Last time something nuclear dropped from the air it didn't turn out too well for those on the ground.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
The idea is to get around a basic problem with rockets. That is, in order to make the rocket move to the left, you have to eject mass out the back. Using chemical rockets it turns out you need to carry a lot of fuel. Now the faster you eject the fuel, the less you need. With new ion engines, you can take a small amount of mass and eject it out the back very very fast. This reduces the amount of fuel (it's not really fuel as it doesn't supply energy) you need to carry, hence reducing the weight. You don't get a lot of thrust from these engines (at least not with current technology), but with a sufficient source of electricity (eg a reactor) you can let it run for a very long time.
The other reason for nuclear reactors in space is just to supply power. Solar power loses efficiency as you move away from the sun, RTGs are much less efficient than reactors and chemicals take up too much space and have too much mass.
I think Cassini was the last nuclear powered spacecraft launched, there was some controversy but nothing very big. (my signature is in that thing, woot)
There really isn't much danger considering how safe modern nuclear weapons are today. If we can make a warhead so safe, making a reactor at least as safe shouldn't be impossible.
The oceans are also filled will nuclear reactors in in ships and submarines, no outcry there nor fear mongering.
There really isn't much danger considering how safe modern nuclear weapons are today. If we can make a warhead so safe, making a reactor at least as safe shouldn't be impossible.
The oceans are also filled will nuclear reactors in in ships and submarines, no outcry there nor fear mongering.
Propulsion system is simple - Ion engines. An ionise gas is stored in tanks at the rear of the craft. Electricity from the reactor powers electromagnets which force the ionised gas out of engines that are direction adjustable. Only thing is I'm not really sure how large a tank you would need to get to Mars. The tank could then be refueled at Mars using the atmosphere, the gas would be ionised using power from the reactor and the whole process repeated.
Oh yeah, patent pending
(not really, I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this).
Oh yeah, patent pending
(not really, I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this).Yea that's the Orion experiment, but there's also ion engines and other high velocity particle engines. I think I've seen some stuff on fusion engines too - anyone got info on this?
Isnt there radiation in outterspace? Isnt that why they makes space suits, so that it doesnt penitrate the suite and kill the astronut. So what is there to lose?
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,600
- 1,005
- 126
They make missles that don't post a threat even when a plane carrying them or a rocket with a nuclear warhead goes down. As long as they aren't armed there is little risk of fallout. Couldn't they transport the necessary materials up to orbit and then assemble and activate the nuclear reactor in space?
Captante
Lifer
- Oct 20, 2003
- 30,354
- 10,881
- 136
This was the first thing that I thought of ... what process of faulty logic would conclude that its fine to have Nuclear powered vessels cruising around within the Earths atomosphere, but too dangerous to have them operate outside of it? (assuming of course they arn't being built in earth orbit where they could potentially fall back to earth & contaminate huge areas)
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
I wouldn't care, but, uhh, what's the purpose of sending a manned mission to mars/moon/anywhere else (except to satisfy the current president's lust to seem like he cares about science; when in reality, he doesn't.)
Everything on this planet and what we do in space should be powered directly or indirectly by nuclear energy. Fossil fuels keep us owned.
mooncancook
Platinum Member
- May 28, 2003
- 2,874
- 50
- 91
Unlike submarines and carriers, launching and landing spaceship is too risky if nuclear power is involved. I think it'll be much safer if they can launch the nuclear thing from the moon, and have a regular rocket-powered spaceship to travel between the Earch and the Moon.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageAhh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs o
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageAhh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs of having a liquid ocean beneath its cracked, largely crater-free surface.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Syringer[/b][/i]
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..[/quote]
They did high atmosphere nuclear tests in the mid 20th century. A fission-powered spacecraft could no more explode in a mushroom cloud than a nuclear power plant could. And FYI, nuclear power plants simply cannot do this. There isn't enough fissile material present in the core to reach critical mass. Either that, or it's not arranged in a fashion that allows a single critical mass to form.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]waggy[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
We've got other problems, in the form of cosmic radiation and solar radiation. Stuff like that could kill anyone headed to Mars. Solve those problems, and a little local uranium-generated radiation shouldn't be a problem.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]BigJ[/b][/i]
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?[/quote]
As I understand it, the RTG's used now are encased in ceramic, and are able to survive re-entry and impact.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]dlock13[/b][/i]
Chernobyl all over again. <img src=---i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif--- border=---0--->[/quote]
Nope. Chernobyl happened because of many operator screw ups and poor maintenance.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]silverpig[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
I think they might use the nuclear energy to drive a powerful ion engine and very powerful science instruments. Instead of relying on heat generated by a small amount of plutonium, with only a few hundred watts available, a fission reactor could provide many kilowatts. Cassini, which has 3 RTGs (which BTW did not crash into Earth and kill anyone), that give the spacecraft a total of about 700 watts.
With many kilowatts available, very powerful instruments could be used, including high intensity radar to scan deep below the surface, as well as a high bandwidth antenna to send back the huge amounts of data collected.
The project you refer to, I believe that was the Orion Project. Not my idea of a good one.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]potato28[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Water is still very heavy. One of the ways of shielding against interplanetary radiation is with a spherical shell of water. But it'd be so heavy that 1) launching it would be insanely expensive, and 2) Propelling it would be nearly impossible.
Uranium - I don't think we'd be talking about a lot of the stuff. And to reference Cassini again, look at its launch stats:
Launch mass: 5,574 kilograms
That's 2,442 kilograms of spacecraft and 3,132 kilograms (6,905 pounds) fuel.
The critical mass of low-grade uranium is as much as 600kg. And look at how much energy you can get out of that. Now use high grade uranium (less than 50kg required for critical mass), keep it separated so it can never form a ball of critical mass, or simply use much less than that, and slowly release that energy. That's a huge amount of energy to power an ion engine, which uses comparatively little xenon, to accelerate a probe to very high speeds, and still have plenty of power to use for incredible amounts of scientific exploration.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: [b]Gibsons[/b][/i]
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.[/quote]
Same here. My usual arguments against it:
- Humans need food. Robots don't mind being idle for long periods of time, without using any energy.
- Humans need space. Robots can be folded up in a tiny volume with no extra room. [L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh,[L=pportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg--->Example]http://en.wikipedia.org/
iki/Image[IMG]Ahh, the Prometheus Project, rest in peace.
It could have sent powerful Flagship class missions to Jupiter. I would have loved to see a special mission to look at Europa. It's got plenty of signs o
No, not completetly opposed, but we need to figure a cheaper way to get ships, materials, people, etc. off of the Earth first.
At this point, i don't see any reason to send humans to Mars. Robots can do alot till we get better/more efficient in reaching other planets consistantly.
Here's an article on various propulsion methods, though it's aimed at more of long distance flight.
It's a couple of years old but has some info on both fission & fusion propulsion.
Text
At this point, i don't see any reason to send humans to Mars. Robots can do alot till we get better/more efficient in reaching other planets consistantly.
Here's an article on various propulsion methods, though it's aimed at more of long distance flight.
It's a couple of years old but has some info on both fission & fusion propulsion.
Text
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Sorry about the Wikipedia link there. Every time I try to post it, it screws up the link and part of my post, and now I can't edit my post.
"Ooops! You encountered an error, we have let the webmaster know about the problem."
I think the colon in the link might be the problem. Maybe.
As a bonus, it apparently put the entire content of my post into the screwed up link.
Here's the link at NASA's Photojournal
"Ooops! You encountered an error, we have let the webmaster know about the problem."
I think the colon in the link might be the problem. Maybe.
As a bonus, it apparently put the entire content of my post into the screwed up link.
Here's the link at NASA's Photojournal
The poll only demonstrates how little ATOT knows about nuclear fission. The average distance between any region that an astronaut typically visits and the engine (aka nuclear reactor) is more than enough shielding room. You'd save a lot of mass from not requiring rocket propellant and the mission could go on almost indefinitely. The risks are almost nonexistant.
Obviously the nuclear reactor would not be active during the shuttle lunch, I don't see why that would be necessary. The shuttle lunch will be as usual, the nuclear reactor would only be used once the shuttle has reached space. The only risk is the rocket exploding and spreading a small amount of nuclear material around. But guess what? We've launched nuclear material into space dozens of times already without incident. To be honest, even if the rocket holding the fuel did explode and spread some radioactive materials around, this would be no worse than the average radiation exposure we receive from cosmic ray showers throughout the year anyway.
Obviously the nuclear reactor would not be active during the shuttle lunch, I don't see why that would be necessary. The shuttle lunch will be as usual, the nuclear reactor would only be used once the shuttle has reached space. The only risk is the rocket exploding and spreading a small amount of nuclear material around. But guess what? We've launched nuclear material into space dozens of times already without incident. To be honest, even if the rocket holding the fuel did explode and spread some radioactive materials around, this would be no worse than the average radiation exposure we receive from cosmic ray showers throughout the year anyway.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter