Russia to Build Megawatt-Class Nuclear Powered Rocket Engine

**Monash** · 06 Apr 12,, 07:12

Source: - The RIA Novisti Website Group:

A Russian Megawatt-class nuclear propulsion system for long-range manned spacecraft must be ready by 2017, Skolkovo Foundation's Nuclear Cluster head Denis Kovalevich said on Wednesday.

“At present we are testing several types of fuel and later we will start drafting the design,” Kovalevich said. “The first parts [of the nuclear engine] should be built in 2013, and the engine is expected to be ready by 2017.”

The engine is being developed for interplanetary manned spacecraft to ensure that Russia maintains a competitive edge in the space race, including the exploration of the Moon and Mars.

The Russian government allocated 500 million rubles ($16.7 million) in 2010 to start a project to build a spacecraft with a nuclear engine. The overall investment in the project is estimated at 17 billion rubles (over $580 million) until 2019.

According to Russia’s nuclear power agency Rosatom, the development and construction of a nuclear propulsion system for spacecraft will cost over 7.2 billion rubles ($247 mln).

NASA started a program to develop a nuclear propulsion system in 2003, and spent several hundred million dollars on the project before cutting funding.

Russian space officials believe that nuclear engines for interplanetary spaceships are a very promising area, as solar power is too weak to be used as a power source at distances beyond Earth's orbit.

**USSWisconsin** · 06 Apr 12,, 14:30

Engines like these would probably be used outside the Earth's atmosphere - the risk of an accident during launch (with conventional rockets) is scary (with the large core breaking up in reentry and landing back on Earth - far worse than the plutonium batteries they have already had this problem with), but it does offer an interplanetary propulsion system with todays technology.

**andrew** · 06 Apr 12,, 15:40

They propose to use that engine as a tug for interplanetary missions.
But the money allocated for the project and the dates mentioned in the article are just ridiculous.

**Monash** · 07 Apr 12,, 02:21

Another article I read on the Russians proposal went into more details. Apparently the plan is to use the nuclear power plant in tandem with a high efficiency ion drive that uses Xenon gas as the propellant. This means the "drive" would have to be launched into orbit via conventional means. The big advantage they see (assuming they can make it work) is that it will generate such large amounts of electricity that there will be ample power for both thrust and the onboard systems. They can therefore achieve far higher velocities that the current generation of solar powered ion drive units and do not have to play all the power rationing/balancing games that mission controllers currently do with deep space missions. High speed manned missions to the inner planets would also become an option.

I could see a scenario where a joint US, Russia (and others?) Mars mission is developed. The Russians could build and launch the engine module, the US could build and launch the crew compartment and lander modules with the three units being "bolted" together in orbit before the mission commences.

**Stitch** · 07 Apr 12,, 03:19

Originally Posted by Monash

Another article I read on the Russians proposal went into more details. Apparently the plan is to use the nuclear power plant in tandem with a high efficiency ion drive that uses Xenon gas as the propellant. This means the "drive" would have to be launched into orbit via conventional means. The big advantage they see (assuming they can make it work) is that it will generate such large amounts of electricity that there will be ample power for both thrust and the onboard systems. They can therefore achieve far higher velocities that the current generation of solar powered ion drive units and do not have to play all the power rationing/balancing games that mission controllers currently do with deep space missions. High speed manned missions to the inner planets would also become an option.

I could see a scenario where a joint US, Russia (and others?) Mars mission is developed. The Russians could build and launch the engine module, the US could build and launch the crew compartment and lander modules with the three units being "bolted" together in orbit before the mission commences.

Supposedly, an ion/nuclear drive is 300 times more efficient than a standard chemical reaction propellant; they theorize it would only take 6 weeks to get to Mars, instead of the typical 8-9 months it would with standard (current) chemical propellants.

**Parihaka** · 07 Apr 12,, 03:40

I'd definitely want to see either the US or more probably the Chinese actually build the engine. While Russian design is exceptional their engineering at the moment is less than stellar. In fact get the Chinese to build all the components under license.

**Monash** · 08 Apr 12,, 01:36

Found some more info: - apparently the nuclear engine is expected to be capable of functioning continuously for up to three years and will produce something like 100-150 kilowatts of energy in its standard operating mode. They would like to be ready for a potential manned mission by 2025.

**snapper** · 09 Apr 12,, 06:36

It's going to take one massive 'conventional' engine to get that lot into space.

**Monash** · 09 Apr 12,, 09:51

Originally Posted by snapper

It's going to take one massive 'conventional' engine to get that lot into space.

Yes, but presumably they wouldn’t be prepared to spend billions of roubles on the project if they didn’t think the final product could be put into orbit by their available (or near pending) launch vehicles. I can see the module being heavy due to necessary shielding etc but also by its nature a fission power plant can also be relatively compact and the Russian do have extensive experience with building more conventional nuclear power plants.

**Stitch** · 09 Apr 12,, 20:29

Originally Posted by snapper

It's going to take one massive 'conventional' engine to get that lot into space.

My guess is they'll send it up in pieces and assemble it in orbit, like they did with the International Space Station.

**andrew** · 09 Apr 12,, 22:31

The pieces for interplanetary missions, in the view of Roskosmos, are supposed to be in the range of 50 to 60 tons so they could be launched into orbit atop medium-sized boosters and then stitched together into one station. Such scheme is cheaper and more endurable because medium-sized rockets are less vulnerable to budget cuts in the long perspective.

So the proposed nuclear engine, I think, must fit into that range.

**kato** · 09 Apr 12,, 23:48

Originally Posted by Monash

I could see a scenario where a joint US, Russia (and others?) Mars mission is developed.

Urgh. Leave NASA out of it, otherwise this never gets off the ground.

Originally Posted by andrew

The pieces for interplanetary missions, in the view of Roskosmos, are supposed to be in the range of 50 to 60 tons so they could be launched into orbit atop medium-sized boosters and then stitched together into one station.

HTRE-3 weighed 20 tons 50 years ago, you can easily strap that on a Proton or Ariane V. At 50 tons you'd need to design new launchers first.

**andrew** · 10 Apr 12,, 00:16

Originally Posted by kato

HTRE-3 weighed 20 tons 50 years ago, you can easily strap that on a Proton or Ariane V. At 50 tons you'd need to design new launchers first.

A Mars lander doesn't fit into 20 ton range. It will be at least 50 ton module.
So, yes, they will need a new launcher. The Rus rocket booster (50 ton class, modular) was proposed for that role. Though recently they announced that the program is suspended until new requirements are clarified.

**USSWisconsin** · 10 Apr 12,, 00:44

A launch accident with reactor fuel aboard is going to be a big concern, but with appropriate safety and perhaps sending the fuel up as sections in crash safe containers - it might be done safely. Sheilding might be reduced with the reactor at the back of the system, with the shielding blocking the radiation in just one direction. Still on a long intersellar mission, the neutron embrittlement issues would be troublesome. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done - I think it should - just thinking about the details.

**Monash** · 10 Apr 12,, 12:27

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

A launch accident with reactor fuel aboard is going to be a big concern, but with appropriate safety and perhaps sending the fuel up as sections in crash safe containers - it might be done safely. Sheilding might be reduced with the reactor at the back of the system, with the shielding blocking the radiation in just one direction. Still on a long intersellar mission, the neutron embrittlement issues would be troublesome. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done - I think it should - just thinking about the details.

Thats why I think the unit would be heavily shielded. Not so much due to the radiation hazard but rather because of the need to design a shell that could withstand re-entry in the event of a launch failure. The fission pile at least would need to be engineered on a par with those containers used to transport nuclear material that can survive aircraft crashes. At the end of its usefull life, if the craft was still in orbit around the Earth I guess the Russians could just detach the drive "unit" and boost it out of harms way with its last fuel reserves into a decaying solar orbit. No need to bring it back down.