ESA Document - Emits - ESA

ESA Document - Emits - ESA ESA Document - Emits - ESA

emits.esa.int
from emits.esa.int More from this publisher
06.02.2013 Views

s Liquid Metal cooled thermoelectric reactor Table 6-1: Comparison of basic reactor design choices 6.4 Radiation protection and shielding issues Gas-cooled particle bed Brayton reactor Electric power [kW] 50 50 Thermal power [kW] (efficiency in %) Core mass (fuel mass) [kg] 186 (54) 1250 (4%) 185 (26.9%) HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-20(A) February 2004 page 406 of 422 1075 (93) (rad refl. Be: 622 kg) (axial refl. BeO: 218 kg) Power conversion [kg] 371-712 340 Radiator mass [kg] 718 (steel: 618 kg) (mercury: 100 kg) Packaging [kg] 111-180 250 Total Mass [kg] 1386-1796 1665 Size (diam/height) [m] Core: 0.45/0.6 Conv.Syst: 0.5/0.4 Both designs make use of Martian regolith for additional shielding purposes. For the purpose of this preliminary assessment, an all-side shielding requirement is assumed together with an acceptable dose limit at about 100 metres from the reactor site. According to preliminary calculations such a shield would need about 10 tonnes of Martian regolith, distributed in an about 5 metre radial layer and an about 3 metre axial (assuming a cylindrical reactor core) layer. Options of using locally produced binding materials and deepening the core into an (artificial) hole need to be further explored. An example for a buried reactor core with a subsurface heat rejection unit is shown in Figure 6-1. n/a Core: 0.8(0.17)/1.5 Conv.Syst: 0.8/1.2

s Figure 6-1: Example of buried reactor core. Figure 6-2: LM reactor design (L) and GC reactor design (R) HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-20(A) February 2004 page 407 of 422 The liquid metal cooled reactor (LMR) with thermoelectric power conversion and radiative head rejection system was considered more conservative than the gas-cooled particle bed rector (GCR) with a Brayton cycle and forced convection waste head removal using the Martian atmosphere. The LMR was thus chosen as the prime choice, leaving the GCR design as the more advanced alternative. 6.5 Reactor operation

s<br />

Liquid Metal cooled<br />

thermoelectric reactor<br />

Table 6-1: Comparison of basic reactor design choices<br />

6.4 Radiation protection and shielding issues<br />

Gas-cooled particle bed<br />

Brayton reactor<br />

Electric power [kW] 50 50<br />

Thermal power [kW]<br />

(efficiency in %)<br />

Core mass (fuel mass) [kg] 186 (54)<br />

1250 (4%) 185 (26.9%)<br />

HMM<br />

Assessment Study<br />

Report: CDF-20(A)<br />

February 2004<br />

page 406 of 422<br />

1075 (93)<br />

(rad refl. Be: 622 kg)<br />

(axial refl. BeO: 218 kg)<br />

Power conversion [kg] 371-712 340<br />

Radiator mass [kg]<br />

718<br />

(steel: 618 kg)<br />

(mercury: 100 kg)<br />

Packaging [kg] 111-180 250<br />

Total Mass [kg] 1386-1796 1665<br />

Size (diam/height) [m]<br />

Core: 0.45/0.6<br />

Conv.Syst: 0.5/0.4<br />

Both designs make use of Martian regolith for additional shielding purposes. For the purpose of<br />

this preliminary assessment, an all-side shielding requirement is assumed together with an<br />

acceptable dose limit at about 100 metres from the reactor site. According to preliminary<br />

calculations such a shield would need about 10 tonnes of Martian regolith, distributed in an<br />

about 5 metre radial layer and an about 3 metre axial (assuming a cylindrical reactor core) layer.<br />

Options of using locally produced binding materials and deepening the core into an (artificial)<br />

hole need to be further explored.<br />

An example for a buried reactor core with a subsurface heat rejection unit is shown in Figure<br />

6-1.<br />

n/a<br />

Core: 0.8(0.17)/1.5<br />

Conv.Syst: 0.8/1.2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!