuterium/tritium to be more precise). Fusion fuel is an incredible way to store a lot of energy within a small space. However it's not a fuel that you can 'recharge' from collected solar energy.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2012
And contrary to popular belief, fusion creates a radioactive mess to deal with too eventually.

True - so what? There are designs more than half a century old where the actual engine would be flying ahead with the 'passenger section' being towed behind at some distance. On Earth making stuff safe from leaking or irradiating the environment is paramount. But in space? Meh.

Even if it works, the weight in fuel saved would probably be eaten up by the reactor and power generating equipment.

That really depends on how big you want to make your craft. For tiny craft chemical/ion engines are probably superior for some distance out. But as soon as we're talking big craft (manned and/or material/ore transports) things quickly look different.

The engines in space don't need to scale with the size of the craft - only the amount of fuel you want to carry does.
SleepTech
4 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
This whole charade is highly idealistic but you have to start somewhere I guess
nkalanaga
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
Part of the reason this might work for propulsion is that they are NOT trying to build a fusion reactor. There is no need for a self-sustaining reaction. All you need to do is get more energy from the reaction than you put in, then repeat the reaction, just like using a series of bombs. A stable reaction isn't needed, and, since the entire reaction is thrown out the back of the rocket, would probably be undesirable.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
While I am sympathetic to cutting down transfer times, they don't seem to be a huge obstacle provided we can close a biosphere habitat to more than the current ~ 70 %. We would want to do that anyway for long stays or colonization. For example, the bone loss issue is solved recently, it hangs on how much you exercise and not inherently on free fall conditions.

Too bad Z pinches were abandoned because they were inferior to tokamaks. They never got anywhere close to the stated goal of break even.

Nitpick: "Weightlessness" is most often nothing but, a mass in LEO orbit has still ~ 70 % of surface weight. Instead it is free falling with all the other masses.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
@ Moebius:

"And contrary to popular belief, fusion creates a radioactive mess to deal with too eventually. All the metal in the reactor will become extremely radioactive if I recall correctly."

Not "extremely" radioactive, but the fusion neutrons results in low and medium halflife isotopes. Added to that is the uranium that is needed to boost neutron yield to convert enough lithium to tritium in the DT reactors that realistically are the only technically feasible ones. (The DD cycle needs another 2 order of magnitude (!) confinement product IIRC. And don't get me started on the inefficient He3 idiocy, which is 2-3 orders more while having an abysmal yield if any at all.)

Dismantling a used fusion reactor will be nothing like dismantling todays full blown fission reactors, nor will the waste be as much of a reuse or longterm storage bother as long as we will have to retain an uranium cycle anyway.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
While I am sympathetic to cutting down transfer times, they don't seem to be a huge obstacle

They are. Space is a pretty hazardous place. Radiation is high. A proposal for the first Mars mission is on the table that would limit astronauts to be OVER 50 years of age. (Because cell replication is slower the older you get. Cancer won't be that much of an issue - not until they get back, anyways. And they likely have already had all the children they'd want.) Putting several meters of shielding around the craft is currently not an option.
For example, the bone loss issue is solved recently

That's news to me. I was, until recently, working in very close proximity to a group studying that (actually right next door) - and to my knowledge it hasn't. Calcium loss, heart atrophy and head swelling are still serious issues.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
Part of the reason this might work for propulsion is that they are NOT trying to build a fusion reactor


That's correct. There should be zero electricity generated by this thing. I'll reapeat your comment because it seem the dreamers here don't get it. They are NOT trying to build a fusion generator. You wouldn't use this to generate electricity any more than you would use the exhaust from a standard chemical rocket. NASA has sketched out designs for this already, so there's really no need for such wild speculation as I see above. Most of it is wrong, so I'm not going to quote specifics. The craft will be solar powered (Silicon PV Cells, not a solar sail, OMG). The solar panels will charge banks of supercapacitors, which will dischage and recharge constantly. The acceleration will not be too much for a big solar array. It will only be a small fraction of 1 Earth gravity. You can read up on this at a number of places. NASA actually has drawings.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
While I am sympathetic to cutting down transfer times, they don't seem to be a huge obstacle


Antialias is correct in every bit of his post, and they have NOT solved the bone loss issue. In fact they have discovered that the exercise the astronauts do on the ISS have nearly zero benefit.

I would like to add to Antialias' post that reduced travel time also simplifies the problems of food, water, air, and other consumables. It allows you to make the whole spaceship smaller and lighter. You also don't need as much recreational and personal space inside the craft to keep the astronauts happy. Another benefit is that it greatly widens the potential launch windows.
eachus
4 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
A z-pinch drive could work fine even with no energy recovered from the exhaust. In that sense the various breakevens that fusion researchers talk about are irrelevant. But you would want at least 20x the thrust going out the back of an ion drive. To get there will take much more than scientific breakeven. But a lot of the problems that would have to be solved to use a z-pinch in an earthside powerplant would be non-issues for a space drive.

In particular, you can build the drive to use the vacuum of space instead of shielding, and it would also make it economical to start the pinch in a much larger volume. (If you want a factor of one billion compression, and a compressed volume of one cubic centimeter, you need to start with 1000 cubic meters. Even a million cubic meters of empty space is pretty cheap, even in low earth orbit. ;-)

Or you can just trash the idea and build Orion. The technology exists, and it would be a wonderful way to dispose of nuclear weapon stockpiles.
eachus
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
Too bad Z pinches were abandoned because they were inferior to tokamaks. They never got anywhere close to the stated goal of break even.


Sigh, they were inferior to tokomaks for research at 1% or less of the nkT needed for a sustained reaction. The problem we have had in fusion research ever since is that the politicians and scientists who tied their careers to tokomaks had to retire before the serious problems with tokomaks could be addressed. Will tokomaks ever provide a kilowatt of commercial power? The jury is still out.

However, for space propulsion, even stellarators are better than tokomaks. (The iron core of the tokomak adds a huge amount of weight.)

Nitpick: "Weightlessness" is most often nothing but, a mass in LEO orbit has still ~ 70 % of surface weight. Instead it is free falling with all the other masses.


Mass stays the same. Weight goes to zero in free fall. The trick is to avoid going splat at the end of the free fall.
eachus
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2012
Dismantling a used fusion reactor will be nothing like dismantling today's full blown fission reactors, nor will the waste be as much of a reuse or long term storage bother as long as we will have to retain an uranium cycle anyway.


News to me. Any realistic D-T fusion plant will give off about 15x the neutrons of a (current*) fission plant. Fusion fans think that real reactors will be built from materials with low nuclear cross-sections. But shielding must be massive (so no expensive materials) and must absorb the radiation. Duh!

* Thorium cycle should be somewhat better than uranium or mixed oxide (MoX) uranium and plutonium cycle. But the difference is minor compared to fusion. There are other things that can be done to reduce the irradiated mass and half-life of fission reactors. But the fuel is the fuel. You either don't reprocess it--stupid, results in lots of nuclear waste, or you reprocess fuel or use high burn cycle reactors. Now your nuclear waste is fuel.
Lurker2358
not rated yet Jul 25, 2012
Won't work because of energy needs/stability.

The propulsion system requires large amounts of energy. And since it's a fusion process the most sensible thing to do is use part of the released energy to power the device.


How? If you can do that then you can do self sustaining fusion for electricity on Earth. But the closest facilities we have to break even are the size of a football stadium.

Using solar sails would take forever to charge for one pulse and you'd need huge ones


Close to the Earth 1 square meter of space program grade solar panels can capture about 47 megajoules of energy in 24 hours. The solar panels will ultimately have more energy yield than their weight in hydrogen.

The further away you get from the sun (e.g. on a trip to Mars) the less effective solar panels become, too. So the number of pulses decreases. (For Mars the solar constant is between half and one third of that of Earth)


I know that.
Ventilator
not rated yet Jul 26, 2012
"How? If you can do that then you can do self sustaining fusion for electricity on Earth. But the closest facilities we have to break even are the size of a football stadium."

I was theorizing that this is due to the difference between sustained reactions, and pulse or momentary reactions of the thermonuclear fusion reaction process itself.

One, the power reactor, works under multiple criteria:
- Within a Gravity Well
- Demands sustained power input and output
- Cooling these things must be a pain

The other, the pulse reactor, the drive:
- intrastellar drive
- Reduced gravity, going towards zero
- Surface or ship hull arrays of whatever will best cool the drive

All told, different demands, different applications of how to get what needs to be done for that area.

In time, yes, a Fusion reactor to power this kind of drive rather than capacitors might work. This drive may be a vastly better method of getting propulsion over rockets; we still need something to replace rocket engines.
NMvoiceofreason
not rated yet Jul 28, 2012
"The pulsed fusion engine would then launch the spacecraft from this higher Earth orbit. After achieving mission velocity, the engines would be turned off and the spacecraft would coast to its destination."

And keep right on going. Unless they decelerate.
Jeddy_Mctedder
not rated yet Jul 29, 2012
nuclear rockets worked, and they remain the most powerful rockets that were tested. its a shame they were shelved 40 years ago. we could easily have been to mars and back 10 times by now.

i vote for making a scaled down version of a nuclear rocket that is to be strapped to an un-manned satellite to see how fast we can get it to mars and back. send it up on a conventional rocket and then once its up in space, to rocket it out to mars using the nuclear rockets.

More news stories

Galaxy's Ring of Fire

Johnny Cash may have preferred this galaxy's burning ring of fire to the one he sang about falling into in his popular song. The "starburst ring" seen at center in red and yellow hues is not the product of ...

Alaska volcano shoots ash 15,000 feet into the air

(AP)—One of Alaska's most restless volcanoes has shot an ash cloud 15,000 feet into the air in an ongoing eruption that has drawn attention from a nearby community but isn't expected to threaten air traffic.

Chinese, Indian airlines face EU pollution fines

Eight Chinese and two Indian airlines face fines of up to several million euros for not paying for their greenhouse gas emissions during flights within the bloc, the European Commission said on Friday.

Morocco to harness the wind in energy hunt

Morocco is ploughing ahead with a programme to boost wind energy production, particularly in the southern Tarfaya region, where Africa's largest wind farm is set to open in 2014.

US seizes Bitcoin operator accounts

US authorities seized the accounts of a Bitcoin digital currency exchange operator, claiming it was functioning as an "unlicensed money service business," court documents showed Friday.