Home / Chroniques / The use of nuclear power in deep space exploration
tribune_PierreHenriquet_fr‑2
π Space π Energy

The use of nuclear power in deep space exploration

Pierre Henriquet
Pierre Henriquet
Doctor in Nuclear Physics and Columnist at Polytechnique Insights
Key takeaways
  • Powering space objects can be done in two ways: by finding a source of energy in space, or by taking energy from Earth.
  • The two power sources currently used in space are solar and nuclear.
  • The Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RGT), using radioactive materials, now provides the power for many space probes.
  • But solar power is not always guaranteed, depending on the mission parameters and the environment of the scientific equipment.
  • In the future, nuclear power could be used for space propulsion, in addition to chemical and electric propulsion.

There are few envi­ron­ments as hos­tile as space, and get­ting humans to sur­vive there is (and always has been) a chal­lenge. But whe­ther explo­ra­tion flights are man­ned or unman­ned, one of the major pro­blems is always how to power the spa­ce­craft or probe. Up there, the word vacuum has never been more apt­ly named, and to car­ry out space acti­vi­ties – powe­ring, pro­pel­ling or com­mu­ni­ca­ting – you either have to find a source of ener­gy local­ly or take it with you from Earth.

These two pos­si­bi­li­ties lead to the two sources of ener­gy cur­rent­ly used in space : solar ener­gy, which enables part of the sun’s light to be conver­ted into elec­tri­ci­ty on site using pho­to­vol­taic panels ; and the use of nuclear reac­tions to power and, in the future, pro­pel spa­ce­craft whose ope­ra­ting condi­tions do not allow solar ener­gy to be used (or not properly).

Over 50 years of nuclear power in space and elsewhere

There are also places on Earth that are so far from civi­li­sa­tion, and with such extreme envi­ron­ments, that it is very dif­fi­cult to pro­vide a stable and reliable source of ener­gy. Fair­way Rock, for example, is a tiny island of less than 1 km² loca­ted in the icy Bering Strait off the coast of Alas­ka, bet­ween the Uni­ted States and Rus­sia. It was on this tiny rock, near the Arc­tic Circle, that the US Navy first ins­tal­led a Radioi­so­tope Ther­moe­lec­tric Gene­ra­tor (RTG) in 1966 to pro­vide elec­tri­ci­ty for its “envi­ron­men­tal moni­to­ring” facilities.

Today, this device is the key to the power sup­ply of many space explo­ra­tion probes, the most famous of which are the Pio­neer and Voya­ger probes (which are cur­rent­ly lea­ving the Solar Sys­tem) or the Cas­si­ni-Huy­gens probe which explo­red Saturn and its moons bet­ween 2004 and 2017. Although RTGs use radio­ac­tive mate­rials such as Plu­to­nium-238 or Ame­ri­cium-241, they are not consi­de­red “nuclear reac­tors” in the sense that they do not cause sus­tai­ned nuclear fis­sion reac­tions, as in conven­tio­nal nuclear power plants. Ins­tead, the natu­ral hea­ting of a block of radio­ac­tive mate­rial is used. And it is this heat, indu­ced by the radio­ac­ti­vi­ty, that is conver­ted into elec­tri­ci­ty with the help of thermocouples.

Red­de­ning of a Plu­to­nium Oxide pel­let under the effect of the heat by its own radio­ac­ti­vi­ty. Cre­dit : NASA.

Although the effi­cien­cy of this conver­sion is quite low (around 10%), it has the advan­tage of pro­du­cing elec­tri­ci­ty in a stable and conti­nuous man­ner for decades. Radio­ac­tive mate­rials are cha­rac­te­ri­sed by their ‘half-life’, which is the time after which their radio­ac­ti­vi­ty (and the­re­fore their ener­gy out­put) has hal­ved. For Plu­to­nium-238 (the most wide­ly used in today’s RTGs), its half-life is ~88 years, which ensures a suf­fi­cient sup­ply of ener­gy for space mis­sions whose dura­tions typi­cal­ly extend over one or two decades.

Space power : solar or nuclear ?

But the length of time the sys­tem pro­vides elec­tri­ci­ty is not the only advan­tage of this tech­no­lo­gy. The Sun emits light conti­nuous­ly, allo­wing a mis­sion to conti­nue vir­tual­ly fore­ver as long as it is illu­mi­na­ted by light. But this is pre­ci­se­ly where the pro­blem lies. Depen­ding on the para­me­ters of the mis­sion and the envi­ron­ment of the scien­ti­fic equip­ment, the sup­ply of solar ener­gy is not always guaranteed.

The rovers used to explore the sur­face of Mars have to deal with the local wea­ther conditions.

On Mars, for example, the rovers used to explore the sur­face have to deal with local wea­ther condi­tions. The Red Pla­net has an atmos­phere which, although much less dense than Earth’s (the pres­sure is ~200 times lower), does not prevent the some­times very fast winds from rai­sing the fine ochre dust that scat­ters its sur­face. It will then rede­po­sit itself on the solar panels of human robots, some­times almost com­ple­te­ly blo­cking out the avai­lable sunlight.

In Decem­ber 2022, the Insight mis­sion to stu­dy the inter­nal struc­ture of Mars ended after four years of acti­vi­ty, its solar panels almost com­ple­te­ly cove­red in dust. This is why the Curio­si­ty and Per­se­ve­rance rovers, sent to Mars in 2012 and 2021 res­pec­ti­ve­ly, are equip­ped with an RTG. In addi­tion to pro­du­cing elec­tri­ci­ty, it also allows cer­tain sen­si­tive parts of the elec­tro­nics to be hea­ted, which do not cope well with the ave­rage Mar­tian tem­pe­ra­ture of around ‑60°C.

RTG of the Per­se­ve­rance rover (cen­tral cylin­der in the red insert). Around it are heat dis­si­pa­tion fins. Cre­dit : NASA.

But even in envi­ron­ments with no atmos­phere (and the­re­fore no dust), RTGs may be neces­sa­ry. During the Apol­lo mis­sions to the Moon, RTGs were used to sup­ply power to scien­ti­fic ins­tru­ments pla­ced near the lan­ding modules. The rea­son : some of this equip­ment was inten­ded to be used conti­nuous­ly for more than 10 years. But a day on the Moon is much lon­ger than on Earth. A day (bet­ween sun­rise and sun­set) lasts almost two Earth weeks. The lunar night lasts just as long. Solar devices would not have been able to sup­ply elec­tri­ci­ty to the ins­tru­ments for a fort­night eve­ry month, which is why RTGs are useful.

Final­ly, even in space, where the Sun shines conti­nuous­ly, it is neces­sa­ry to think care­ful­ly about the type of tech­no­lo­gy that will be used to pro­vide elec­tri­ci­ty to the explo­ra­tion probes. Like any source of light, the fur­ther away we are from the Sun, the less light it gives us. And this decrease in lumi­no­si­ty is very rapid. It decreases as the square of the dis­tance. If we move 3 times fur­ther away, we receive 9 times less light. If you move 10 times fur­ther away, you receive 10² = 100 times less light.

RTG depo­si­ted by the Apol­lo 14 mis­sion to power the control box for scien­ti­fic expe­ri­ments (in the back­ground). Cre­dit : NASA.

In prac­tice, for all mis­sions that go beyond the orbit of Jupi­ter, the amount of light recei­ved is so low that the use of solar panels is no lon­ger effec­tive. Once again, it is RTG tech­no­lo­gy that over­comes this pro­blem, as was the case, for example, for the Cas­si­ni-Huy­gens mis­sion to explore Saturn and its moons or the famous New Hori­zons mis­sion which, for the first time in the his­to­ry of astro­nau­tics, obtai­ned resol­ved images of the sur­face of Plu­to after 10 years of tra­vel in the Solar System.

Nuclear propulsion

Ano­ther area of space is like­ly to see the arri­val of new nuclear-based tech­no­lo­gies in the coming decade : space pro­pul­sion. In this field, the prin­ciple is always the same : pro­ject as much mat­ter as pos­sible as qui­ck­ly as pos­sible in one direc­tion to gene­rate a force that pro­pels the ves­sel in the oppo­site direc­tion. This is the famous prin­ciple of Action-Reaction.

At present, this prin­ciple can be rough­ly divi­ded into two tech­no­lo­gies : che­mi­cal pro­pul­sion and elec­tric (ionic) pro­pul­sion, each with advan­tages and disad­van­tages. Conven­tio­nal che­mi­cal pro­pul­sion uses pro­pel­lants whose com­bus­tion pro­duces large quan­ti­ties of hot gases, which are res­pon­sible for a very high thrust, but which is very limi­ted in time (around ten minutes at the most). In addi­tion, it requires huge quan­ti­ties of fuel to be car­ried on board, which in turn weighs down the spa­ce­craft, requi­ring more fuel to be used… to pro­pel this fuel.

Novem­ber 7, 2005 : New Hori­zons RTG ins­tal­la­tion (black) at the Ken­ne­dy Space Cen­ter. Cre­dit : NASA.

In contrast, ionic pro­pul­sion consists of acce­le­ra­ting an ioni­sed gas bet­ween elec­tri­cal­ly char­ged grids. The speed at which the par­ticles leave the space no lon­ger depends on a par­ti­cu­lar che­mi­cal reac­tion but on the inten­si­ty of the elec­tric field that is crea­ted. The speed of the par­ticles is poten­tial­ly much higher, which allows the amount of fuel used to be dras­ti­cal­ly redu­ced. An ion engine uses about 100 grams of fuel per day, whe­reas the Ariane rocket consumes seve­ral hun­dred tonnes of pro­pel­lant per second. This ion drive is more effi­cient and can be used conti­nuous­ly for seve­ral weeks or months at a time.

The disad­van­tage is that it gene­rates extre­me­ly low thrust (a few new­tons at the most), which imposes major constraints on the types of air­craft on which it can be used. Nuclear ther­mal pro­pul­sion, on the other hand, involves using a pro­pel­lant fluid (hydro­gen, for example) and hea­ting it by pas­sing it through the core of a nuclear reac­tor. It can then be expel­led at high speed, in large quan­ti­ties, to pro­pel the ves­sel. In terms of effi­cien­cy, nuclear pro­pul­sion is bet­ween che­mi­cal and ion pro­pul­sion, theo­re­ti­cal­ly allo­wing for very high gas ejec­tion rates, while sup­por­ting very long thrust times.

In 2021, NASA selec­ted three busi­ness conglo­me­rates to car­ry out concept stu­dies for nuclear ther­mal pro­pul­sion reac­tors (BWX Technologies/Lockheed Mar­tin, Gene­ral Ato­mics Elec­tro­ma­gne­tic Systems/X‑energy/Aerojet Rocket­dyne and Ultra Safe Nuclear Technologies/Blue Origin/General Elec­tric Hita­chi Nuclear Energy/General Elec­tric Research/Framatome/Materion). The work is ongoing. At the end of Janua­ry 2023, Bill Nel­son, the cur­rent NASA Admi­nis­tra­tor, announ­ced a col­la­bo­ra­tion with the Defense Advan­ced Research Pro­jects Agen­cy (DARPA) to “deve­lop and demons­trate advan­ced nuclear ther­mal pro­pul­sion tech­no­lo­gy as ear­ly as 2027”.

Artist’s concept of the Demons­tra­tion for Rocket to Agile Cis­lu­nar Ope­ra­tions (DRACO) spa­ce­craft, which should demons­trate a nuclear ther­mal rocket engine. Cre­dit NASA.

Europe, meanw­hile, pro­du­ced a report in 2013 cal­led « Mega­hit » that pro­po­sed a road­map for the deve­lop­ment of space-based nuclear sys­tems. Howe­ver, it has not led to any publi­ca­tion since. One of the main pro­blems in the deve­lop­ment of these nuclear-based space tech­no­lo­gies is of course the secu­ri­ty and socie­tal aspect. It is rela­ti­ve­ly easy today to build RTGs in which the small radio­ac­tive pucks are pro­tec­ted by suc­ces­sive layers that ensure good heat trans­fer while at the same time pro­vi­ding the best pos­sible resis­tance to events such as the des­truc­tion of the launch vehicle at lift-off or uncon­trol­led atmos­phe­ric re-entry. This hap­pe­ned in April 1970 when the Apol­lo 13 mis­sion retur­ned to Earth in an emer­gen­cy fol­lo­wing the explo­sion of part of the spa­ce­craft. After withs­tan­ding the heat of re-entry without brea­king, the RTG res­pon­sible for powe­ring the ins­tru­ments on the Moon plun­ged into the Paci­fic Ocean over the 10 km deep Ton­ga Trough.

On the other hand, it is dif­fi­cult, given the state of deve­lop­ment of future nuclear-powe­red engines, to esta­blish how such much lar­ger and more com­plex craft could pro­vide the same level of safe­ty. Howe­ver, this is a cru­cial step that must be taken if this kind of new space pro­pul­sion tech­no­lo­gy is to be deve­lo­ped and Mars is to be rea­ched in much less time than it takes today.

Support accurate information rooted in the scientific method.

Donate