Space Propulsion by Fusion in a Magnetic Dipole

Teller, Edward; Glass, Alexander J.; Fowler, T.K.; Hasegawa, Akira; Santarius, J. F.

doi:10.13182/fst92-a30057

Cited by 41 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The application for space propulsion has been considered in Teller (1992). The levitated dipole has a major radius of 6m and a minor radius of 2m.…”

Section: Fig 317 Levitated Dipole (From Teller 1992)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies carried out since the late '80s have therefore tried to optimize the fusion performance in order to maximize the specific power. Several concepts have been considered: the high-field tokamak (Bussard 1990), the spherical torus (Borowski 1995, Williams 1998, mirror systems (Kulcinski 1987, Santarius 1988, Carpenter 1992, Kammash 1995b, field reversed configuration (Chapman 1989, Cheung 2004) and magnetic dipole (Teller 1992). These configurations will be reviewed in the context of the discussion of the different confinement systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of Open Magnetic Fusion for Space Propulsion

Romanelli

Bruno

2006

57th International Astronautical Congress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.The exploration of the solar system requires advanced propulsion techniques capable of specific impulse above 10 4 s and specific power in the range 1-10kW/kg. Fusion is the most interesting option to meet these requirements. Generic fusion propulsion studies, briefly reviewed in the report, show that specific power values in the desired range are indeed feasible provided a high fraction of the fusion power can be used for direct thrust. Open magnetic field configurations are particularly suited to such purpose. Their present status, open issues and proposals for space propulsion systems based on them are reviewed. The analysis is focused on mirrors (tandem mirror and gas-dynamic mirror), field reversed configurations, spheromaks and levitated dipole. Possible topics for further studies are proposed.

show abstract

“…The application for space propulsion has been considered in Teller (1992). The levitated dipole has a major radius of 6m and a minor radius of 2m.…”

Section: Fig 317 Levitated Dipole (From Teller 1992)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Open Magnetic Fusion for Space Propulsion

Romanelli

Bruno

2006

57th International Astronautical Congress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, to reach 1 A.U. in 1 year with a 0.1 payload fraction at a specific power of 1 kW/kg requires an exhaust velocity on the order of 10 5 m/s, or a specific impulse of about 10 4 s. These parameters are consistent with a magnetic fusion dipole fusion rocket [2], but are beyond the capabilities of either nuclear fission thermal systems, in which reactors heat the propellant directly (high specific power, but lower specific impulse), or nuclear fission electric systems, in which reactors supply electricity to ion accelerators (high specific impulse, but low power). Figure 1 plots Eq.…”

Section: -Basic Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…A typical propulsion scenario using the given toroidal geometry is depicted on Figure 4. [3] However, space applications appear to favor other configurations such as the dipole discussed below [2]. The main reason is the need for simplicity and high specific power, always advantageous but absolutely necessary for space propulsion.…”

Section: -Tordoidal Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fusion reactions and matter–antimatter annihilation for space propulsion

Deutsch

Tahir

2006

Laser Part. Beams

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RÉSUMÉ : La fusion par confinement magnétique (FCM) et la fusion par confinement inertiel (FCI) sont comparées dans le contexte de missions à longue distance, à travers le système solaire. Ces deux approches montrent des capacités manoeuvrières bien supérieures, à celles de la propulsion cryogénique standard (PCS). Les contraintes de coût sont bien inférieures à celles exigées par la production d'énergie, au sol. Un problème crucial est celui du décollage (problématique des 300 premiers kms), étant donné les risques de pollution radioactive de la basse atmosphère. Il est recommandé d'assembler le vaisseau spatial à haute altitude ~ 700 kms, ou mieux, sur la lune. En ce qui concerne les impulsions spécifiques en sec, on s'attend à 500-3000 pour la fission, et jusqu'à 10 4 -10 5 pour la fusion deuterium + tritium.Enfin, on aborde la réaction de fusion la plus performante, l'annihilation pp avec I sp (sec) ~ 10 3 -10 6 et un rapport poussée/poids ~ 10 -3 -1. Production et coûts sont détaillés, autant que possible. Ces derniers pourraient être réduits de quatre ordres de grandeur, si la fusion contrôlée devenait économiquement viable.On discute plusieurs schémas de propulsion par annihilation matière-antimatière. On accorde une certaine attention à la propulsion par fusion inertielle et catalysée par annihilation de p , et en particulier, au projet ICAN-II, potentiellement en mesure d'atteindre Mars en 30 jours en utilisant une fusion catalysée par 140 ng de p avec une impulsion spécifique ~ 13500 sec.ABSTRACT: Magnetic confinement fusion (MCF) and inertial confinement fusion (ICF are critically contrasted in the context of far-distant travels throughout solar system.Both are shown to potentially display superior capabilities for vessel maneuvring at high speed, which are unmatched by standard cryogenic propulsion (SCP).Costs constraints seem less demanding than for ground-based power plants. Main issue is the highly problematic takeoff from earth, in view of safety hazards concomitant to ratioactive spills in case of emergency. So, it is recommended to assemble the given powered vessel at high earth altitude ~ 700 km, above upper atmosphere.

show abstract

“…There are many pre-conceptual point designs for fusion rocket cores, ranging from generic fusion rocket systems studies [11,12], to levitated dipoles [13], to mirror machines [14], to field reversed configurations [15], and magnetized target fusion [8,16]. Even ST tokamaks [17] and laser fusion sources [18] have been suggested (although present incarnations aren't reactors, and even so, are much too massive).…”

Section: Fusion's Unique Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Vision for Fusion Energy Research: Fusion Rocket Engines for Planetary Defense

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that it is essential for the fusion energy program to identify an imagination-capturing critical mission by developing a unique product which could command the marketplace. We lay out the logic that this product is a fusion rocket engine, to enable a rapid response capable of deflecting an incoming comet, to prevent its impact on the planet Earth, in defense of our population, infrastructure, and civilization. As a side benefit, deep space solar system exploration, with greater speed and orders-of-magnitude greater payload mass would also be possible.The US Department of Energy's magnetic fusion research program, based in its Office of Science, focuses on plasma and fusion science [1] to support the long term goal of environmentally friendly, socially acceptable, and economically viable electricity production from fusion reactors [2]. For several decades the US magnetic fusion program has had to deal with a lack of urgency towards and inconsistent funding for this ambitious goal. In many American circles, fusion isn't even at the table [3] when it comes to discussing future energy production. Is there another, more urgent, unique, and even more important application for fusion? Fusion's Unique ApplicationAs an on-board power source and thruster for fast propulsion in space [4], a fusion reactor would provide unparalleled performance (high specific impulse and high specific power) for a spacecraft. To begin this discussion, we need some rocket terminology. Specific impulse is defined as I sp ¼ v e =g, where g is the usual Earth's gravitational acceleration constant and v e is the rocket propellant's exhaust velocity. The rocket equation, M f /M o = exp (-DV/v e ), allows us to relate the final mass M f of the rocket divided by its initial mass M o , to the change in velocity DV that it is capable of achieving. The rocket requires a power source with an output power P = aM s , where we define a to be the specific power (W/kg), and M s as the mass of the power supply (including the power conditioning, structures, and any waste heat radiators).Today's best chemical rockets produce propellant exhaust velocities (v e ) up to 4.5 km/s. Fission (nuclear thermal) rocket engines [5] could roughly double that, to about 8.5 km/s (\ eV/amu temperature equivalent), constrained by material limits [6]. Electrically driven thrusters [7] are already quite efficient and have higher propellant exhaust velocities (corresponding to *5 eV/ amu) but are usually limited in power resulting in low thrust, and are driven by limited electrical power/energy sources (photovoltaic or radioisotope). Development of high power, high thrust plasma thrusters has not been a

show abstract

Space Propulsion by Fusion in a Magnetic Dipole

Cited by 41 publications

References 7 publications

Assessment of Open Magnetic Fusion for Space Propulsion

Assessment of Open Magnetic Fusion for Space Propulsion

Fusion reactions and matter–antimatter annihilation for space propulsion

A New Vision for Fusion Energy Research: Fusion Rocket Engines for Planetary Defense

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About