Russia Adv – 1ac

Solves Space Race

There is a unofficial space race between the US and Russia in terms of nuclear satellites – more efficient radioisotope systems would put us at the top

Madrigal 2K9 – Visiting Fellow at UC Berkley for the History of Science and Technology and senior editor of the Atlantic (Russia Leads Nuclear Space Race After U.S. Drops Out, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/nuclear-propulsion-in-space/)

The Russian space agency may build a nuclear-powered spacecraft with the blessing of the country’s leader, Russian and international media reported Thursday. The craft would cost $600 million and Russian scientists claim it could be ready as early as 2012. “The idea [of nuclear-powered spaceflight] has bright prospects, and if Russia could stage a breakthrough it could become our main contribution to any future international program of deep space exploration,” Andrei Ionin, an independent Moscow-based space expert, told Christian Science Monitor. Building a nuclear-powered spacecraft is feasible, said Patrick McDaniel, a nuclear engineer and co-director of the University of New Mexico’s Institute for Space and Nuclear Power Studies, but probably not in the short time frame that the Russians have proposed. “To have a test article that they could test on the ground, that’s very reasonable,” McDaniel said. “To have a completed system, that’s highly unlikely.” If the spaceship actually gets built, it would complete a half-century quest to bring nuclear power to space propulsion, beginning with a 1947 report by North American Aviation to the Air Force. It’s not hard to see why engineers would want to use nuclear power. Fission reactors provide a lot of power for their size, which is a key attribute in designing space systems. One engineer claims nuclear rockets are inherently twice as efficient as their chemical brethren. Their attributes could have increased the exploration range of the space program, nuclear propulsion advocates argue, allowing us to get to more interesting places. “We could have done a lot more things in space. We could have gone more places,” McDaniel said of nuclear rocket research. “It’s highly likely we would have gone to Mars.” The current plans to potentially return to Mars do not include a nuclear rocket, but several decades of plans from the 1950s through the 1980s just assumed that nuclear power would be a part of the effort to reach the Red Planet. Toward that end, the Air Force, which preceded NASA in managing space programs, created Project Rover in conjunction with Los Alamos National Laboratory. The goal of Rover was to develop a reactor that could be used for propulsion. Various incarnations of the reactor the scientists developed, called Kiwi, were tested at Jackass Flats, Nevada (see video). The idea behind the reactor was to use the heat generated by fission to heat hydrogen, which would expand, generating the force to push the rocket. None of the reactors ran for more than eight minutes, but they were considered to have met their goals. Technically, they worked. Though the exhaust from the rockets is radioactive, the first serious program to build a nuclear-powered rocket, Project Rover, enjoyed broad government support, even after it hit some cost overrun problems in the early 1960s. “Everyone likes Rover — the White House, the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,”Time magazine wrote in 1962. “Senator [Clinton] Anderson insists that nuclear-powered rocketry is as important to U.S. security as the hydrogen bomb.” Beginning in July 1958, with the creation of NASA, work on nuclear rockets became the provenance of the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office. They began to consolidate the various programs, creating the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application program. Further reactor and nuclear rocket development occurred under NERVA. Several other reactors and rocket designs were tested, most successfully the Phoebus and XE-Prime. There were test failures, but the programs, overall, are considered technical successes. Beyond the nuclear rocket designs, the United States also launched a small nuclear reactor, SNAP10a, into space that generated electricity. It orbited for 43 days before a non-reactor-related technical failure shut it down. (See the video for an animated explanation of the project.)

Nuke Propulsion Safe/Good

Nuclear Propulsion is safe and efficient in long term missions

Red Colony 3

(3-5 Brian Rudo, staff writer, “Nuclear Propulsion and What It Means to Space Exploration” http://www.redcolony.com/art.php?id=0303050&printer=pdf)
Since the beginning of time we have been fascinated with what makes up the world around us. The ancient Greeks first gave us the atom, and work by Renaissance philosophers and the beginning of modern science gave us more and more detailed insight into the structure of atoms and chemical interactions. Rutherford’s discovery of the nucleus and the lightning-fast discoveries that followed it have led to deeper consequences than anyone of any other time period could have imagined. Since the discovery of the fission of an atom’s nucleus and the accompanying release of energy, the world has been poised on the brink of complete destruction. Everyone knows about nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Many people believe that it is too dangerous to experiment with, and too costly to work with. Many also believe that it is nuclear technology that will save mankind. But the reality of nuclear technology, as in any other technology, is that the results are what we make out of it. In the 1930s and 1940s, scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory successfully attempted to construct a nuclear bomb. This has been arguably the greatest discovery in the history of humankind for its implications to the very nature of the political and societal structure of today. But this was not their only achievement. Los Alamos researchers investigated everything from electricity generation to nuclear-powered aircraft, and it was in many cases not the technological limitations themselves that stopped research, but bureaucratic issues. In the 1940s it was believed that we were on the brink of achieving all of man’s eternal goals: the end of war, the end of hunger, and reaching to the stars. In reality the implications were much less beneficial to mankind. With the nuclear power disasters of the twentieth century, notably Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, the public has withdrawn from nuclear power. Further problems that have halted nuclear power generation have resulted from the storage of nuclear waste. Public disfavor with anything nuclear has extended itself into space. When the Cassini probe launched in 1997, its 73 pounds of plutonium sparked protests that called into question any future nuclear project in space. Protesters contended that an error in launch or an encounter with Earth later on in the voyage could result in dangerous radioactivity raining down from the sky. What the protestors failed to realize was the actual risk involved: the increase in radioactivity that would result from the destruction of Cassini would have been equivalent to a 15,000th of a normal lifetime absorption of radioactivity. There is most likely more radioactivity in a tanning booth or dental X-ray. Nuclear Propulsion Yet the advantages, if public disfavor can be overcome, are enormous. Non-nuclear spacecraft are not only 1/6limited in propulsion speed and range and payload, but also the power available to instrumentation onboard. The 1997 Sojourner rover on Mars stopped functioning after only days because its solar panels had become dust-coated and ineffective, not because of any equipment failure. A nuclear rover under development by NASA for launch in 2009 would be able to travel hundreds of miles and last for months to years on the Martian surface, and its sensors could have orders of magnitudes more power, leading to much more data gained. A spacecraft proposal that would use fission-heated oxygen-hydrogen reactions that would allow cheap daily commuter flights to the moon for thousands of years is under consideration in NASA, and five-year missions to Pluto have been proposed with nuclear fission propulsion. There is no end to what this technology can give us. So if safety can be assured, within limits of course, and the benefits are so great, what is stopping us from developing these projects and having the entire solar system at our grasp? The answer is mostly political, not technical. Fortunately, NASA has managed to press ahead in its recent nuclear initiative, now named Project Prometheus. NASA will invest billions of dollars over five years to develop and launch a nuclear-powered spacecraft. Unlike past nuclear efforts in space, such as the above-mentioned Cassini, the Prometheus craft will be propelled by nuclear electric propulsion, with power generated from nuclear fission. There are three main classifications of nuclear propulsion, and three methods of powering them. Radioisotope Decay • • Electric Propulsion Nuclear Fission Reactor • Nuclear Explosive Propulsion • Nuclear Thermal Propulsion • • Nuclear Electric Propulsion Nuclear Fusion • Nuclear Explosive Propulsion • Nuclear Thermal Propulsion • • Nuclear Electric Propulsion 2/6Radioisotope decay has been demonstrated feasible and used in many missions for decades. It relies on the natural release of energy when the fuel, for example plutonium, decays into an isotope of uranium, releasing energy. This provides a continuous, safe source of power. This electrical power is then used to accelerate propellant and then eject it at high velocity to propel the craft. The main limitation of this method is the raw amount of power that can be generated. It is mostly useful for long-term, low velocity propulsion. It also is one of the safest methods of nuclear propulsion, as no fission reaction is taking place and there is little danger of complications. Nuclear fission is the most well known form of nuclear technology. In simplest terms, nuclear fission relies on neutrons bombarding nuclei of uranium or plutonium and forcing the separation of these elements into other elements, releasing energy. This energy output is several orders of magnitude above radioisotope decay and chemical propulsion. The Project Prometheus goal, a 100-kilowatt reactor, is a thousand times the energy output of a moderate-sized solar panel like the ones used on the Pathfinder mission for the Sojourner rover. It is the difference between a desk light and a stadium lighting system
Nuclear propulsion solves the problems of chemical propulsion

Messier 10—masters degree in Science, Technology and Public Policy from The George Washington University, where I studied at the Space Policy Institute. I am a graduate of the International Space University and holds a B.A. in Journalism from Rider University.

(9-30, Doug, Parabolic Arc, “Perminov: Mars Trips Could Take 2-4 Months With Nuclear Propulsion” http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/09/30/perminov-mars-trips-24-months-nuclear-propulsion/)

The attempts to improve parameters of the existing rocket propulsion systems are unreasonable, Roscosmos Head Anatoly Perminov stated, questioned by news media during the International Astronautical Congress in Prague. “No matter, how many experts in the world, and no matter how much they work, they would provide maximum improvement of any existing propulsion which is measured in a fraction of percent only. The most has been made of the available propulsions – liquid or solid-propellant. Any attempt to improve the thrust or momentum is hopeless,” the Head of the Russian Federal Space Agency said. On the other hand, he believes, nuclear propulsion is able to improve these parameters significantly: “To make an example of a mission to Mars. With the current propulsion it takes 1.5-2 years, with the nuclear one it would be 2-4 months.” According to Perminov, an alternative option may appear in the future, but the current technologies do not provide it. He added that nuclear propulsion systems are considered for large-scale human missions, not for small spacecraft which could use other type of propulsion – ionic engines or solar wind energy. Roscosmos Head reminded that heavy and super-heavy-lift launchers were being developed in Russia. These are to fly from new space port Vostochny. “Development and evolution of the new space port in the Far East imply several milestones. The first one covers development of the Rus-M rocket to be used to launch spacecraft, cargo supply and possibly human space vehicles. This milestone to last from 2015 to 2020, is to include launches as well,” Perminov explained. He added the 50-60-t launcher of heavy class would appear in 2020s, and the superheavy (150t)- in around 2030. Perminov said that the new launchers might be tested in flight from Baikonur first. “Baikonur is located at the territory of Kazakhstan, which is under renting by Russia till 2050. I am sure that we will continue using this port for Soyuz, Zenith, Proton launches until this date. We will continue using this systems, and building the new space port in parallel,” Roscosmos Head stated.

ASRGs > RTGs

ASRGs better than RTGs

Nasa 11

(Space Radioisotope Power Systems Stirling Radioisotope Generator official NASA REPORT, pg 1-2, http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdffiles/factsheets/spaceradioisotopepowersystemsasrg.pdf 2011]

For nearly fifty years, Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) have provided safe, reliable electric power for NASA missions where solar power is not feasible. Although RTGs have performed with exceptional reliability over very long mission durations, they are limited by the low conversion efficiency of thermoelectric materials, with system efficiencies typically ranging from about 5-7%. Because Plutonium-238 (Pu-238) is an extremely limited resource, for which the United States currently has no production capacity, DOE and NASA are pursuing higher-efficiency systems such as the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) that would reduce the amount of Pu-238 required for a given electric power output. Each ASRG is projected to produce 130-140 Watts of power using less than 1 kg of Pu-238 fuel. This is less than 25% of the Pu-238 that would be required for a comparable RTG. The ASRGs advancements are made possible by the use of highly efficient Stirling engines coupled with linear alternators (together known as Advanced Stirling Convertors, or ASCs) to convert the natural radioactive decay heat of Pu-238 into electricity. Although Stirling engines have been in use since the early 1800s, they have never been used to generate electricity for spacecraft. This is because the benefits they offer also bring some challenges that must first be overcome. Unlike RTGs, the ASRG is a complex thermodynamic system with moving parts. Like any dynamic system, it requires a controller to maintain optimum performance, to prevent piston overstroke and to convert the AC output of its alternators to DC suitable for a spacecraft bus. This level of complexity is manageable and will be worth accepting to gain the benefits offered by the ASRG, once it has been proven to offer the high reliability demanded of spacecraft power systems. Cryocoolers using similar technology have been used on NASA missions, but no dynamic system has yet been used in space for power production. Before the ASRG can be considered as an alternative to RTGs for NASA missions, a flight-like system must be built and demonstrated, and its reliability must be well understood. These are the primary near-term goals of the ASRG project. The ASRG builds on years of Stirling convertor technology development and reliability testing conducted by the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) and on an earlier system design. A flight-like engineering unit ASRG was tested during the first part of 2008. The generator underwent a series of tests to characterize its performance in a variety of environments, including vibration, shock and thermal vacuum tests that simulate the environments the system must survive during launch and in space. The next step toward use of ASRG on a mission is qualification. This phase involves building, fueling and testing an ASRG that is of the same design and rigorous quality requirements as one that would be used for flight. After qualification, a flight generator could be available for NASA mission use as early as 2015.

***2ac Stuff

a2 QPQ CP – Russia

Russia say no—they have denied it in the past
Aviation Week 11/29/2010 (Frank Morring, JR, “Bolden Treads Softly On China, Other Issues” http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/11/25/02.xml&headline=Bolden%20Treads%20Softly%20On%20China,%20Other%20Issues&channel=space 

Similarly, Permanov’s list of possible new space ventures with NASA, including development of a nuclear propulsion system, joint missions to low lunar orbit andasteroids, and a robotic landing on Mercury, is going nowhere fast. The Russian space leader presented the list at a Nov. 18 meeting of the bilateral Space Cooperation Working Group, but Bolden says the most substantive work involved protocols for future meetings. The U.S. hopes to use the list of possible bilateral projects as a way to encourage Russia to take a more active role in the multilateral working group coordinating long-term space exploration plans. 

“If the international partners think it’s worthwhile, we the United States would be more than happy to do a bilateral effort with the Russians, but we wanted that to be international instead of just the United States and Russia deciding something off on the side.” Note - Bolden = Current NASA Administrator 

a2 Space Mil DA

RTG’s are lightweight plutonium-238 reactors that can provide unlimited energy for extremely long distances as far as the sun – safe designs and non weapon grade means we don’t link to space mil DA’s

Hagen 98 – Director and member of the INSEAP (Regina, Nuclear Powered Space Missions - Past and Future, http://www.space4peace.org/ianus/npsm2.htm)
RTGs are lightweight, compact spacecraft power systems that are highly reliable. RTGs are not nuclear reactors and have no moving parts. They use neither fission nor fusion processes to produce energy. Instead, they provide power through the natural radioactive decay of plutonium (mostly Pu-238, a non-weaponsgrade isotope). The heat generated by this natural process is changed into electricity by solid-state thermoelectric converters. RTGs enable spacecraft to operate at significant distances from the Sun or in other areas where solar power systems would not be feasible. In this context, they remain unmatched for power output, reliability and durability. Safety Design More than 30 years have been invested in the engineering, safety analysis and testing of RTGs. Safety features are incorporated into the RTG's design, and extensive testing has demonstrated that they can withstand physical conditions more severe than those expected from most accidents. First, the fuel is in the heat-resistant, ceramic form of plutonium dioxide, which reduces its chance of vaporizing in fire or reentry environments. This ceramic-form fuel is also highly insoluble, has a low chemical reactivity, and primarily fractures into large, non-respirable particles and chunks. These characteristics help to mitigate the potential health effects from accidents involving the release of this fuel. Second, the fuel is divided among 18 small, independent modular units, each with its own heat shield and impact shell. This design reduces the chances of fuel release in an accident because all modules would not be equally impacted in an accident. Third, multiple layers of protective materials, including iridium capsules and high-strength graphite blocks, are used to protect the fuel and prevent its accidental release. Iridium is a metal that has a very high melting point and is strong, corrosion resistant and chemically compatible with plutonium dioxide. These characteristics make iridium useful for protecting and containing each fuel pellet. Graphite is used because it is lightweight and highly heat-resistant." [ESTEC/b]⁴ On its web page "Cassini RTG Information", NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory gives additional technical information: "Each RTG NASA uses on recent planetary spacecraft contains approximately 10.9 kg (24 lb.) of plutonium dioxide fuel. On Galileo's two RTGs, that amounted to a total of about 48 lb. On Cassini, which has three RTGs, it's about 72 lb. ... RTGs have been used on 23 U.S. space missions including Voyager, Pioneer, Viking, Apollo, and more recently the Galileo and Ulysses missions⁵. As in the past, Cassini's RTGs are to be provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE). Heat source technology pursued by DoE has resulted in several models of an RTG power system, evolving from the Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP)-RTG to the Multi-Hundred Watt (MHW)-RTG, to the currently used General Purpose Heat Source (GPHS)-RTG used on Galileo, Ulysses and Cassini spacecraft. The GPHS technology is the culmination of almost 25 years of design evolution. A GPHS-RTG assembly weighs 56 kg (123.5 lb), is approximately 113 cm (44.5 in) long and 43 cm (16.8 in) in diameter and contains 10.9 kg (24 lb) of plutonium dioxide fuel. At launch, the three RTGs will provide a total of 888 watts of electrical power from 13,182 watts of heat. By the end of the mission the power output will be 628 watts." [JPL/c] A specific aspect of RTG usage is pointed out by Canadian journalist Michael Bein: "Although the American planners have obviously been concerned enough about safety to draft general criteria and institute a three-step, multi-agency review process that must be completed before each launch, there are a number of weaknesses in the U.S. regulatory system vis a vis NPS [Nuclear Powered Satellites]. First of all, there is no licensing by an independent authority like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the watchdog of America’s commercial nuclear power industry. All the nuclear missions flown to date have been classed as research devices and have therefore been exempted from licensing under a provision of the Atomic Energy Act. DoE, meanwhile, reserves the right to approve deviations from the published safety criteria. And, perhaps most importantly, there is no provision for public participation in the safety review process." [BEIN]