NERVA CHAPTER 1

1.1 PRINCIPLES OF ROCKET FLIGHT

A rocket in its simplest form is a chamber enclosing a gas under pressure. A small opening at one end of the chamber allows the gas to escape, and in doing so provides a thrust that propels in the opposite direction. A good example of this is a balloon. Air inside a balloon is compressed by the balloon's rubber walls. The air pushes back so that the inward and outward pressing forces are balanced. When the nozzle is released, air escapes through it and the balloon is propelled in the opposite direction. When we think of rockets, we rarely think of balloons. Instead, our attention is drawn to the giant vehicles that carry satellites into orbit and spacecraft to the Moon and planets. Nevertheless, there is a strong similarity between the two. The only significant difference is the way the pressurized gas is produced. With space rockets, the gas is produced by burning propellants that can be solid or liquid in form or a combination of the two. One of the interesting facts about the historical development of rockets is that while rockets and rocket-powered devices have been in use for more than two thousand years, it has been only in the last three hundred years that experimenters have had a scientific basis for understanding how they work. The science of rocketry began with the publishing of a book in 1687 by the great English scientist Sir Isaac Newton. His book, entitled Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, described physical principles in nature. Today, Newton's work is usually just called the Principia. In the Principia, Newton stated three important scientific principles that govern the motion of all objects, whether on Earth or in space. Knowing these MMCOE Page 1

NERVA
principles, now called Newton's Laws of Motion, rocketeers have been able to construct the modern giant rockets of the 20th century such as the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle. Here now, in simple form, are Newton's Laws of Motion. 1. Objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. 2.Force is equal to mass times acceleration. 3.For every action there is always an opposite and equal reaction.

MMCOE

Page 2

NERVA CHAPTER 2

2.1 Space Settlement relevance Even though modern chemical rockets have sent us to the Moon, to build large space settlements we will need something more. Today, the high cost of launching into space limits the number of people who go there. Advanced propulsion, however, offers a chance to dramatically lower launch costs. Futhermore, many of the ideas being proposed would allow us to move around the solar system much quicker than we do today. Instead of months to Mars, it would be weeks. Years to Jupiter and Saturn would be months. And centuries to the stars would become years. 2.2 Nuclear Fission Rockets Nuclear rockets have, in one way or another, been studied for the past fifty years. Some of the earliest ideas for nuclear rockets came from the nuclear physicists struggling to build the bomb at Los Alamos. These desgins evolved into what are called solid core nuclear rockets. Solid core nuclear rockets work by taking liquid hydrogen and pumping it to the reactor through a jacket surrounding the rocket engine. This pumping process helps cool the rocket, and it also preheats the liquid hydrogen. Hundreds of narrow channels pass through the nuclear reactor. As the liquid hydrogen flows through these channels, heat from the reactor changes the fuel into rapidly expanding gas. The gas flows through the exhaust nozzle at speeds up to 35,400 kilometers per hour. A diagram of a solid core rocket. Several tests were carried out during the 1960s with nuclear rockets. The most well known of these are the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications (NERVA) tests. NERVA involved the Los Alamos laboratory, Westinghouse, Aerojet, and other industrial partners. Together, they were able to build and test a solid core rocket with a thrust of 250,000 pounds, and a specific impulse (Isp) of 850 seconds, nearly twice the
MMCOE Page 3

NERVA
best Isp of chemical rockets (specific impulse is a "miles per gallon" for rockets). Unfortunately, the public's fear of anything nuclear led to the cancellation of NERVA in 1971. The field of nuclear rocketry would lie nearly dormant for the next 10 years. In 1982 there was an upsurge of support for nuclear rockets. The old NERVA designs were dusted off just in time for Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, or "Star Wars"). This time though, a new design emerged: the gas core nuclear rocket. Gas core rockets use a gaseous nuclear fuel instead of the solid graphite core used in NERVA. A gaseous fuel could attain tempertures of several tens of thousands of degrees which would provide an Isp of 3000 to 5000 seconds. A gas core engine would allow manned missions to Mars to be accomplished in half the time that is being considered now. Originally, nuclear rockets were going to move and power large SDI space-based lasers. When it was decided that conventional means would work just as well, nuclear rockets were largely dropped from SDI. Only the small Timberwolf Project continued looking into their uses. Today, research into nuclear rockets proceeds at a slow but steady pace. Most of the work is done at Los Alamos, where nuclear rockets originated. Most of the problems that the scientists are trying to solve now are how to build a nozzle and combustion chamber that can withstand the high temperatures of a gas core rocket, and how to contain the uranium plasma that forms. If viable nuclear rockets are ever developed, they would have the possibility of opening the solar system to manned space flight. A trip to Mars would easily be within our grasp. We will have to wait and see.

MMCOE

Page 4

NERVA CHAPTER 3
3.1 PROPULSION SYSTEM OF FUTURE

During more than 40 years of spaceflight, a lot of things have changed. Today's Space Shuttle is a luxury ship compared to the Mercury capsules that carried the first American astronauts into space. Forty years ago, a lot of people might have had a hard time believing that Americans and Russians would be living together in space on one Space Station. Space probes have visited every planet except Pluto, and a mission there is currently being planned. One thing that has changed very little, however, is the way rockets work. While different fuels have been used, and current rocket engines are more high-tech than their early predecessors, the basic concepts involved are basically the same. But, NASA researchers are currently working on a way to change that, as well. What should a future spacecraft engine be able to do? Certainly, one major goal would be for it to allow spacecraft to travel through the solar system more quickly than they can now. While a lot of things have changed in over 40 years, today's spacecraft are still traveling at about the same speed that John Glenn did when he became the first American to orbit the Earth in 1962. One possible way to change that would be the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR). Not only would VASIMR allow for faster space travel, it would have some pretty incredible side benefits, as well. For example, NASA researchers believe that VASIMR would be able to travel to Mars much more quickly than a contemporary
MMCOE Page 5

NERVA
chemical-powered rocket, and then, once there, to refuel on Mars for the return flight to Earth. The VASIMR engine could also even help protect astronauts from the dangerous effects of radiation during their trip. In the less-distant future, VASIMR could even help keep the International Space Station (ISS) in orbit without requiring extra fuel to be brought up from Earth. VASIMR is a plasma-based propulsion system. An electric power source is used to ionize fuel into plasma. Electric fields heat and accelerate the plasma while the magnetic fields direct the plasma in the proper direction as it is ejected from the engine, creating thrust for the spacecraft. The engine can even vary the amount of thrust generated, allowing it to increase or decrease its acceleration. It even features an "afterburner" mode that sacrifices fuel efficiency for additional speed. Possible fuels for the VASIMR engine could include hydrogen, helium, and deuterium. The use of hydrogen as the fuel for the VASIMR project has many side benefits, according to researcher Franklin Chang-Diaz. In addition to being the director of the Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory, Chang-Diaz is an astronaut who has flown into space on seven missions, more than any other NASA astronaut. "We're likely to find hydrogen pretty much anywhere we go in the solar system," he said. What this means is that a VASIMR-powered spacecraft could be launched with only enough fuel to get to its destination, such as Mars, and then pick up more hydrogen upon arrival to serve as fuel for the return trip home. Another benefit of hydrogen fuel is that hydrogen is the best known radiation shield, so the fuel for the VASIMR engine could also be used to protect the crew from harmful effects of radiation exposure during the flight. Electrical power sources for the VASIMR engine could include such things as a nuclear power system or solar panels. For long-range flights, Chang-Diaz said, the best option is nuclear power. "Nuclear power is definitely a must if we're going to go to Mars," he said. This means that VASIMR could be integrated with NASA's recently announced Project Prometheus proposal to develop nuclear power generators for spaceflight. While solar power would not be practical for flying farther out into the solar system, it could have applications closer to home. After VASIMR completes some additional earthbound testing, its designers hope for it to be tested in orbit onboard the International Space Station. A prototype engine would be mounted on the ISS's truss to demonstrate how it works. The prototype would draw its
MMCOE Page 6

NERVA
electrical power from the Station's solar panels. If the test were successful, the VASIMR prototype could be moved to a different part of the Station and used to help keep it in orbit. While ISS orbits the Earth, atmospheric drag gradually pulls it closer to the Earth. Every so often, the Station has to be boosted back into a higher orbit. This is done by a variety of means, but all of them require fuel launched into orbit from Earth. The VASIMR engine, however, could change that, since it would use hydrogen, which is already generated as a waste product on the Station. By using waste hydrogen and electricity from the Station's solar panels, VASIMR could maintain the ISS's orbit without requiring any additional fuel. "This is very exciting for us, because NASA would be able to solve a very serious problem," he said. Although VASIMR is still years away from being used in space, Chang-Diaz said that it has already shown great promise during tests on Earth. So, it is entirely possible that the engine that will carry the first person to Mars is already running in a laboratory on Earth.

MMCOE

Page 7

NERVA CHAPTER 4
4.1 Introduction to Chemical Propulsion Each of these propellants have their own properties, such as the temperature that they burn at and how much thrust they produce. Chemical propulsion systems have been the mainstay in the world's space programs thus far. Due to the large amount of propellant that these systems require, many new technologies have been proposed and are currently being tested. A nuclear thermal rocket engine uses approximately 50 percent less mass of propellant than the theoretically best chemical engine [this upper boundary (based on thrust produced / Chemical Propulsion is an extremely broad topic, as there are hundreds of elements and efficiency) is near a limit with the Space Shuttle main engine.A chemical rocket is self-contained, which means that it carries both fuel and oxidizer internally, rather than obtaining oxidizer from the outside atmosphere as a jet engine does. Because of this, it can be used for propulsion outside of the atmosphere . 4.2 How does it work? Thrust to propel a rocket is based on Newton's Third Law of Motion, which states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Inside the combustion chamber, the fuel and oxidizer are mixed and burned. In the case of the Space Shuttle, the main engines burn hydrogen and oxygen from the external tank. The resulting expansion of burning gases creates pressure inside the chamber. All forces inside the chamber other than directly up and down are equalized by their opposite and equal force, preventing the rocket from moving left or right. The upward thrust created by the burning gases cannot be equalized because of the open nozzle at the end of the rocket. This forces the rocket upward. The amount of thrust produced by the rocket engine depends on the mass and velocity of the burning gases when they leave the combustion
MMCOE Page 8

NERVA
chamber [4]. The combustion chamber has a converging section to the narrowest portion, which is called the throat. At this point, the passage begins to grow wider. The nozzle diameter can be four or five times that of the combustion chamber. In liquid-propelled rockets, regenerative cooling is often used to help in heat transfer at the throat, since this is where the greatest amount of heat is generated. 4.3 Basic Types of Chemical Propulsion Systems Solid-Propellant Rockets: Solid-propellant rockets consist of the payload (if there is one), and the rocket engine. The propellant charge is stored and burned in the motor [4]. Liquid-Propellant Rockets: Liquid-propellant rockets contain two main tanks, one containing the fuel, and the other holding the oxidizing agent. In a small liquid-propelled rocket, the fuel and the oxidizer can be pressurized and forced into the rocket engine with an inert gas. However, in larger rockets, this process would make the tanks too heavy. Therefore, between the tanks and the rocket engine are pumps that produce the required delivery pressure. The pumps required are driven by a gas turbine and are high-capacity to manage the large amount of propellant used [4]. Hybrids: In a hybrid rocket the fuel is solid, and the oxidizer is liquid. The liquid is carried in a pressurized container above the fuel, which burns outward from a center hole. This system combines the advantages of solid propellant and liquid oxidizer. The solid is easier to handle and the liquid allows for the regulation of the rate of burning .

MMCOE

Page 9

NERVA
4.5Propellants Early solid-propellant rockets used a mixture of 60 percent saltpeter, 15 percent sulfur, and 25 percent charcoal for combustion. These are the same ingredients that are used in black gunpowder, but in different proportions, which allows the rocket propellant to burn slower. In November 1918, Robert Goddard improved the design by using smokeless powder instead of black powder. Modern solid propellants are synthetic rubbers with an oxidizer mixed in during manufacturing [1]. They are good fuels, and can be handled more safely. The addition of powdered metals such as aluminum can make this synthetic rubber fuelpowerful .

Liquid-propelled rockets originally used gasoline as fuel, then more recently used ethyl alcohol and kerosene. Burning ethyl alcohol with liquid oxygen was a problem because the low boiling point of alcohol creates considerable evaporation losses. From this, hypergols were discovered. A hypergolic propellant ignites spontaneously when the fuel and oxidizer are brought together, eliminating the need for an ignition source. The most efficient fuel is liquid hydrogen, which is used for the US Space Shuttle. This fuel source, however, is rather difficult and dangerous to handle due to its high flammability . Statistics vary for different propellants and rocket engine systems. The amount of thrust produced primarily depends on the mass and velocity of the burning gases.

MMCOE

Page 10

NERVA
4.5 Limitation of Chemical Rocket Engines In chemical rocket engines1,2, such as the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), the chemical reaction between the hydrogen and oxygen releases heat which raises the combustion gases (steam and excess hydrogen gas) up to high temperatures (3000-4000 K). These hot gases are then accelerated through a thermodynamic nozzle, which converts thermal energy into kinetic energy, and hence provides thrust. The propellant and the heat source are one in the same. Because there is a limited energy release in chemical reactions and because a thermodynamic nozzle is being used to accelerate the combustion gases that do not have the minimum possible molecular weight, there is a limit on the exhaust velocity that can be achieved. The maximum Isp that can be achieved with chemical engines is in the range of 400 to 500 s. So, for example, if we have an Isp of 450 s, and a mission delta-V of 10 km/s (typical for launching into low earth orbit (LEO)), then the mass ratio will be 9.63. The problem here is that most of the vehicle mass is propellant, and due to limitations of the strength of materials, it may be impossible to build such a vehicle to just to ascend into orbit. Early rocket scientists got around this problem by building a rocket in stages, throwing away the structural mass of the lower stages once the propellant was consumed. This effectively allowed higher mass ratios to be achieved, and hence a space mission could be achieved with low-Isp engines. This is what all rockets do today, even the Space Shuttle. In spite of the relatively low Isp, chemical engines do have a relatively high thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W)2. A high T/W (50-75) is necessary for a rocket vehicle to overcome the force of gravity on Earth and accelerate into space. The thrust of the rocket engines must compensate for the weight of the rocket engines, the propellant, the structural mass, and the payload. Although it is not always necessary, a high T/W engine will allow orbital and interplanetary space vehicles to accelerate quickly and reach there destinations in shorter time periods.
MMCOE Page 11

NERVA CHAPTER 5
5.1 Introduction to Nuclear Propulsion Nuclear thermal propulsion is a broad topic to describe several new engine designs that could begin to come available in the new millennium. The most common are the NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) designs developed and tested in the 1960s. Primary focus of this section will be given to the NRX series engine developed by this program. The reason is that this was the most developed engine and to rebuild and develop a flight ready engine is minimal in terms of cost and time. This section will describe the history of the nuclear thermal propulsion engine, examine how it works and comment on the current status. Nuclear electric propulsion will not be looked at in detail because it is not as powerful, and thus not very useful in interplanetary operations. 5.2 History of Nuclear Thermal Propulsion In 1960, the NERVA program was begun to develop an engine for possible use in the Apollo program. The program lasted 11 years and was terminated in 1971. During its lifetime, the NERVA program developed two separate engines. The first was the NRX. This engine was rated at 1100 1500 MW of power output with 75,000 lbs of thrust. The other engine was the Phoebus engine. This was a much more powerful engine rated at 4500 MW of power and 250,000 lbs of thrust. Although both designs were tested, the NRX was further developed. By 1971, a fully integrated engine complete with LH2 turbopumps, valves and nozzles, was tested at simulated altitude. At the time the program was terminated, focus had begun to shift to developing a fully flight operational engine [5].

MMCOE

Page 12

NERVA
5.3 Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Since nobody has fully developed a nuclear thermal engine, information on design is subject to change. This section will describe the theory of operation, as well as some of the potential designs for the future. In nuclear thermal propulsion a nuclear reactor heats a coolant to extremely high temperatures and expels it out a nozzle, similar to those used in chemical propulsion. In nuclear thermal propulsion, the nuclear reactor takes the place of chemical energy released in the combustion of LH2 and LO2 propellants. The reactor core consists of Uranium Carbide fuel enclosed in a graphite matrix. Whe uranium atom is split, creating tremendous amounts of energy. 5.4Nuclear Thermal Propulsion vs. Chemical Propulsion The final question is which type of propulsion to use. The advantages nuclear propulsion offers Shorter mission time The time for a manned mission to Mars using nuclear thermal propulsion is 200 days. This is one third the 600 days required for chemical propulsion. This reduced time is due to the drastically increased thrust given by the nuclear thermalpropulsion. Lower operating costs Before a Mars mission is undertaken, all of the mass for the payload, engine and most notably, fuel, must be placed into Earth orbit. Using all chemical propellant requires 46 additional launches (compared to nuclear thermal propulsion) to get all of the fuel into Earth orbit where it can be utilized for a Mars mission. With a cost of $.15 billion per launch, $6.8 billion is saved using nuclear.
MMCOE Page 13

NERVA
Despite these advantages, some disadvantages must be overcome before an engine is even considered: Radiation dose to crew. A nuclear engine will give off tremendous amounts of radiation. Before use of these engines is even considered, an effective shielding mechanism must be developed.

Development must be completed Despite being near operational status in the 1970s, no nuclear engines have ever been used. Therefore, before an engine can be used on a manned Mars mission, the engine must complete development. The good news for nuclear thermal propulsion is that the radiation problem has already been solved, as described earlier. A combination of shields can protect the crew, exposing them to only a 10 REM dose. By comparison, US civilians are to never exceed a 150 REM dose and military personnel are not to exceed 500 REM. Despite the disadvantages of nuclear propulsion, it is obvious that this technology would be needed and preferred over conventional chemical propulsion in a manned mission to Mars. The lower weight, lower overall cost, lower fuel consumption, and greatly higher thrust production help make nuclear propulsion a unanimous choice for interplanetary travel.

MMCOE

Page 14

NERVA

CHAPTER 6
6.1 Nuclear fuel nuclear energy. Nuclear fuels are the most dense sources of energy available. Nuclear fuel in a nuclear fuel cycle can refer to the fuel itself, or to physical objects (for example bundles composed of fuel rods) composed of the fuel material, mixed with structural, neutron moderating, or neutron reflecting materials. Nuclear fuel is a material that can be 'consumed' by fission or fusion to derive Most nuclear fuels contain heavy metal fissile elements that can be made to undergo a nuclear fission chain reaction in a nuclear reactor. The most common fissile nuclear fuels are Uranium 235 (235U) and Plutonium 239 (239Pu). The actions of mining, refining, purifying, using, and ultimately disposing of these elements together make up the nuclear fuel cycle. Not all nuclear fuels are used in fission reactors. Plutonium-238 and some other elements are used to produce small amounts of nuclear power by radioactive decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators and other atomic batteries. Light nuclides such as 3H (tritium) are used as fuel for nuclear fusion.

MMCOE

Page 15

NERVA

fig1.1Rocket fuel tank

fig1.2 radiation shield

MMCOE

Page 16

NERVA

fig1.3rocketengine

fig1.4nuclear engine

MMCOE

Page 17

NERVA CHAPTER 7
Types of Nuclear Thermal Rockets A nuclear thermal rocket can be categorized by the construction of its reactor, which can range from a relatively simple solid reactor up to a much more complicated but more efficient reactor with a gas core. 7.1 Solid core The most traditional type uses a conventional (albeit light-weight) nuclear reactor running at high temperatures to heat the working fluid that is moving through the reactor core. This is known as the solid-core design, and is the simplest design to construct.

A NERVA solid-core design The simplest of nuclear thermal rockets, solid core reactors are limited by the melting point of the materials used in the reactor cores. Since the efficiency of a rocket engine is related to the square root of the temperature of the working fluid, the solid core design needs to be constructed of materials that remain strong at as high a temperature as possible. Nuclear reactions can create much higher temperatures than the temperatures the materials can withstand, meaning
MMCOE Page 18

NERVA
that much of the potential of the reactor for very high temperatures is sacrificed. Even more limiting is the cracking of fuel coatings due to the large temperature ranges (from 22 K up to 3000 K over the length of a 1.3m fuel rod), and the necessity of matching coefficients of expansion in all the components. Using hydrogen propellant, a solid-core design typically delivers specific impulses (Isp) on the order of 850 to 1000 seconds, about twice that of liquid hydrogenoxygen designs such as the Space Shuttle main engine. Other propellants are sometimes proposed, such as ammonia, water or LOX. Although these propellants would provide reduced exhaust velocity, their greater availability can reduce payload costs by a very large factor where the mission delta-v is not too high, such as within cislunar space or between Earth orbit and Martian orbit. Above about 1500 K hydrogen begins to dissociate at low pressures, or 3000 K at high pressures, a potential area of promise for greatly increasing the Isp of solid core reactors. Immediately after World War II, the weight of a complete nuclear reactor was so great that it was feared that solid-core engines would be hard-pressed
[5]

to

achieve a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1:1, which would be needed to overcome the gravity of the Earth on launch. The problem was quickly overcome, however, and over the next twenty-five years U.S. nuclear thermal rocket designs eventually reached thrust-to-weight ratios of approximately 7:1. Still, the lower thrust-to-weight ratio of nuclear thermal rockets versus chemical rockets (which have thrust-to-weight ratios of 70:1) and the large tanks necessary for liquid hydrogen storage mean that solid-core engines are best used in upper stages where vehicle velocity is already near orbital, in space "tugs" used to take payloads between gravity wells, or in launches from a lower gravity planet, moon or minor planet where the required thrust is lower. To be a useful Earth launch engine, the system would have to be either much lighter, or provide even

MMCOE

Page 19

NERVA
higher specific impulse. The true strength of nuclear rockets currently lies in solar system exploration, outside Earth's gravity well. 7.2 Liquid core Dramatically greater improvements are theoretically possible by mixing the nuclear fuel into the working fluid, and allowing the reaction to take place in the liquid mixture itself. This is the basis of the so-called liquid-core engine, which can operate at higher temperatures beyond the melting point of the nuclear fuel. In this case the maximum temperature is whatever the container wall (typically a neutron reflector of some sort) can withstand, while actively cooled by the hydrogen. It is expected that the liquid-core design can deliver performance on the order of 1300 to 1500 seconds (12.814.8 kNs/kg). These engines are currently considered very difficult to build. The reaction time of the nuclear fuel is much higher than the heating time of the working fluid, requiring a method to trap the fuel inside the engine while allowing the working fluid to easily exit through the nozzle. Most liquid-phase engines have focused on rotating the fuel/fluid mixture at very high speeds, forcing the fuel to the outside due to centrifugal force (uranium is heavier than hydrogen). In many ways the design mirrors the particle-bed design, although operating at even higher temperatures.

MMCOE

Page 20

NERVA
7.3Gas core

Nuclear gas core closed cycle rocket engine diagram, nuclear "light bulb"

Nuclear gas core open cycle rocket engine diagram The final classification is the gas-core engine. This is a modification to the liquid-core design which uses rapid circulation of the fluid to create a toroidal pocket of gaseous uranium fuel in the middle of the reactor, surrounded by hydrogen. In this case the fuel does not touch the reactor wall at all, so temperatures could reach several tens of thousands of degrees, which would allow specific impulses of 3000 to 5000 seconds (30 to 50 kNs/kg). In this basic design, the "open cycle", the losses of nuclear fuel would be difficult to control, which has led to studies of the "closed cycle" or nuclear lightbulb engine, where the gaseous nuclear fuel is contained in a super-high-temperature quartz container, over which the hydrogen flows. The closed cycle engine actually has much more in common with the solid-core design, but this time limited by the critical temperature of quartz instead of the fuel stack. Although less efficient than the open-cycle design, the closed-cycle design is expected to
MMCOE Page 21

NERVA
deliver a rather respectable specific impulse of about 15002000 seconds (15 20 kNs/kg)

MMCOE

Page 22

NERVA CHAPTER 8 Conclusions

Nuclear thermal propulsion is the best nearterm method for powering a Mars mission. The engine offers lower costs and quicker travel times. In the 1970s, a nuclear thermal engine had been thoroughly tested, and restarting this program will cost $3 - $5 billion. Finally, the complex shielding, necessary for any nuclear device, has already been designed and additional concepts are on the drawing board.By contrast, chemical propulsion is bulky, heavy, expensive and slow. Despite using it for several decades, continued use could potentially raise costs to unaffordable levels. While many different materials can be used as propellants, the more effective materials are usually quite expensive, and the amount of propellant needed greatly increases this cost. This large amount of propellant needed also adds a very significant amount of weight to the rocket, decreasing its potential payload. The current state of chemical propulsion is near a maximum, as the main engine on the Space Shuttle is near the upper limit of the theoretically best chemical engine.

MMCOE

Page 23

NERVA

CHAPTER 9 Referencess
1. Dewar, James and Bussard, Robert, "The Nuclear Rocket: Making Our Planet Green, Peaceful and Prosperous", Apogee Books, Burlington, Ontario, Canada, 2009 2. Dewar, James. "To The End Of The Solar System: The Story Of The Nuclear Rocket", Apogee, 2003 3. ^ Wade, Mark. "RD-0410". Encyclopedia Astronautica. http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0410.htm. Retrieved 2009-09-25. 4. "Konstruktorskoe Buro Khimavtomatiky - Scientific-Research Complex / RD0410. Nuclear Rocket Engine. Advanced launch vehicles". KBKhA - Chemical Automatics Design Bureau. http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=8&cat=11&prod=66. Retrieved 2009-09-25. 5. ^ Alvarez, Luis, "There Is No Obvious Or Simple Way To Use Atomic Energy For Space Ships", U.S. Air Services, January 1947, pp. 9-12

MMCOE

Page 24