1、 Special Project AIAA SP-108-2004 Recommended Design Practices for Conceptual Nuclear Fusion Space Propulsion Systems AIAA standards are copyrighted by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4344 USA. All rights reserved. AIAA grant
2、s you a license as follows: The right to download an electronic file of this AIAA standard for temporary storage on one computer for purposes of viewing, and/or printing one copy of the AIAA standard for individual use. Neither the electronic file nor the hard copy print may be reproduced in any way
3、. In addition, the electronic file may not be distributed elsewhere over computer networks or otherwise. The hard copy print may only be distributed to other employees for their internal use within your organization. AIAA SP-108-2004 Special Project Report Recommended Design Practices for Conceptual
4、 Nuclear Fusion Space Propulsion Systems Sponsored by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Abstract This document provides recommended design practices for conceptual engineering studies of nuclear fusion space propulsion systems. Discussion and recommendations are included on key topi
5、cs including design reference missions, degree of technological extrapolation and concomitant risk, thoroughness in calculating mass properties (nominal mass properties, weight-growth contingency and propellant margins, and specific impulse), and thoroughness in calculating power generation and usag
6、e (power-flow, power contingencies, specific power). AIAA SP-108-2004 ii Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Special project report : recommended design practices for conceptual nuclear fusion space propulsion systems. p. cm. “AIAA SP-108-2004.“ Includes bibliographical references. IS
7、BN 1-56347-751-3 (hardcopy) - ISBN 1-56347-752-1 (electronic) 1. Nuclear rockets-Research-United States. 2. Controlled fusion-Research-United States. 3. Prototypes, Engineering-Standards-United States. I. Title: Recommended design practices for conceptual nuclear fusion space propulsion systems. II.
8、 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. TL783.5.S66 2004 629.4753-dc22 2004028601 Published by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191 Copyright 2004 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics All rights reserved No part of
9、this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America AIAA SP-108-2004 iii Contents Foreword . iv 1 Introduction1 1.1 Scope 1 1.2 Purpose .1 1.3 Developments Focusing
10、Attention on Nuclear Fusion Propulsion.1 2 Quantifying Figures of Merit .1 3 Recommended Ground Rules and Practices for Credible Conceptual Designs.2 3.1 Design Reference Missions .3 3.2 Degree of Technological Extrapolation and Concomitant Risk 4 3.3 Thoroughness in Calculating Mass Properties .6 3
11、.3.1 Nominal Mass Property Template .7 3.3.2 Weight-Growth Contingency and Propellant Margins.10 3.3.3 Specific Impulse10 3.4 Thoroughness in Calculating Power Generation and Usage .11 3.4.1 Power-Flow .11 3.4.2 Jet Power-Loss and Auxiliary Power Contingencies 12 3.4.3 Specific Power 13 4 Summary .1
12、4 5 References14 Figures Figure 1 Relationships Among Example FOMs, Operating Parameters, and Recommendations on Mission/Vehicle Systems Characteristics2 Figure 2 Sample Generic Power Flow Diagram (all power values in MW “tbd”)12 Tables Table 1 Generic Mass Property Template for Nuclear Fusion Space
13、 Propulsion Systems .8 AIAA SP-108-2004 iv Foreword To facilitate the improvement and standardization of conceptual designs of nuclear fusion space propulsion systems, Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM) took place in late 1999 and early 2000. The TIMs were broadly represented by the members of the
14、 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories, academia, and industry professionals active in the field. The TIMs were led by NASAs Glenn Research Center (GRC). At their conclusion, it was suggested and all agreed that the results of the TIMs shou
15、ld be offered to the appropriate AIAA Technical Committee (TC) to review and codify the recommended design practices into an appropriate AIAA technical standard. The AIAA Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion Technical Committee (NFFPTC) was identified as the most appropriate TC for this task. The NF
16、FPTCs Chairman was approached and agreed to bring the TIMs product to the TC for their consideration. The NFFPTC subsequently formed an ad hoc working group for the expressed purpose of authoring an AIAA standards document to guide the development of higher quality conceptual designs for nuclear fus
17、ion space propulsion vehicles. Most of the recommendations stem from the work of the TIMs, with the balance contributed by the AIAA NFFPTC Fusion Design Working Group. The following participants in the Nuclear Fusion Propulsion Technical Interchange Meetings deserve special mention: Dr. Charles D. O
18、rth DOE LLNL Dr. Peter J. Turchi DOE LANL Mr. Scott A. Carpenter EDEn-Corp Dr. John F. Santarius University of Wisconsin (Madison) Dr. Robert H. Frisbee NASA JPL Mr. Craig H. Williams Chair, NASA GRC Other contributors to the TIMs included: Dr. George H. Miley University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaig
19、n) Dr. Hiromu Momota University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) Dr. Jay E. Polk NASA JPL Dr. John Slough University of Washington Dr. Martin Peng DOE ORNL at PPPL Dr. Brice N. Cassenti United Technologies Mr. Joseph OToole DOE LANL Dr. Michael R. LaPointe Ohio Aerospace Institute at NASA GRC Dr. Fran
20、k J. Wessel University of California (Irvine) Ms. Carol Chao University of California (Irvine) Mr. Alex Cheung University of California (Irvine) Ms. Xia Liu EDEn-Corp Mr. Bryan A. Palaszewski NASA GRC Mr. Leonard A. Dudzinski NASA GRC AIAA SP-108-2004 v Mr. Albert J. Juhasz NASA GRC Mr. David Fronin
21、g Flight Unlimited The members of the AIAA NFFPTC Fusion Design Working Group were: Dr. Michael R. LaPointe Dr. Charles D. Orth Dr. Brice N. Cassenti Mr. Scott A. Carpenter Dr. Dana G. Andrews Mr. Craig H. Williams (Chair) The working group was created in 2002 and completed work in 2003. The AIAA St
22、andards Executive Council (Mr. Phil Cheney, Chairman) accepted the document for publication in October 2004. The AIAA Standards Procedures dictates that all approved Standards, Recommended Practices, and Guides are advisory only. Their use by anyone engaged in industry or trade is entirely voluntary
23、. There is no agreement to adhere to any AIAA standards publication and no commitment to conform to or be guided by standards reports. In formulating, revising, and approving standards publications, the committees on standards will not consider patents that may apply to the subject matter. Prospecti
24、ve users of the publications are responsible for protecting themselves against liability for infringement of patents or copyright or both. AIAA SP-108-2004 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Scope This document provides recommended design practices for conceptual engineering studies of nuclear fusion space propul
25、sion systems. Discussion and recommendations are included on key topics including design reference missions, degree of technological extrapolation and concomitant risk, thoroughness in calculating mass properties (nominal mass properties, weight-growth contingency, propellant margins, and specific i
26、mpulse), and thoroughness in calculating power generation and usage (power-flow, power contingencies, specific power). This report represents a general consensus of the nuclear fusion space propulsion system conceptual design community. It is intended for technically experienced senior engineers who
27、 may not be fully cognizant of all primary aspects of nuclear fusion space propulsion system design, and who desire a useful guide in the development of credible concepts. 1.2 Purpose This document establishes a standardized set of design practices to be employed in conceptual engineering design stu
28、dies of nuclear fusion space propulsion systems. A concerted effort was made to establish design practices that were balanced between being too detailed and all encompassing (thus an unwarranted burden to implement) and being too general and incomplete (thus not meaningfully improve fundamental aspe
29、cts of a design). It is intended for technically experienced senior engineers who may not be fully cognizant of all primary aspects of nuclear fusion space propulsion system design, and who desire a useful guide in the development of credible concepts. The recommendations made in this document are i
30、ntended to facilitate equitable comparisons between system concepts and to improve their overall technical quality. 1.3 Developments Focusing Attention on Nuclear Fusion Propulsion NASA modified its long-range agency goals in the mid 1990s to include expanding human presence throughout the solar sys
31、tem. In 1998, after a 20 year hiatus, NASA re-established modest funding for very advanced space propulsion research, particularly nuclear fusion. Many conceptual vehicle designs emerged to guide technological research and development in this area. But comparing performance capabilities and assessin
32、g scientific/engineering credibility was difficult due to widely varying study assumptions.1, 2It soon became apparent that the figures of merit associated with these goals were not sufficiently established, inhibiting clarity in linking funding for experiments to credible vehicle conceptual designs
33、. While the advent of human exploration of the solar system remains a long-term NASA goal, funding for advanced propulsion concepts wax and wane, though usually at extremely modest levels. It is therefore imperative that the meager funds be spent on well defined concepts, with realistic system and p
34、erformance parameters, that offer the best chances for success in the opinion of the NASA and DOE communities. In 2003, funding for very advanced space propulsion research, including nuclear fusion, was terminated. The future of this technical area remains unclear. 2 Quantifying Figures of Merit A t
35、op-down, requirements-driven design process had been proposed to quantify the ranges of mission-level figures of merit (FoM)1, 2,3,4. The most demanding requirements usually came from piloted, outer solar system missions expected within the 21stcentury. These generally had mission distances of 10s o
36、f AU, required adequate payload mass fractions (5% to 15%), multi-month trip times, and initial mass in low Earth orbit (IMLEO) of no more than a few 1,000s t 1, 2. Although several advanced propulsion concepts could, in theory, provide this caliber of performance, it is the judgment of many that so
37、me type of direct nuclear fusion space propulsion was the leading technology that could reasonably be expected to offer this capability. Further, a consensus (though not unanimous) agreement was arrived at among the TIM participants that mission-level FoM rather than engine / reactor-specific FoM, s
38、hould be the primary focus of the designers attention. It was emphasized during the TIM, and is repeated here for clarity, that a AIAA SP-108-2004 2 considerable amount of analytic work exists in the published literature pertaining to selection and evaluation of mission and propulsion system FoM for
39、 human interplanetary missions; the most recent of these were evolved during NASAs Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) of 1988-92.5, 6In this regard, care should be exercised and literature searches employed by vehicle designer and mission planner alike to take advantage of, and to be consistent with
40、, the wealth of published information already in existence. Specifying the ranges of such mission-level FoM tended to bound the necessary propulsion system operating parameters such as specific impulse (Isp), specific power (), and nozzle jet efficiency (j) 4. Such missions were found to be optimize
41、d (minimized trip time and maximized payload mass fraction) for vehicle system Ispand between 20,000 to 50,000 lbfsec/lbmand 5 to 50 kW/kg respectively.1,2 Nozzle jet efficiency had to be carefully evaluated because in a great many instances, a minimum value existed below which a zero payload mass r
42、atio resulted. These operating parameters are a function of a set of primary vehicle system characteristics. Choosing a technically sound, defendable, and consistent set of these characteristics is a decision the concept designer must make. The decision should strive for clarifying the underlying re
43、asoning behind the major technology choices embedded in the conceptual design. The primary vehicle system characteristics, whatever set they are chosen to be, are the focus of the engineering design effort and must be iterated until a self-consistent system design results that also satisfies mission
44、 requirements. Calculating these characteristics in a technically defendable manner is the focus of much of this document through its recommendations on ground rules and practices for mission and vehicle system characteristics. The relationships between these characteristics, their operating paramet
45、ers, and the resultant FoM are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 Relationships Among Example FOMs, Operating Parameters, and Recommendations on Mission/Vehicle Systems Characteristics 3 Recommended Ground Rules and Practices for Credible Conceptual Designs Differing ground rules and assumptions freq
46、uently lay at the crux of widely varying conclusions in past conceptual design studies of nuclear fusion propulsion. These studies sometimes also lack sufficient sub-system assessments, leading to overly optimistic reporting of vehicle performance and the inability to AIAA SP-108-2004 3 ascertain ho
47、w well a concept satisfies given mission requirements or FoM. Use of a common set of ground rules on how mission and vehicle systems are characterized (similar to some past NASA vehicle studies), including a minimum set of FoM, would mitigate much of the most serious problems. For these reasons, the
48、 design standards herein include a set of generic design recommendations grounded in historic NASA and Department of Defense (DOD) space launch vehicle development data, and DOE scientific community experience in nuclear fusion research. Only then can concepts be judged on how well they satisfy requ
49、irements, and be fairly and meaningfully compared to competing concepts. These standards focus on aspects of fusion propulsion conceptual design having the greatest leverage: Design Reference Missions; Degree of Technological Extrapolation and Concomitant Risk; Mass Properties; and Power Generation and Usage. The overall quality and credibility of concepts can be improved by adopting a reasonable set of minimal ground rules in each of these areas. Further, they can serve to focus attention on key, technical issues that have a significant imp
