Going to the moon was one thing; going to Mars will be quite another. The distance alone is intimidating. While the moon is 238,855 miles away, the distance to Mars is between 33 million and 249 million miles. The propulsion systems that got us to the moon just won\u2019t work.<\/p>\n
Taylor Hampson, a master\u2019s student in the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering (NSE), is well aware of the problem. It\u2019s one of the many reasons he\u2019s excited about his NASA-sponsored research into nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP).<\/p>\n
The technique uses nuclear energy to heat a propellant, like hydrogen, to an extremely high temperature and expel it through a nozzle. The resultant thrust can significantly reduce travel times to Mars, compared to chemical rockets. \u201cYou can get double the efficiency, or more, from a nuclear propulsion engine with the same thrust. Besides, being in microgravity is not ideal for astronauts, so you want to get them there faster, which is a strong motivation for using nuclear propulsion over the chemical equivalents,\u201d Hampson says.<\/p>\n
Understanding nuclear thermal propulsion<\/p>\n
It\u2019s worth taking a quick survey of rocket propulsion techniques to understand where Hampson\u2019s work fits.<\/p>\n
There are three broad types of rocket propulsion: chemical, where thrust is achieved by the combustion of rocket propellants; electrical, where electric fields accelerate charged particles to high velocities to achieve thrust; and nuclear, where nuclear energy delivers needed propulsion.<\/p>\n
Nuclear propulsion, which is only used in space, not to get to space, further falls into one of two categories: nuclear electric propulsion uses nuclear energy to generate electricity and accelerate the propellant. Nuclear thermal propulsion,\u00a0which is what Hampson is researching, heats a propellant using nuclear power. A significant advantage of NTP is that it can deliver double the efficiency (or more) of the chemical equivalent for the same thrust. A disadvantage: cost and regulatory hurdles. \u201cSure, you can get double the efficiency or more from a nuclear propulsion engine, but there hasn\u2019t been a mission case that has needed it enough to justify the higher cost,\u201d Hampson says.<\/p>\n
Until now.<\/p>\n
With a human mission to Mars becoming a very real possibility \u2014 NASA plans on sending astronauts to Mars as early as the 2030s \u2014 NTP might soon come under the spotlight.<\/p>\n
“It’s almost futuristic”<\/p>\n
Growing up on Florida\u2019s Space Coast and watching space shuttle launches stoked Hampson\u2019s early interest in science. Loving many other subjects, including history and math, it wasn\u2019t until his senior year that Hampson cast his lot into the engineering category. While space exploration got him hooked on aerospace engineering, Hampson was also intrigued by the possibility of nuclear engineering as a way to a greener future.<\/p>\n
Wracked by indecision, he applied to schools in both fields and completed his undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering from Georgia Tech. It was here that a series of internships in space technology companies like Blue Origin and Stoke Space, and participation in Georgia Tech\u2019s rocket team, cemented Hampson\u2019s love for rocket propulsion.<\/p>\n