Would be opposed to nuclear powered space vehicles?

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
I was watching a documentary on Life in Space, which spoke of traveling to Mars.

Now, a trip to Mars with traditional rockets would take 7 months to get arrive. Then, you'd have to spend 1.5 years on Mars for the orbits to align again, then another 7 month trip back to Earth.

A nuclear powered vehicle would take about 90 days to get there, and 90 days to get back. Much faster.

While I believe that it could be done perfectly safely, there is a major public stigma against nuclear energy. ATOT is also generally more open to technology and exploration though, so we may not be representative of the world in general.

Discuss.
 

flashbacck

Golden Member
Aug 3, 2001
1,921
0
76
wouldn't you need like 6 feet of concrete to protect the crew from radiation?

btw, what is propelling the ship in a fission powered engine?
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
If they could find a way to contain the reactor and all nuclear materials so they don't go up in the inevitable explosions, sure. I'm not too knowledgeable about nuclear materials and radiation, but I think falling nuclear material over Florida would not be a good idea.
 

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
Originally posted by: Bateluer
I was watching a documentary on Life in Space, which spoke of traveling to Mars.

Now, a trip to Mars with traditional rockets would take 7 months to get arrive. Then, you'd have to spend 1.5 years on Mars for the orbits to align again, then another 7 month trip back to Earth.

A nuclear powered vehicle would take about 90 days to get there, and 90 days to get back. Much faster.

While I believe that it could be done perfectly safely, there is a major public stigma against nuclear energy. ATOT is also generally more open to technology and exploration though, so we may not be representative of the world in general.

Discuss.

Unless they can somehow be 100% sure that it'll turn out 100% perfect, which is impossible, the risks are not worth it. While a normal space shuttle explosion is terrible enough, a nuclear explosion in the sky probably is a little worse..
 

uberman

Golden Member
Sep 15, 2006
1,942
1
81
We did have a nuclear powered airplane program. Like none would ever crash. We stopped it. I believe this one should be ended to. However, if the space craft never landed it might be ok.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
sure im for it.

i would think the only danger would be getting it to space in the first place. other then that it would be fine.

oh and the "guest" on the vehicle might have some problems. but as for it explodeing in space? that really does not worry me.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,486
2,363
136
Same as waggy, as long as they can get it safely into orbit (without exploding in the atmosphere and littering radioactive material back to earth), and as long as all the necessary precautions are taken (design is right and tested with multiple redundant systems) and as long as astronauts on the mission are volunteers, why not?
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Same as waggy, as long as they can get it safely into orbit (without exploding in the atmosphere and littering radioactive material back to earth), and as long as all the necessary precautions are taken (design is right and tested with multiple redundant systems) and as long as astronauts on the mission are volunteers, why not?

I just don't see how they could safely get it into orbit 100% of the time. Even if the reactor is self contained and doesn't go up in a blast (which would be a hell of a chore itself), I'd imagine you'd have anywhere from a several hundred lb chunk to a several ton chunk, possibly even heavier (again, I have no idea how big of a reactor they would need for a shuttle, how they would implement the containment, or any other variables that we would need to take into account), falling to the earth. If this occurred on a remote island in the pacific, that wouldn't be that much of a problem, but aren't all shuttle launches out of FL?
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
There are plenty of nuclear powered spacecraft which carry plutonium as a fuel source. They work great.

Nuclear propelled though? How would you suggest they work? The only nuclear propulsion mechanism I've heard about is the crazy one where you drop a bomb behind your ship and explode it.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: silverpig
There are plenty of nuclear powered spacecraft which carry plutonium as a fuel source. They work great.

Nuclear propelled though? How would you suggest they work? The only nuclear propulsion mechanism I've heard about is the crazy one where you drop a bomb behind your ship and explode it.

yeap.

they been useing nuclear power for years.


 

quentinterintino

Senior member
Jul 14, 2002
375
0
0
Satellites are already powered w/ radioisotopes. I suppose this could just be an extension of that. Where did you get your data for a 90 day trip -- what propulsion system?
 

phisrow

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2004
1,399
0
0
I'd be a trifle nervous about the process of getting the fuel out of the gravity well. Plutonium ceramics for use in radiothermal generators are already used successfully; but those are designed to be intrinsically resistant to decomposition.
The big issue, though, would be shielding the crew on the nuclear craft. Alpha and Beta radiation can probably be deflected by some clever use of electromagnets; but gamma basically only responds to mass. Mass is bloody expensive to get into orbit. If you can solve that problem, though, it is certainly a useful energy source.
 

potato28

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
8,964
0
0
I'd be all for it, but they'd need to test and test and test... And the 6 feet of concrete would be good, but 1 foot of water would do better. And wouldn't the fuel(uranium?) make the ship heavier? Also the lift-off rockets would still need to be of the conventional type as we don't want a nuclear launch pad that kills the astronauts upon stepping into the area. A better idea would be a space elevator, then have a launch pad on the ISS.
 

Thorny

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,122
0
0
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Same as waggy, as long as they can get it safely into orbit (without exploding in the atmosphere and littering radioactive material back to earth), and as long as all the necessary precautions are taken (design is right and tested with multiple redundant systems) and as long as astronauts on the mission are volunteers, why not?

I just don't see how they could safely get it into orbit 100% of the time. Even if the reactor is self contained and doesn't go up in a blast (which would be a hell of a chore itself), I'd imagine you'd have anywhere from a several hundred lb chunk to a several ton chunk, possibly even heavier (again, I have no idea how big of a reactor they would need for a shuttle, how they would implement the containment, or any other variables that we would need to take into account), falling to the earth. If this occurred on a remote island in the pacific, that wouldn't be that much of a problem, but aren't all shuttle launches out of FL?


I think for a trip to mars the actual ship/reactor would be assembled in space. There would be no active reactor during transport to orbit in a conventional shuttle. Hauling the reactor to space in a cargo bay should be no more dangerous than our nuclear bombers flying overhead.
 

potato28

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
8,964
0
0
Originally posted by: phisrow
I'd be a trifle nervous about the process of getting the fuel out of the gravity well. Plutonium ceramics for use in radiothermal generators are already used successfully; but those are designed to be intrinsically resistant to decomposition.
The big issue, though, would be shielding the crew on the nuclear craft. Alpha and Beta radiation can probably be deflected by some clever use of electromagnets; but gamma basically only responds to mass. Mass is bloody expensive to get into orbit. If you can solve that problem, though, it is certainly a useful energy source.

Consider that gamma radiation can be absorbed by 6 inches of water, and be safe for the astronauts. Plus they have all the survival baggage... it could be feasible.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: Thorny
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Same as waggy, as long as they can get it safely into orbit (without exploding in the atmosphere and littering radioactive material back to earth), and as long as all the necessary precautions are taken (design is right and tested with multiple redundant systems) and as long as astronauts on the mission are volunteers, why not?

I just don't see how they could safely get it into orbit 100% of the time. Even if the reactor is self contained and doesn't go up in a blast (which would be a hell of a chore itself), I'd imagine you'd have anywhere from a several hundred lb chunk to a several ton chunk, possibly even heavier (again, I have no idea how big of a reactor they would need for a shuttle, how they would implement the containment, or any other variables that we would need to take into account), falling to the earth. If this occurred on a remote island in the pacific, that wouldn't be that much of a problem, but aren't all shuttle launches out of FL?


I think for a trip to mars the actual ship/reactor would be assembled in space. There would be no active reactor during transport to orbit in a conventional shuttle. Hauling the reactor to space in a cargo bay should be no more dangerous than our nuclear bombers flying overhead.

Sounds like a good plan to me.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
I'm in favor of using nuclear reactors in space when it's cost-efficient and/or necessary, but I'm generally against a manned Mars mission at this time.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Originally posted by: quentinterintino
Satellites are already powered w/ radioisotopes. I suppose this could just be an extension of that. Where did you get your data for a 90 day trip -- what propulsion system?

The documentary did not say exactly what propulsion system, just nuclear powered. This was coming form a NASA JPL Doctor, for what thats worth. I'd have to watch it again to grab his name.

To be fair, there are a number of satellites and probes powered by radioactive isotopes, which there hasn't been a single accident or issue.

The nuclear powered submarines have their reactors sealed in such a way that the sub can actually be crushed in water pressure and sink to the bottle of the ocean without cracking open. If I remember correctly, the reactor from the USS Thresher is still sitting on the bottle of the ocean?

 

quentinterintino

Senior member
Jul 14, 2002
375
0
0
Originally posted by: Bateluer
Originally posted by: quentinterintino
Satellites are already powered w/ radioisotopes. I suppose this could just be an extension of that. Where did you get your data for a 90 day trip -- what propulsion system?

The documentary did not say exactly what propulsion system, just nuclear powered. This was coming form a NASA JPL Doctor, for what thats worth. I'd have to watch it again to grab his name.

To be fair, there are a number of satellites and probes powered by radioactive isotopes, which there hasn't been a single accident or issue.

The nuclear powered submarines have their reactors sealed in such a way that the sub can actually be crushed in water pressure and sink to the bottle of the ocean without cracking open. If I remember correctly, the reactor from the USS Thresher is still sitting on the bottle of the ocean?

Yeah - you don't have to sell me on the nuke concept (read my first post).

However, I have my reservations about how the nuclear aspect would allow the craft to travel faster than conventional launch/propulsion systems. It is certainly a good power source, but as far as propulsion I am clueless.