Slashdot Mirror
Lockheed Martin to Build Nuclear Powered Spacecraft
LouisvilleDebugger writes "The BBC reports that Lockheed Martin have received a $6M contract to develop the nuclear powered
JIMO, or Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. (According to the NASA project site, the first probes would not launch before 2011 due to development lead time.) On arrival at Jupiter, the extra power allows the probe to orbit each of three of the Galilean moons (Ganymede, Callisto, and most challenging from a radiation exposure standpoint, Europa) in turn, presumably helping to establish the possibility of liquid water and hence, life within the Jovian system. JIMO is a sub-project of Project Prometheus, initiated by NASA this year for the purpose of demonstrating that nuclear powered and propelled spacecraft may be safely designed and tested."
Should that have said 6 Million? You can't build anything these days for 6 million. Hell, payroll alone will be 6 million.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
maybe this thing would have a chance of getting off the ground. Unfortunately the enviroloonies, are so terrified of the word 'nuclear' that any project that has it attached will get protested into the ground...
Black and grey are both shades of white.
Oh oh, aren't we suppost to leave Europa alone after 2010? The Monolith is going to be pissed!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
On arrival at Jupiter, the extra power allows the probe to orbit each of three of the Galilean moons (Ganymede, Callisto, and most challenging from a radiation exposure standpoint, Europa) in turn, presumably helping to establish the possibility of liquid water and hence, life within the Jovian system.
The probe will then dump its nuclear waste onto these moons, thereby killing that life.
I'm pretty sure the material is well-protected. Also, nuclear-powered space-probes have already been launched (V'ger, Viking landers too I think).
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Two things: they don't state COMPLETELY safe--nothing is that. What if your steering goes out tomorrow while your driving? What if your gas tank leaks and you blow up? What if...?
Second, the chances of it blowing up in the air a la Challenger are slim. Granted it only takes once, but hey, there's no guarantee we'll all wake up tomorrow without some idiot gassing the planet.
The fact is that there are myriad possibilities for disaster in any big project, and the only thing any one person can do is to try to prepare for eventualities. Don't shoot down a project like this simply because it's nuclear. We all hear that word and think of Cherynobl (spelling?), Hiroshima and similar incedents. But just because it is nuclear powered doesn't mean that it's going to end like K-19: Widowmaker.
Think abou this: if we can do this it will forward research about our solar system by a long shot, which is something we must have if we ever hope to explore further out.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Inverse square wave is a mother, ain't it?
meh.
...a small, strangely coffee-grinder-like device labeled "Mr. Fusion."
The coolest voice ever.
What if the launch goes wrong quite late and the nuclear reactor hits, for example, North-Korea.. That would be quite stressing for diplomats, no?
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Nothing's completely safe. Fossil fuels aren't safe. Hydrogen isn't safe. Cows' bad breath will be the death of us all. Life is a risk-management exercise. So is designing space vehicles.
I work with some of the folks who are responsible for safety matters regarding hazardous/radioactive material aboard spacecraft. Believe me when I tell you that the utmost importance is placed on the "what-if's" of any given launch failure mode. The containers that house the radioactive material are ridiculously well scrutinized and tested, the failure scenarios are taken into consideration, including atmospheric dispersion of debris from a launch failure.
We've used plutonium powered modules for years now as a source of long-lasting (30 years or so) electrical power. Those capsules are some of the toughest, most durable, explosion-proof, reentry-proof items ever created.
For example, for one space mission, 25 sample power capsules were made for testing by using them as artillery projectiles fired by a cannon into a solid concrete wall. This induced many times the stress these capsules would ever see in even the most horrific failure of the launch vehicle. Of the 25, only one showed any sign of a stress-related crack. This tiny crack set into motion a full review of the capsule manufacturing process, a study of the atmospheric effects of a failed launch vehicle, and other safety-related processes that delayed the launch for about a year.
Whereas these newer power sources are going to be a challenge, they'll be well thought out, or they won't go.
The radiation environment at Europa is a challenge to design around. Sending the craft to Io would probably require so much more radiation shielding for the electronics (ie weight) as to make the mission infeasible.
Also, recent studies have indicated that Callisto and Ganymede might contain subterranean water, making the possibility of life greater there than at Io.
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
Hey now, I live in Hampton Roads, VA pretty close to Northropt Grumman/Newport News Shipbuilding where they build nuclear subs and carriers. You don't see me scratching my third head and worrying about one of the boats sinking do you?
-
It looks like nobody has said this yet, so I'll pitch in -- the Cassini space probe, which was launched on October 15, 1997, was also nuclear-powered. There were protests around NASA right before the launch took place, but it went up anyway without a hitch.
According to JPL's Cassini "safety" page, they explain that the probe is powered by three radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) which provide energy by the natural radioactive decay of Pu-238. This isn't fission or fusion at work, but merely the harvesting of heat generated by the radioactive decay. The big question for environmentalists (and NASA) was whether these RTGs would remain contained in the event of a launch disaster.
The big difference between the RTGs of Cassini and the nuclear technology in JIMO is that JPL wants to have a full-fledged nuclear fission reactor this time around. This would obviously provide a lot more power for the mission, at the expense of extreme public scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how this situation pans out.
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Lots of spacecraft have been nuclear powered. This one will use nuclear energy to create propulsion. That's the new part.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Absolutely everywhere on Earth that there is liquid water, there is life. As long as there is liquid water, life can exist in virtually any environment, deriving power from oxygen, sunlight, sulfide, nitrate, whatever. Life can exist under extreme pressure conditions, hyper-saline conditions, even radioactive conditions.
If we found liquid water on Europa and there was no life, an excellent research question would be, "why not? why is Earth special?". So either way, interesting results would be returned.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
In any case, building a nuclear containment vessel strong enough to withstand external fire followed by a terminal-velocity plunge in to the sea is quite possible. Also, the material in an unstarted (uranium) nuclear reactor is not all that radiotoxic. You wouldn't want to handle it for long periods without protective clothing, but it has nothing like the lethality of plutonium or nuclear waste. Once the reactor has been running a little while it becomes much more dangerous, but I guess they plan to start the main reactor from a much smaller (hot) neutron source once the thing is a safe distance from the Earth.
Electric Propulsion (Ion Propulsion)
Take Xenon or Krypton, use some electrical energy to ionize it, and use some more electrical energy to propel the ions out the back of your spacecraft much faster than you could ever propel the products of chemical combustion. Thus you get more momentum, gram for gram of propellant, than you would get from chemical propulsion.
Solar electric propulsion has been done before, such as Deep Space 1. But for going out to Jupiter with such a large payload, the Sun's energy is just not enough.
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
THE LIABILITY TREATY
The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, the Liability Treaty, sets the minimum standards for establishing the liability for space faring nations for launch or spaceflight activities which could cause health, property, or environmental damage outside the launching state's borders.
The treaty, written in 1972, assigns the liability for a spacecraft causing damage to the Earth or to an airplane to the launching state regardless of fault. Damaged property must be restored to prior condition in accordance with international law and the principles of justice and equity. If a spacecraft collides with another spacecraft in space the liability is assigned based on the determination of negligence or malicious intent and the damages awarded as determined by international law.
If the launching state wishes to contest the damage award with the damaged state, the Liability Treaty states that both nations should go first through diplomatic channels and, if no satisfaction or resolution is achieved, a claims commission can be established. No case has ever gotten to this point. In fact, there has only been one case handled under the Liability Treaty: Cosmos 954.
Cosmos 954 was a Soviet Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellite (RORSAT) which was powered by a nuclear reactor. Previous Soviet missions using such technology would split the reactor from the parent body of the spacecraft and boost the radioactive material into a higher orbit where the reactor would remain for more than 600 years which was well beyond the life of the radioactive material. Cosmos 954 had a special problem; it went out of control and the technicians were unable to separate the reactor from the spacecraft's parent body.
In late January 1978, Cosmos 954 came crashing into the Great Slave Lake area of Canada spewing debris along a 500 mile footprint. As luck would have it the radioactive portion of the craft fell near a trapper's camp. The trapper looked at the unusual phenomenon and then left it alone. The Canadian Air Force later found the piece and the trapper and took both back to Yellowknife, N.T. where the trapper was found to be in good health and the reactor pieces were impounded. After the cleanup, the Canadian Government sent a $15 million bill to the Soviets. The Soviets paid less than half of this amount and agreed not to take back the spacecraft. The Canadians were happy with the amount they received and were happier still that the Soviets had acknowledged the spacecraft's existence. The Soviets had abided by the Liability Treaty.
For those who wonder why Jupiters moons are interesting, and worth visiting, I'll try to give a brief summary here. JIMO will be visiting Jupiters four Galilean moons, named after their initial discovery by Galileo Galilei (through his now-famous telescope). In order of distance from Jupiter, they are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.
Io is the only moon in the solar system to show volcanic activity; plumes of gas ejected from its volcanos, rising up to 250km above the surface, have been detected from Earth. The energy to keep the interior of Io molten comes from the tidal friction generated as the moon moves through Jupiter's strong gravitation field. Io is a great laboratory for understanding volcanic activity in general.
Europa, the next moon out, is one of the most likely places for life to exist in the Solar System (excepting, of course, Earth). Images of the moon reveal a very smooth surface (in fact, the smoothest in the Solar System), criss-crossed by long, narrow, straight features. These features appear to be fissures in the surface; combined with the fact that the surface is almost pure ice (which we know from spectroscopy studies), it appears that Europa may have a large sub-surface ocean of liquid water, covered by a crust of ice.
Support for the existence of this ocean comes from the discovery of ice rafts on the surface, much like found in polar regions on Earth, and from the detection of a weak magnetic field by the Galileo spacecraft. Europa is too small to have its own magnetic field, but if it contains a large quantity of conducting fluid (such as water with a high concentration of dissolved minerals), then its motion through Jupiters magnetic field will generate a field of its own.
The significance of the sub-surface water on Europa is that liquid water is one of the principal prerequesites for life (as we know it). Speculation as to whether life does indeed exist on Europa is ongoing; to find out, a cryobot/hydrobot mission to the moon is required. The cryobot would melt its way through the icy crust, and the hydrobot would descend through this hole and explore the oceans underneath. Interest incryobot/hydrobot technology was spurred on by the discovery of Lake Vostok in Antarctica, the world's fourth-largest freshwater lake, which is trapped under 2km of ice sheet, and may contain prehistoric lifeforms.
Ganymede is the largest moon in the Solar System, larger even than the planet Mercury. Both Ganymede and Callisto have heavily-cratered surfaces, indicative of millenia of meteorite bombardment. Both are a mixture of rock and ice, although the detection of a weak magnetic field around Callisto indicates that it may have a sub-surface ocean, like Europa. The existence of this ocean is puzzling, since Callisto is too far from Jupiter for tidal heating to be able to melt ice. Some have suggested that Calliso's ocean contains an antifreeze (maybe ammonia), which keeps the water liquid well below its normal solidification temperature.
IMHO, I think Europa is the jewel in the crown of the Galilean moons, due to the possibility that life may exist there. Unfortunately, as one can tell from JIMO's full name (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter), there are no plans to land on this fascinating world. In "2010: Odyssey Two", Arthur C. Clarke writes about a manned landing on Europa which discovers life; it would be great for me to see this happen in my lifetime, let alone by 2010.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Roddenberry's timeline would have been 100% accurate except that a generation of engineers wasted 10 years watching a TV show instead of living it.
Oh, and for all those who believe that we should be designing a manned mission to Mars, let me be perfectly clear:
The only way we will get humans to Mars will be using nuclear propulsion and nuclear power sources(RTGs). Period.
And for those who question the safety of launching RTGs... this link describes the cases where this has already happened. RTGs have survived abort detonations of REAL missions right after launch with no radiation leakage. They have also survived re-entry (Apollo 13) with no leakage. The safety technology is mature and works.
This is our only ticket for orbitter missions to the outer planets.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Greenpeace reports that between 1950 and 1993 there have been 380 nuclear weapons accidents, some involving the accidental "dirty bomb" incidents, such as the dispersion of nuclear materials over Palomares in southern Spain.
Now according to the the National Human Radiobiology Tissue Repository who studied the Palomares incident as well as many other cases, a 78 year old person with elevated Pu in their bones will only have a 0.14285 probability of dying this year, whereas a normal american 78 year old will have an average probaility of dying this year of 0.12780.
We're already dropping nuclear material all over ourselves, and for the most part, you aren't going to hear about it until it's declassified.
Furthermore, have you been to Hiroshima and stood under the peace dome? Have you seen the children playing in the schools at Nagasaki?
The oppertunites for using peaceful nuclear power to explore space far outweigh the risks. Those accidents haven't degraded my environmental quality. I'm sure that a deliberate attack on myself would, but even that will heal with time.
We are talking about the power to reach out and travel the cosmos.
the chinese ming Emperor Zhu Di built a massive navy which traded extensively in the pacific, reached africa and almost discovered america.
When Emperor Zhu died, his sucessor was advised to lessen the tax burden of the navy, and burned all the ships. Result? Other more outward looking seafaring nations whipped them.
If we don't have deep space capability, then we are dead meat when we come across those who do. Especially if they are ex-earth colonists who decide to return. No chance of benevolance through alien genetics there.
There's more information on space-based reactors to b e used in the Jupiter mission at:
s .h tm
http://spacescience.nasa.gov/missions/prometheu
The reactor uses slightly enriched uranium, not plutonium, and is launched 'cold'. The uranium 'fuel' is much less toxic than plutonium. This type of fuel cannot be used to construct a fission bomb, as it contains far too low a concentration of U-235 to produce a nuclear explosion.
The reactor is launched 'cold', in a shut down state. That means that during launch, there will be no fission reaction products present. The reaction products are the biggest hazard with nuclear fuel, being both radioactive and chemically reactive, prone to dispersing throughout an environment if released. (Radioactive iodine and cesium isotopes being probably the best known examples.) The reactor is not started up until the spacecraft is on an interplanetary trajectory.
This is not a new technology. The SNAP-10A space reactor power system was launched in 1965. Methods for protecting and encapsulating the fuel elements to prevent dispersal or leakage are well known and tested. (These methods will survive explosions during the launch, as well as uncontrolled re-entry from orbit.)
Why is everyone so afraid of a little bit of radioactivity? Folks, especially slashdotters with the capability to read technical stuff and work with powers of ten, should just look at the issue a bit.
Radioactive material is toxic. So is rocket exhaust. So are zillions of other things in our environment, including all sorts of natural stuff in our food and our air. There is nothing magic or mysterious about radioactivity toxicity.
Your smoke detector contains a radioactive pellet. If you don't eat the thing, you are fine. Even if you do, you are probably okay (if a bit crazy). Dust contains radioactive materials. A large number of nuclear bombs have been exploded in the atmosphere, release lots of plutonium and other radioactive elements (the things are nowhere close to 100% efficient). We are still alive. Phosphorous products often have a raised level of radioactivity. If you are a camper with a Coleman lantern, the lantern mantles are radioactive. If you fly in an airplane or go to high altitudes (Denver, anyone), you are exposed to a lot of ionizing radiation (compared to sea level). Like getting a tan? You get it from ionizing radiation( UV rays).
Unless you are a fool, you wouldn't eat a gram of cyanide. Likewise, I wouldn't recommend eating a gram of a space probe's nuclear reactor. But that isn't going to happen!
Even if all the material were released into the environment (which is highly unlikely), the chances of harm to any one person are extremely low. You would experience far more danger driving to see the launch or just plugging in your computer!
Since the reactor is not activated until it is well away from earth, at launch it contains only uranium. Uranium is all over the place. Here in the Phoenix, AZ area there are significant concentrations in the soil in many areas where people live. My geiger counter gets 26 counts per minute in my driveway, but only 16 counts if it is sitting on top of the engine block of my car in the driveway. Wow! My driveway is radioactive. I guess I am doomed!
The uranium in a never fired nuclear reactor is no more dangerous than the uranium in soil - it is just more concentrated and has a different isotopic ratio (enriched reactor uranium is not more radioactive than unenriched - it just has a more U-235 (and less U-238). If it is dispersed in an explosion, it is no more dangerous than a dust storm here in this large metropolian area!
Anti-nuclear activists, a totally innumerate and scientifically ignorant press, the irrational conflation of nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and the unwillingness of people to look seriously at the issue have created a nuclear phobia in much of the western world.
The only good weather is bad weather.
As mentioned earlier, there seems to be some confusion about what sort of nuclear power we are talking about.
There are three types of nuclear "power" sources in space.
Radioisotope power- this generates electricity because the decay of the isotope heats a thermocouple junction that generates a voltage. I'll bet this is the kind they are using on the spacecraft in question, and it has been used on many other spacecraft, including the Voyager series. Not much isotope is needed, so even if the spacecraft crashes, minimal contamination would occur.
Nuclear reactor power- another way to generate electricity in space is to have a full fledged nuclear reactor onboard the spacecraft. These designs are *very* cool. Generally they use liquid sodium as the conduction medium. Remember, mass is the determining factor in the design. To my knowledge these have never been actually used in space.
Nuclear powered rocket- the most cool rocket ever. Uses a nuclear reactor, that has hydrogen gas "fuel" running through it, superheating that gas. The gas is then ejected out the nozzle at super high speed to provide thrust. There is no electricity generation involved. As mentioned earlier, these rockets are banned by a treaty. None have every launched to my knowledge.