Rolls-Royce teases small nuclear reactor for space travel and moon bases

[Daniel Sims]

Forward-looking: Most people probably still only picture luxury automobiles when they think of Rolls-Royce. However, the company has started applying its decades of experience with nuclear-powered engines to space exploration. Recently, it revealed new details on those plans.

Rolls-Royce tweeted a new image of its "Micro-Reactor" that could use nuclear energy to power spaceships and lunar facilities. The post contained further information on the reactor's workings, mainly regarding safety.

The Micro-Reactor will house uranium particles underneath multiple containment levels so they can withstand the intense conditions that accompany space travel. For years, Rolls-Royce has discussed the reactor as the center of its space-oriented ambitions.

The company started studying nuclear power for space exploration alongside the UK's space agency in 2021. NASA recently confirmed it has similar goals in cooperation with DARPA.

A Rolls-Royce Micro-Reactor is designed to use an inherently safe and extremely robust fuel form. Each uranium particle is encapsulated in multiple protective layers that act as a containment system, allowing it to withstand extreme conditions.https://t.co/OOc9kBGXDx pic.twitter.com/wkXmZgzhrs

— Rolls-Royce (@RollsRoyce) January 27, 2023

NASA has previously used nuclear power for unmanned space missions like the Voyager probes but not for crewed space travel. Nuclear fission could be a much more fuel-efficient propulsion method than the chemical rockets currently sending people to space. It would also result in shorter and safer travel times. The US Department of Defense (DoD) started accepting proposals from private companies for nuclear propulsion systems for spacecraft in 2021.

However, Rolls-Royce also wants to use nuclear reactors to power moon bases. One possible method involves radioisotope devices that use Americium to power communications and scientific equipment. They would utilize the natural decay of nuclear material, which exhausts heat over decades.

The DoD and NASA awarded millions of dollars to Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, X-Energy, and Intuitive Machines last year to design lunar-based nuclear power plants. Together, they aim to build a 40-kilowatt class fission reactor that can last for a decade on the moon's surface. Furthermore, Rolls-Royce thinks its development of nuclear reactors for space can help de-carbonization on Earth. The technology could have applications in Earth-based areas like defense and shipping.

The British and American organizations all view fission-powered propulsion and lunar reactors as stepping stones to reaching and exploring Mars. NASA wants to prototype its system in 2027, while Rolls-Royce wants to produce its Micro-Reactor by 2028 and launch it in 2030.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/97435-rolls-royce-teases-small-nuclear-reactor-space-travel.html

 

[psycros]

There's no downside to using nuclear in space so I say build BIG. Accelerate halfway and decel the rest. Send robots to build the first bases for the explorers and scientists. Let AI with remote assistance start up the renewable biosphere.

 

[yRaz]

There's no downside to using nuclear in space so I say build BIG. Accelerate halfway and decel the rest. Send robots to build the first bases for the explorers and scientists. Let AI with remote assistance start up the renewable biosphere.

You aren't thinking big enough. We could have nuclear powered, AI driven waifu sex dolls.

 

[dualkelly]

Article doesn't mention that Rolls Royce is only 1 out of 3 manufactures of jet engines and powers many of jet fighters/ domestic flights around the world. The other 2 being GE and Pratt and Whitney.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Micro-fusion reactors based on stellarator technology might be out before 2030. For space travel unless we can get to > 10% (preferably 25%) light speed it's just too damn slow.

 

[psycros]

Article doesn't mention that Rolls Royce is only 1 out of 3 manufactures of jet engines and powers many of jet fighters/ domestic flights around the world. The other 2 being GE and Pratt and Whitney.

You forgot SAE.

 

[yRaz]

You forgot SAE.

You're right, full synthetic is way better

 

[Endymio]

For space travel unless we can get to > 10% (preferably 25%) light speed it's just too damn slow.

We're talking about travel within the solar system, not interstellar flights. For anywhere up to and including Pluto, a steady 0.01g will get you there in no time flat.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

We're talking about travel within the solar system, not interstellar flights. For anywhere up to and including Pluto, a steady 0.01g will get you there in no time flat.

~
Sure Pluto in ~ 12 months at 0.01g if you can provide the required thrust for ~3 billion km. For a 60 ton spacecraft you need 6000N thrust to achieve 0.01g.

They are already talking about launching a mission to Alpha Centauri by the 2060's. Even 0.25x light speed means 17 years.

 

[Kwesley]

You aren't thinking big enough. We could have nuclear powered, AI driven waifu sex dolls.

Hey all can we get this comment section back on track? So what about these waifu sex dolls? Asking, for a friend.

 

[Endymio]

Sure Pluto in ~ 12 months at 0.01g if you can provide the required thrust for ~3 billion km.

More like 5 months if you're willing to wait for Pluto's closest approach.

For a 60 ton spacecraft you need 6000N thrust to achieve 0.01g.

The NERVA nuclear engine tested in the 1970s developed more than 300,000 Newtons thrust. We can surely better that today.

They are already talking about launching a mission to Alpha Centauri by the 2060's. Even 0.25x light speed means 17 years.

No, you have to accelerate to that velocity, and decelerate for the last half of the trip. For a maximum speed of 0.25c, the trip would require 31 years .... AND accelerating at 0.16g that entire 31-year period.

 

[yRaz]

Hey all can we get this comment section back on track? So what about these waifu sex dolls? Asking, for a friend.

well considering that fusion is so far away, having these things driven fission and keeping us sterile is a win, win. And, you know, if I'm going to be paying 2k+ for an AI powered graphics card, well, it'd be nice if I could take that graphics card on for dates. needless to say, with current power requirments, keeping yourself sterile is the only way to afford to power such devices.

I might not be able to date a 10/10, but maybe I can date a 4090ti/10

 

[wiyosaya]

I might not be able to date a 10/10, but maybe I can date a 4090ti/10

Me thinks you need to get out more.

 

[R00sT3R]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Rolls Royce Automobiles and their experience is contributing nothing to this.

This is Rolls Royce Aerospace, which has been a completely separate company for decades.

So much for journalistic research.

 

[yRaz]

Me thinks you need to get out more.

I get out plenty, that's part of the issue. You read my posts, imagine what I'm like to party with

 

[wiyosaya]

I get out plenty, that's part of the issue. You read my posts, imagine what I'm like to party with

Well, the imagery was such that I could not resist gentle kidding. Nothing personal. I'm not much of a partier myself.

 

[yRaz]

Well, the imagery was such that I could not resist gentle kidding. Nothing personal. I'm not much of a partier myself.

Glad I could give you a laugh! And that the imagery was proper!

 

[HansSchulze]

... a steady 0.01g will get you there in no time flat.

Why not accelerate at 1 G, less atrophied muscles. Mars in 3 weeks. One year to near light speed. It's all about the specific impulse - we need light (not heavy) fuels and engines, and nuclear variants are the closest so far, but fusion being heavier but more efficient ideally (when it works the way it should). We will never get out of lunar orbit let alone out of our SS with 12M lbs of thrust on 11M lbs of fuel.

 

[mbk34]

It seems fairly sensible having nuclear reactors in space but it's the part where you strap one to the top of a rocket and then launch it over my head that I'm not so keen on.

 

[HansSchulze]

One dangerous point for infrastructure like this .. One meteorite hit could leak radioactive gas for a hundred miles. Something the size or a pea to the size of a baseball can leave another crater.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

They do this in Derby, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby
Wonderful place, Derbyshire, and home to Derby County FC, previously known as Frank Lampards Derby, then Wayne Rooney's Derby by the nonsense media.
Come on you Rams!

 

[Endymio]

Why not accelerate at 1 G,

Because the propulsion systems with the highest Isp (specific impulse) typically have much lower thrusts. Using ionic propulsion, we can build rockets that accelerate continuously for weeks or even months, albeit at very low thrust. Nuclear thermal propulsion has very high thrust, but continuous acceleration for even a few days is impossible (the system is momentum-limited, not energy limited)

... we need light (not heavy) fuels and engines, and nuclear variants are the closest so far.

Actually, with ionic propulsion, you want the heaviest fuel possible, not the lightest. Xenon is a leading candidate, whereas with nuclear thermal, H2 (or better, just H) works best.

 

[Farkinell]

How exactly does the propulsion system work then? I can understand the reactor generates power but how is thrust then produced?

I'm (roughly) familiar with ionic propulsion where an electric field is used to shoot out heavy ions which act as the mass to generate momentum in the opposite direction, as per the big IN's third law, is this the same thing? If so would the reactor not need a hefty supply of xenon or other such mass as a secondary source of 'fuel'?

 

[Endymio]

How exactly does the propulsion system work then? I can understand the reactor generates power but how is thrust then produced?

I'm (roughly) familiar with ionic propulsion where an electric field is used to shoot out heavy ions which act as the mass to generate momentum in the opposite direction, as per the big IN's third law, is this the same thing? If so would the reactor not need a hefty supply of xenon or other such mass as a secondary source of 'fuel'?

You understand the basics. There are a large variety of ionic systems, but the electrostatic system you describe is most common, with a nuclear reactor or solar array providing the electric power. And while you need reaction mass ("fuel", in loose speech), you need far less of it. A chemical rocket has a specific impulse of 300-400 seconds, whereas nuclear thermal systems run about 800-1200. But the ionic thruster on NASA's DART mission had a specific impulse of 4000 sec. And, because of the way the so-called "rocket equation" works, a small increase in SI yields an exponential decrease in required reaction mass.

 

[Farkinell]

You understand the basics. There are a large variety of ionic systems, but the electrostatic system you describe is most common, with a nuclear reactor or solar array providing the electric power. And while you need reaction mass ("fuel", in loose speech), you need far less of it. A chemical rocket has a specific impulse of 300-400 seconds, whereas nuclear thermal systems run about 800-1200. But the ionic thruster on NASA's DART mission had a specific impulse of 4000 sec. And, because of the way the so-called "rocket equation" works, a small increase in SI yields an exponential decrease in required reaction mass.

Understood, thank you for the explanation.