Feasibility and Cost Analysis of Nuclear Thermal

Propulsion for a Small Scale Satellite

Sourav Mohanty

Feasibility Analysis
Conventional rockets used for thermal propulsion are chemical rockets. Their known
disadvantages are less speed and acceleration, less range, low thrust, toxic chemicals and low
power. With an advancement in technology, there is a need to replace these rockets with a
propulsion system which can overcome the disadvantages of the conventional chemical
propulsion systems.
A much feasible system would be a nuclear thermal propulsion system. A nuclear thermal
propulsion is a much faster and efficient propulsion system than a conventional chemical
propulsion system. Such a propulsion system can place a satellite in orbit twice as fast as the
conventional chemical rockets. Hence, it saves a lot of valuable time and helps reducing the
exposure to the electromagnetic radiation in space.
A nuclear thermal propulsion system would use nuclear fission reactors which are less in
weight, have long life and high power compared to the conventional propulsion systems. It
would also take care of high electric power requirements of the various on board systems
present in the satellite.
The known disadvantages of the nuclear propulsion system include radioactive components,
risk to human life if the system fails to launch, high maintenance of the nuclear thermal
propulsion system before launch in order to make sure that there is no nuclear leakage or
radiation that can risk the human life working on it and lastly the nuclear satellites might affect
the other satellites in orbit; for example, due to large nuclear orbit range, Starfish prime caused
a significant damage to three other satellites in the vicinity due to an artificial radiation belt.
All these above reasons have either discouraged, restricted or prevented the human race in
implementing and developing such nuclear thermal propulsion systems for satellites.
Cost Analysis
The mass production of Nuclear Thermal Propulsion systems for satellites can decrease the
costs compared to the conventional propulsion systems. The cost of a nuclear propulsion
system for a huge satellite is always high, but for a small scale satellite, the cost would be lesser
than a conventional chemical propulsion system. For example the estimated cost for Project
Orion was $3.67 Trillion, but for a small scale satellite the cost would be much lesser than the
conventional propulsion systems.

Due to the use of less propellant as compared to the conventional chemical satellites, the
Nuclear Thermal propulsion system has more payload and reduced costs. A recent study at the
Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico indicated that the Nuclear Thermal Propulsion systems
are much more cost efficient than the conventional chemical propulsion. A conventional
chemical propulsion system would cost around double the price of a Nuclear Thermal
Propulsion system. Also, due to the high power capabilities of a nuclear thermal propulsion
system, it can cover more miles in space compared to the chemical propulsion systems. Hence,
it can be dubbed as more miles per gallon.
Conclusion
Clearly, the Nuclear Thermal Propulsion systems are much better than the chemical propulsion
systems in terms of efficiency, performance, speed and range. Most importantly, they are low
in cost due to the less use of propellants. If adequate care is taken during maintenance and
development of the nuclear thermal propulsion systems, they are certainly the best choice
available for launching small scale satellites to orbit.

REFERENCES
1. Fishbine B, Hanrahan R, Howe S, Malenfant R, Scherer C, Sheinberg H, and Ramos Jr.
O, Nuclear Rockets: To Mars and Beyond, Retrieved January, 2014 Available:
http://www.lanl.gov/science/NSS/issue1_2011/story4full.shtml
2. Downe J, Forestier A, Miller D, "FLYING REACTORS: THE POLITICAL
FEASIBILITY OF NUCLEAR POWER IN SPACE ". Retrieved January , 2014
Available: http://fas.org/nuke/space/downey.pdf
3. Wikipedia, "High-altitude nuclear explosion". Retrieved January , 2014 Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion#Drawback
4. Fusion Institute of Technology, "Major Power Conversion Techniques in Space".
Retrieved January , 2014 Available:
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/SPRING00/lecture3.pdf
5. Wikipedia, "Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)". Retrieved January , 2014 Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)#Economics
6. Deason, W, "NASAs Roadmap to the Nuclear Thermal Rocket". Retrieved January ,
2014 Available: http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/07/09/nasas-roadmap-to-the-nuclearthermal-rocket/

7. Bromley, B, "Getting More Miles Per Gallon". Retrieved January , 2014 Available:
http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html
8. Howe, S, "ASSESSMENT OF THE ADVANTAGES AND FEASIBILITY OF A
NUCLEAR ROCKET FOR A MANNED MARS MISSION". Retrieved January , 2014
Available: http://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/la-ur-85-2442.pdf