Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Difficulties of the Nuclear Powered Prometheus Project

Posted by michael on from the nukes-in-space dept.

brandido writes "Space.com is reporting on some of the technological difficulties facing the nuclear powered Prometheus Project. In particular, it is focusing on the fact that the Prometheus project promises to represent a paradigm shift in the capabilities of interplanetary probes. Such a large shift in capabilities entails the development of new technologies and designs, a process that is often full of mishaps and setbacks."

6 of 54 comments (clear)

  1. Just one problem... by JScarpace · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What happens when something like the Challenger disaster occurs to a launch vehicle carrying a nuclear reactor?

    1. Re:Just one problem... by Kiriwas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As far as I know, there are protective measures you can take surrounding the actually nuclear material. There's no doubt it will come tumbling out of the sky, but it won't be radioactive dust, it will be more like a giant, heavy metal box that goes BANG..still fully encased. We've been building enclosures to keep explosions INSIDE for years, I see no reason we can't build enclosures to keep explosions OUTSIDE.

    2. Re:Just one problem... by stripe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reading those articles makes me admire mankinds ingenuiy, to be able to build robotic explorers of such capabilities. It also makes me despondent over how those with irrational fears limit us. There is a significantly greater chance of a nuke being set off delibrately in a city by madmen than one of these nuclear powered spacecraft hitting a city. Radioactive pollution of Mars? Wake up guys, its pretty much a dead planet! Landing probes on those icy moons will give us the greatest possiblity of finding life off the earth. Given the Mars rocks we have found on Earth I would not be too surprised to find standard DNA out in space. We have had enough big meteorite hits on Earth to spread quite a few Earth rocks to the other planets and moons.

  2. fuel? by bobba22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the nuclear reactor is meant to provide energy to the ion thrusters, what fuel will the ion thrusters be using? If the project is meant to last for decades thanks to nuke, it would take a lot of xenon to supply the ions. Surely the decaying ions would not provide enough for thrust, if re-used in that way? Or can solid fuels be vapourised by the heat of the reactor? I quite like the idea of the reactor rods (or whatever) blasting themselves into space with electricity they've just generated.

  3. Re:Space Isn't About Science, Its About Migration by RobertB-DC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your comment is accurate, but depressing.

    The early explorations of the Americas, IIRC, were intended to 1) find a shorter route from point A to point B, 2) exploit the resources, and 3) establish settlements. Unfortunately, none of these lead directly to getting more manned missions:

    1) Space, like the American continents, isn't a shortcut to anywhere (although communicaions satellites do provide a "shortcut" for information -- but not people).

    2) It's still cheaper to rape Earth-bound resources than it is to mine an asteroid (unless it's made of solid gold, of course).

    3) In the countries that currently have the ability to launch manned rockets, life just isn't miserable enough to leave -- at least, not on a rocket.

    I'm very encouraged by the development of manned rocketry by countries like China and India -- where there *are* conditions miserable enough for people to make a Mayflower-like pilgrimage to the stars in search of a better life. I don't see boatloads of US citizens lining up to launch into space to avoid road rage.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  4. Re:Nice idea, no chance it'll fly. by anthonyrcalgary · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey, they've revived the concept of nuclear powered aircraft. They're talking about a nuclear version of the predator UAV. Apparently it will use decay stimulated by x-rays rather than a critical mass, so it'll be contain substantial quantities of radioactive material even before it's switched on.

    This thing will spend it's service life on or very near Earth, and when it's shot down, this is where the shit will land. Which has a higher risk, launching something once, or spending months at a time in combat areas for the next 10 years?

    Of course, we apparently don't care because that'll happen in the Terrorist's (tm) back yard, not ours.

    --
    When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.