Axil— I agree with you about the buggy-whip technology suggested for the NASA space reactor. My agreement stems from concerns with the potential for nuclear accidents (not unlike concern about nuclear reactors in space considered in the 1950’s and 60’s) which effected dismissal of their use in the current space program. The reactor design has not changed much since then IMHO.
A comparison of the various SNAP reactor designs with the current design would be instructive. The following link addresses some of the features of the Kilopower reactor: Ahttp://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-14-23402xil— Its lack of references is an obvious characteristic of an abridged report. Table 2 of the design report seems to indicate that a fresh “warm” reactor is critical with a K-eff of about 1.0118 with control rod in and the Be reflectors properly positioned. It does not indicate the K-eff for super criticality which by fast neutrons and probably would cause an explosive reaction. It does indicate a positive temperature coefficient and makes one wonder at what temperature super criticality occurs? IMHO the analysis should evaluate and describe conditions for super criticality as well as the following enumerated issues: 1. Consider linking the KiloPower reactor to the existing thermo-electric system used by space probes current to eliminate the Pu-238 heat source. 1. Make a reactor design with a negative temperature coefficient over the entire range of temperatures possible. 1. Consider other high temperature uranium alloys of tungsten, tantalum, zirconium, niobium and their combinations, as well as the molybdenum so achieve better thermal neutron flux at higher temperatures and hence more margin to fuel failure. 1. Run creep test for years rather than months to evaluate fuel swelling and failure. 1. Consider better fuel poisons than boron, for example Hf. Use poison good for epi-thermal and fast neutrons to improve margins to super critical conditions. 1. Provide a reference to the actual risk assessment used to evaluate nuclear accidents on and around earth and at potential landing sites and/or end-of-life probe disposition. Bob Cook From: Axil Axil<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:52 AM To: vortex-l<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Vo]:Electrical power conversion for LENR Before NASA wastes too much of their precious R&D on buggy wip technology, it is time for the Quark to take center stage in powering space exploration and settlement. Replacing the fission heat source in Kilopower is a no brainer. Safety Certification is obviously not required for this technology and the R&D resources of NASA can be used to jumpstart the LENR reactor home use business when a LENR Kilopower based product is eventually configured. Rossi should get some NASA engineers over to his demo.Once they see the Quark in action, they will configure Kilopower property with a LENR heat source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=55&v=DcdfMcjUy_U https://tec.grc.nasa.gov/rps/stirling-research-lab/advanced-stirling-convertor/ NASA's new sterling heat convertor for is a highly efficient, low mass, reliable power convertor for future Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) (38% greater than 80 W output power), low mass (1.3 kg), hermetic sealing. [ASC-E2.jpg] [ASC-layout.jpg] [Four-ASC-1-convertors.jpg]
