FUSION REACTIONS AND MATTER-ANTIMATTER ANNIHILATION FOR SPACE PROPULSION Claude DEUTSCH LPGP (UMR-CNRS 8578), Bât. 210, UPS, 91405 Orsay, France 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 manœuvrières 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 104-105 pour la fusion deuterium + tritium. Enfin, on aborde la réaction de fusion la plus performante, l'annihilation p- p avec I (sec) ~ 103-106 et un rapport poussée/poids ~ 10-3-1. Production et sp 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. Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED 13 JUL 2005 N/A - 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER šFusion Reactions And Matter-Antimatter Annihilation For Space 5b. GRANT NUMBER Propulsion 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION LPGP (UMR-CNRS 8578), Bât. 210, UPS, 91405 Orsay, France REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release, distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES See also ADM001791, Potentially Disruptive Technologies and Their Impact in Space Programs Held in Marseille, France on 4-6 July 2005. 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE UU 41 unclassified unclassified unclassified Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 Fusion propulsion is also compared to fission powered one, which secures a factor of two improvement over SCP. As far a specific impulse (sec) is considered, one expects 500-3000 from fission and as much as 104 - 105 from fusion through deuterium-tritium. Next, we turn attention to the most performing fusion reaction, i.e. proton- antiproton annihilation with specific impulse ~ 103 - 106 and thrust-to-weight ratio ~ 10-3 - 1. Production and costs are timely reviewed. The latter could drop by 4 orders of magnitude, which is possible with successful MCF or ICF. Appropriate vessel designs will be presented for fusion as well as for antimatter propulsion. In particuclar, ICAN-II project to Mars in 30 days with fusion catalyzed by 140 ng of antiprotons will be detailed (specific impulse ~ 13500 sec). I - INTRODUCTION - IMPOSSIBLE MISSIONS There are missions in the solar system that would be desirable to accomplish for scientific purposes, but which are essentially impossible using chemical or even nuclear thermal rockets. One example is a solar impact mission, which requires the rocket to cancel out the orbital velocity of the earth so the vehicle can drop directly into the sun. This requires a mission characteristic velocity of 35 km/s, which is presently obtained by an out-of-the-way swingby of Jupiter, 5 AU and many years in the wrong direction. Another is a mission to the rings deep down in the gravity well of Saturn. This requires a mission characteristic velocity of 48 km/s. There are even much simpler missions near earth that are nearly impossible using chemical rockets. One is the simple maneuver of rapidly reversing your orbital direction. This maneuver requires cancelling the initial orbital velocity and building it up again in the opposite direction. Since earth orbital velocity is 7.7 km/s, the total mission characteristic velocity of the reverse orbit maneuver is 15.5 km/s. If it is then desired to return to the initial orbit (to dock at an orbiting space station base), the process must be repeated with a total mission characteristic velocity of 31 km/s [1]. The mass ratios required for each type of rocket system to carry out each of these missions can be calculated from the rocket equation m +m R = v p =e∆V/vex =e∆V/gIsp^ , [1.] m v in terms of requested velocity variations ∆V, where mv is the mass of the empty vehicule (including payload) delivered to destination and mp denotes propellant mass exhausted at velocity Vex or specific impulse I while g = 9.8 m/s2 is gravitation constant at earth surface. sp Above discussed mass ratio are listed in table I. As can be seen, all of these mission require high mass ratios, with the more difficult ones requiring such large mass ratios that it is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how one might build a vehicle to accomplish those missions using chemical or nuclear thermal rockets. All of those missions could be performed by fusion or antimatter rockets with a mass ratio of 5:1 or less. Table I - Mass ratios for difficult missions Total mass ratio Storable H /O Nuclear 2 2 I = 300 s 500 s 900 s sp ∆v(km/s ) Reverse orbit 15,5 175 22 6 Double reverse orbit 31 30,700 490 32 Solar impact 35 117,000 1,100 49 Saturn ring rendezvous 48 8,900,000 15,000 200 In this connection, it is appropriate to recall that nuclear (fission) thermal propulsion could provide only a factor of two improvement upon standard cryogenic propulsion (SCP). Viewing matter annihilation as the upper limit of what thermonuclear propulsion can achieve, we denote our present analysis to the various approaches affordable through fusion in a broad sense for long distance journeys throughout the solar system. Fusion thus indeed appears as the only option that potentially achieves the most important regime for solar system travel: — Exhaust velocities of 105 to 106 m/s at thrust-to-weight ratio of 10-3. Such levels of performance allow both human and efficient cargo transport. Specitif parameters qualifying various propellants are detailed on Table II Table II - Propellant parameters Propulsion type Spectific impulse Thrust-to-weight [sec] Ratio Chemical bipropellant 200 - 410 .1 - 10 Electromagnetic 1200 - 5000 10-4 - 10-3 Nuclear fission 500 - 3000 .01 - 10 Nuclear Fusion 10+4 - 10+5 10-5 - 10-2 Antimatter annihilation 10+3 - 10+6 10-3 - 1 It is highly suggestive to notice that 100 mg of antimatter are equivalent to the space shuttle propulsive energy. 2 - BASIC CONCEPTS The potential benefits of space propulsion by nuclear fusion will be briefly motivated here by a simple analysis. Roughly, to accelerate a mass M to a speed v in a time τ requires a thrust power P given by w c w 1 2 P =( M v )/τ , [2.] w w c 2 from which we define the characteristic velocity v by c 1/2 v = (2ατ) . [3.] c Here α = P /M is the specific power, defined in relation to the mass M of the propulsion w w w system. The corresponding flight distance L is roughly related to the flight time by τ = K L/v , [4.] 0 c where K is a constant of order unity. Combining Eqs. (2)-(4) gives, with appropriate units 0 conversions, yields 2/3 [L(astronomical units] τ(years)= 0.2 . [5.] 1/3 [α(kW/kg)] Here we have chosen K = 3 to provide a reasonable fit to example orbit calculations in the 0 literature. The payload delivered is the other key figure of merit besides the flight time in assessing rocket performance. The payload mass (including rocket structure) can be related to the initial rocket mass, includind propellant, by the well-know rocket Eq. 1. Optimum payload management typically corresponds to v = 2v , with a final velocity near the c ex characteristic velocity. 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 105 m/s, or a specific impulse of about 104 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. 5 for various high specific impulse systems and illustrates the potential of fusion propulsion. All values plotted in Fig. 1 correspond to v < 106 ms-1, well within the capability of ex fusion rockets. In a fusion rocket v can be readily adjusted up to v ≅ 107 ms-1 or a specific ex ex impulse of 106 s, corresponding to direct exhaust of the hot fuel as propellant, and even faster speeds could be achieved by selective exhaust of certain reaction products. However, as already noted, specific power rather than specific impulse is the primary constraint. Specific powers in the range of 1 kW/kg, already an order of magnitude better than nuclear fission electric systems, appear quite feasible, and we shall discuss one such system, the dipole. As one can see from the figure, at a few kW/kg specific power, interplanetary trips would require only months, and the Tau mission (thousand astronomical units) would require only 10-20 years. Figure 1 - Mission distance L versus flight time τ for different ratios of thrust power to mass of propulsion system. 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS [3] 3.1 - HAZARDS IN EARTH MAGNETOSPHERE Apollo astronauts (moon mission) received 50 rads ~ 10% lethal dose L-50. Secure manipulations on low orbits (300-500 kms) are mandatory. Trapped particles in magnetosphere are mostly hydrogen (~ olympic pool). Propellant quantity (ergol) needed for interplanetary missions at I maximum ~ quantity of sp trapped matter. Unused fuel and propellant can pollute magnetosphere, when electrically charged, these residues can be magnetically trapped and lifted down in the atmosphere. Radioactive fuel, moderator or shield material can be found in earth gravitation field, when a Columbia type hazard takes places → earth surface. Once activated, fission or fusion reactors should be parked on a high orbit (~ 700 kms). Magnetosphere orbits lie above LEO (low Earth Orbits). Bonus for reactors with short radioactive periods. 3.2 - TRITIUM IN SPACE Tritium is biologically active, about 9600 Ci/gram, and must not be released in the atmosphere. 5 kilograms of tritium is about equivalent, in Curies, to the biologically active Chernobyl release. Its biological hazard potential, however, is much less. Because of mass limitations, DT reactors in space would probably not be able to support a blanket to breed tritium, or recover tritium from the escaping plasma of a direct fusion rocket. The fuel burn-up fraction for magnetic DT reactors is likely to lie between 0.05 < F < 0.20. Thus, from 5 to 20 times as much tritium fuel will be needed as is actually burned. A 200 MWT DT reactor, characteristic of direct fusion rockets, will need from 1 to 4 kilograms of tritium per day to operate. 3.3 - ACCIDENTS If a year's tritium supply were carried aboard a single shuttle flight, the potential release in Curies (but not in biological hazard potential) would be 73 to 292 times that of Chernobyl. The relative hazards of the radioactive inventories of fission and fusion reactors parked in a nuclear safe orbit can be assessed by comparing the 1 GwE Chernobyl fission reactor to the 1 GwE Starfire DT fusion reactor study, the radioactive inventory of which was estimated at the end of one year of operation. The Chernobyl accident: Released into the environment about 50 MCi of noble gases. λ Released into the environment about 50 MCi of additional biologically active fission products. λ Had a core inventory of about 1500-2000 MCi at the time of the accident. λ 3.3.1 - Accident Scenarii Figure 2 highlights many hazards likely to occur from the use of fusion propulsion in the vicinity of the earth atmosphere and magnetosphere. Elaborating on recent space events, one is led to the following classification: Figure 2 - Potential environmental hazards of fusion propulsion system (after Reece Rothe [3]) a)- Challenger-type accident on way to orbit: Fission systems: Relatively inconsequential - reactor inert and not yet activated. Fusion systems: Potentially serious if tritium inventory is released into the atmosphere or magnetosphere. b)- Columbia-style re-entry of structure and fuel inventory: Fission systems: Grave fallout hazard from fission products and activated structure. Fusion systems: Fallout hazard from structure and tritium inventory. c)- Leakage of unburned fuel in exhaust: Fission systems; Relatively small hazard. Fusion systems: Fallout hazard of tritium in the atmosphere or magnetosphere. Then, comparing several fusion reactions (Table III) one can witness through an evaluation of safety distance from neutron production, that D3He reaction is much more fitted to space propulsion than the usual DT, when safety concerns are taken care of. Table III - Safe distance from unshielded fusion reactor with isotropic neutron production Fusion Neutron Neutron Safe distance R /R , in earth 1 0 reaction fraction energy E, R1, RADII MeV KM DT 0.80 14.07 16,800 2.6 DD 0.336 2.45 14,300 2.2 cat. DD 0.38 8.26 8,600 1.4 D3 He 0.02 2.45 2,900 0.45 p6Li 0.05 1.75 5,500 0.86 Assumptions: a)- 200 MW of charged particle power. b)- Safe dose for continuous exposure to MeV neutrons: 10 neutrons/cm2 - sec. c)- Earth radius R = 6,378 km. 0 3.4-D-3HE FUEL IS MORE ATTRACTIVE FOR SPACE APPLICATIONS THAN D-T FUEL High charged-particle fraction allows efficient direct conversion of fusion power to thrust of λ electricity. ◊ Increases useful power. ◊ Reduces heat rejection (radiator) mass. ◊ Allows flexible thrust and exhaust velocity tailoring. Low neutron fraction reduces radiation shielding. λ D-3He eliminates the need for a complicated tritium-breeding blanked and tritium-processing λ system. 4 - MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY (MFE) When more than a few hundred kilowatts of steady-state power are required for space applications, the only feasible choices appear to be nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. Space application places different and usually more stringent constraints on the choice of fusion reactions and fusion confinement systems than do ground-based electric utility applications. In space, the dominant constraint is a minimum mass per unit of power output; for ground-based utilities, the cost of electricity is the dominant constraint. Forseeable applications of fusion reactors to space-related power and propulsion systems appear to require thermal power levels ranging from 10 MW up to 1 GW. There appears to be no mission for the multigigawatt reactors currently of interest to the electrical utilities. Desirable characteristics of fusion reactors for space include avoidance of tritium- fueled reactions; and operation that is as nearly aneutronic as possible; a steady-state operation; an operation at high beta, with a plasma stability index greater than β = 0.20; the use of direct conversion or direct production of thrust to minimize the power flows that must be handled by heavy energy conversion equipment; and a value of the system-specific mass below α = 5 kg/KW (electric), to be competitive with fission systems for space applications. Only the deuterium-tritium reaction appears feasible for magnetic fusion reactors having large recirculating power flows; for reactors with little recirculating power, the best all-around fusion reaction for space applications appears to be D3He. 4.1 - D-3He A preliminary assessment of propulsion with D3He fusion is given on Figure 3, where specific impulse is evaluated for several propellants. Figure 3 - Comparison of D-3He fusion with chemical, nuclear thermal, and nuclar electric propulsion systems. Advantages of D-3He magnetic fusion for space applications No radioactive materials are present at launch, and only low-level radioactivity remains after λ operation. Conceptual designs project higher specific power values (1-10 kW-thrust/kg) for fusion than for λ nuclear-electric or solar-electric propulsion. Fusion gives high, flexible specific impulses (exhaust velocities), enabling efficient long-range λ transportation. D-3He produces net energy and is available throughout the Solar System. λ D-3He fuel provides an extremely high energy density. λ 4.2 - TORDOIDAL SYSTEMS Among systems implementing thermonuclear fusion through magnetic confinement, the tokamak architecture is far a head by virtue of superior performance in the laboratory. A typical propulsion scenario using the given toroidal geometry is depicted on Figure 4. Figure 4 - Major subsystems of toroidal fusion rocket propulsion system [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. Because the tokamak requires a strong toroidal field