future of antiproton triggered fusion propulsion brice cassenti & terry kammash university of...
TRANSCRIPT
Future of Antiproton Triggered Fusion Propulsion
Brice Cassenti & Terry KammashUniversity of Connecticut & University of Michigan
Future of Antiproton Triggered Fusion Propulsion
• Propulsion Concepts
• Nuclear Reactions
• Challenges– Lithium-6 fuel– Ablation radiation shield– Antiproton trigger scattering
Inertial Confinement Fusion Propulsion Concepts
• Critical Mass Systems
• External Compression Systems
• Antiproton Triggered Systems
• MICF Hybrid Pellets
• Hybrid Fission-Fusion Pellets
Orion
From Martin and Bond, JBIS
Courtesy of G. Smith
Nuclear Reactions
• DT Fusion Reaction
• Uranium Fission
• Lithium Fission
10
42
31
21 nHeHH
10
23892
10 2
21
1nXXUn N
kN
k
31
42
63
10 HHeLin
Fusion Reactions
• The DT reaction
• And Lithium fission reaction
• Are equivalent to
10
42
31
21 nHeHH
31
42
63
10 HHeLin
42
42
63
2HeHeLiH1
Thermonuclear Weapon
Antiproton Annihilation Reactions
• Antiproton-Proton Annihilation
• Antiproton-Neutron Annihilation
• Antiproton-Uranium Annihilation
nnmpp 0
)1(0 nnmnp
mnnPaUp 23791
23892
10
2
2
1
1nXX N
kN
k
Some Technical Challenges
• Compression Driver
• Cryogenic Storage
• Neutron Radiation Absorption & Heat Rejection
• Ignition
MICF Laser Pellet Ignition
MICF Antiproton Pellet Ignition
Antiproton Triggered MICF Ignition
Antiproton Triggered MICF Pellet
MICF Transient Magnetic Fields
sin
10
1sec10/1
2
d
m
keV
T
pMG
B e
sin
1.1
2/1)1(2/1102/1
16.3
10
ZA
d
m
keVeT
MG
B
teBtB 10)(
2/1
2/1)1(1.110
1sec36
1
A
Z
d
m
keV
T
pB
B e
Magnetic field intensities dependcritically on spot size.
Antiproton Dispersion
Antiproton Dispersion
Antiproton Dispersion Effects
• Annihilation
• Scattering
• Energy deposition
Annihilation Approximations
Scattering
• Particle physics approximations
–
–
–
• Monte-Carlo simulations
Energy Deposition
Monte-Carlo Simulations
• Two layers: fusion fuel & uranium• Each layer divided into 50 intervals• Updated antiproton direction, coordinates
and energy• Ten thousand simulations per case• Final beam radius set to final antiproton
position standard deviation• Spread angle set to 90 degrees.
Simulation Results
Antiproton Dispersion Conclusions
• Antiprotons:-Are a high energy density storage mechanism. -Can be used to initiate a fission reaction -Magnetic field strength depends on scattering-Beam energy at minimum of fusion fuel spectrum
• Need experiments to measure transmission spectra for antiprotons for low energy antiproton beams.
• Specific impulse well in excess of 50,000 seconds and high thrust-to-mass ratios are possible.
Tritium Fuel Considerations
• Tritium is naturally radioactive– Beta decay– Half-life ~12 years
• Tritium requires cryogenic storage
• Lithium-6 is not radioactive
• Lithium-6 does not require cryogenic storage
Deuterium-Tritium Pellet Construction
Lithium-Deuteride Pellet Construction
Pellet Discretization
Compression Simulation
Momentum Conservation
0)()(3
1 21
221
211
331 iiiiiiiiiii rprrprpurr
Mass Conservation.)( 33
1 constrr iii
Constitutive Lawp=p()
Initial & Boundary Conditions
• No initial displacements or velocities
• Center velocity is zero
• Outer pressure is zero
• Explosive temperature found from energy
• Explosive pressure from gas law
Neutron Interactions
• Scattering
• Fission – Uranium and Lithium
• Cross sections
• Mean free path– =1/n
Pellet Geometry
Internal External Both
Material Radiuscm
Material Radiuscm
Material Radiuscm
Am 0.01 Am 0.01 Am 0.01
LiH 1.00 LiH 1.00 LiH 1.00
U 1.25 TNT 1.75 U 1.25
TNT 2.00 U 2.00 TNT 2.00
- - - - U 2.25
Material Properties
Mat'l Mg/mole
f 0
g/cm3T0
degKK0
GPa
TNT 10.8 3 1.65 3500 -U238 238 3 18.9 300 100LiH 8 3 0.93 300 6.0H2 2 3 0.185 20 0.2
Nuclear Properties Determine Pellet Size
Molecule sc - cm
f - cmDT 16 -
Li6H2 6 14U238 3 20Pu239 4 8
Molecule n/1024 - 1/cm3
sc -
barns
f -
barnsDT 0.025 2.5 -
Li6H2 0.070 2.5 1.0U238 0.048 7.5 1.0Pu239 0.050 5.0 2.5
Internal Tamper
0
10
20
30
0.E+00 1.E-05 2.E-05
Time - s
Den
sity
- g
/cm
3
U
Am
TNT LiH
Lithium Fuel Conclusions
• Advantages:– Produces charged particles– Is not radioactive– Is solid at room temperature
• Disadvantages:– May require external compression– Will produce high energy neutrons
Hybrid Fusion-Fission Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
• Use of Li6 – Reduces tritium handling problems– Decreases specific impulse
• System can be developed in a two step process– Use fusion to boost the specific impulse of a
pulse fission rocket– Evolve to a full hybrid system
Ablative Shield Model
• Heat added from neutron absorption
• Heat transfer by conduction and radiation
• Heat lost through ablation– Moving coordinate system– Ablation velocity used
Ablation Model
q
vs
Q
Heat lost by radiation and ablation
Surface recession velocityNeutron heat added
One Dimensional Ablation Model
•Heat Source:nx
nn eInEdx
dIEQ 0
•Heat Conduction: 002
2
nx
ns eInEx
Tcv
x
T
•Boundary Conditions:
— At x temperature is at ambient
— At x=0 temperature is at sublimation
— At x=0: 0 sdT
Lvdx
Ablation Model Solution
•Surface Recession Velocity:
s
ns cT
IEv
0
•Temperature distribution:
n
ev
ev
n
nIET
nx
s
xv
s
ns
/0
One Sided Radiation Model
•Heat Source:nx
nn eInEdx
dIEQ 0
•Heat Conduction: 002
2
nx
n eInEx
T
•Boundary Conditions:
— At x temperature is at ambient
— At x=0 400 T
dx
dT
One Sided Radiation Solution
•Surface Recession Velocity:
0sv
•Temperature distribution:
nxnn en
IEIET
10
4/1
00
0
Two Sided Radiation Model
•Heat Source:nx
nn eInEdx
dIEQ 0
•Heat Conduction: 002
2
nx
n eInEx
T
•Boundary Conditions:
— At Lx
— At x=0 400 T
dx
dT
400 T
dx
dT
Two Sided Radiation Solution
•Surface Recession Velocity:
0sv
•Temperature distribution:
nxeCCT 121
•Two boundary conditions relate C1 and C2
•Arbitrary constants are solved for iteratively•Solution is checked numerically
Material Properties for Shield
Material Mol. Wt. L c Ts
g/mol kJ/mol KJ/mol-K kg/m3 W/m-K K b
C 12.01 815.9 8.527 2260 5.7 5100 4 W 183.92 859.4 24.27 19300 174 5930 20 U 238.12 432.6 27.665 18950 27.6 4018 10
WC 250.13 815.9 18.096 15630 73.3 6000 14
Neutron Heating andAblation Response Parameters
Material n n vs vs/ dmshield/dt
(1/cm3) (cm2/s) (1/cm) (cm/s) (1/cm) (kg/s)
C 1.13E-01 3.55E-02 4.53E-01 3.92E-01 1.10E+01 6.97E+02 W 6.32E-02 6.83E-01 1.26E+00 2.13E-01 3.11E-01 3.22E+03 U 4.79E-02 1.25E-01 4.79E-01 3.63E-01 2.90E+00 5.40E+03
WC 3.76E-02 6.48E-01 5.27E-01 4.73E-01 7.30E-01 5.81E+03
Carbon Radiation Shield
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Distance from Surface (cm)
Te
mp
era
ture
(K
)
Radiation 1-Side
Radiation 2-Sides
Ablation Only
Ablation Conclusions
• Carbon shield may work without ablation
• Temperature is a maximum between the surfaces
• Ablation will begin at maximum temperature location
• Ablation will not be steady
Typical PelletGeometry
• Core radius 0.05 mm
• Fuel Radius 1.00 cm
• Tungsten Shell Thickness 0.10 mm
• Antiproton Beam Radius 0.10 m
• Uranium Hemisphere Radius 0.30 mm
Typical Pellet Performance
• Antiproton Pulse 2x1013 for 30 ns
• Maximum Field 24 MG
• Pellet Mass 3.5 g
• Specific Impulse– 600,000 s for 100% fusion– 200,000 s for 10% fusion
MICF Propulsion
• Parameters – 200,000 seconds specific impulse– 138 pellets per second– Mass ratio fixed to 1.5 for one-way missions
• Missions– 7 day trip to Mars: acceleration limited– 30 day trip to Jupiter: specific impulse limited– 180 day trip to Pluto: specific impulse limited
Promise of ICF Propulsion
• ICAN-II: 13,500 seconds specific impulse– 30 days to Mars– 90 day trip to Jupiter– 3 year trip to Pluto
• MICF: 200,000 seconds specific impulse– 7 days to Mars– 30 days to Jupiter– 180 days to Pluto
Antiproton Triggered Fusion Propulsion Conclusions
• Technical challenges– DT cryogenic storage– Pellet compression– Neutron radiation damage
• Solutions– Lithium fuel– Tampers and explosives– Non-ablating carbon shield
Future Work
• Complete accurate simulations– Ignition– Fusion propagation– Neutron generation
• Borrow weapon design ideas– Compression using heating and inertia– Fusion boosted fission
• Determine Transmission Spectra