ESA Document - Emits - ESA
ESA Document - Emits - ESA ESA Document - Emits - ESA
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
- Page 355 and 356: s Finally, the Figure 4-97 shown th
- Page 357 and 358: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 359 and 360: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 361 and 362: s velocity (m/sec) altitude (km) 50
- Page 363 and 364: s 4.5 Mars Ascent Vehicle 4.5.1 Tra
- Page 365 and 366: s Term Value Unit Radius of equator
- Page 367 and 368: s 4.5.2.1 Requirements and design d
- Page 369 and 370: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 371 and 372: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 373 and 374: s Inclination (deg) 47.5 47 46.5 46
- Page 375 and 376: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 377 and 378: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 379 and 380: s 4.5.3 Structures HMM Assessment S
- Page 381 and 382: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 383 and 384: s 4.5.5 Thermal HMM Assessment Stud
- Page 385 and 386: s 4.5.5.3 Baseline thermal design H
- Page 387 and 388: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 389 and 390: s Crew Ingress/Egress Hatch: HMM As
- Page 391 and 392: s Element 3: Mars Ascent Vehicle HM
- Page 393 and 394: s 4.5.7.5 Budgets Characteristic Va
- Page 395 and 396: s PER DAY PER MISSION DRINKING WATE
- Page 397 and 398: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 399 and 400: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 401 and 402: s 5 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS HMM Assessm
- Page 403 and 404: s 6 APPENDIX A - MARTIAN SURFACE NU
- Page 405: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 409 and 410: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 411 and 412: s 7 APPENDIX B - REFERENCES [RD1] C
- Page 413 and 414: s [RD26] IES2, Phase A0: Final Repo
- Page 415 and 416: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 417 and 418: s [RD85] Mars Transportation Enviro
- Page 419 and 420: s 8 APPENDIX C - ACRONYMS AAA Avion
- Page 421 and 422: s MLI Multi-Layer Insulation MMH Mo
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