Difficulties of the Nuclear Powered Prometheus Project

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."

Comments

Just one problem...

[JScarpace]

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

Re:Just one problem...

[Kiriwas]

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.

Re:Just one problem...

[BigBir3d]

Just like last time...

1965

This is why we need manned missions...

[RobertB-DC]

Unless you buy into the notion that all the Mars probe failures were due to xenophobic Martians, we've recently witnessed several examples of unmanned, robotic craft turning into expensive piles of junk for reasons ranging from the sublime (legs bounced harder than expected) to the ridiculous (meters? feet? what's the difference?).

Contrast those catastrophic failures with events on human-occupied craft. Fires and collisions on Mir, and of course Apollo 13 for those who get their science from the local multiplex -- yet the craft kept flying, due to human involvement and ingenuity. The conclusion is clear: the more complex the system, the more likely you need a non-silicon-based intelligence to keep it from self-destructing.

To address the issue at hand: NASA wants to send a nuclear-powered spaceship to Jupiter? Cool, but you'd darned well better include a crew compartment, unless you *want* to see what happens during a space-based meltdown.

The bottom line is that there is no way to predict everything that can go wrong with any complex system. That's why we need more manned missions. Spend less money on absolutely "perfect" systems, and more on systems to support a human presence to fix it when it breaks.

After all, Captain Cook explored the south Pacific with nothing more than boats of wood, and men of iron. He also had a whip, and generous quantities of very strong beer...

Re:This is why we need manned missions...

[RobertB-DC]

And did the presence of humans help with Columbia or Challenger?

As cool as the shuttle program is, I'm afraid it's turned out to be another example of overengineering: so heavily dependent on supposedly failsafe systems that a single failure (O-ring, foam strike) destroys the entire system.

Contrast with the comparatively simple Soyuz launch system. It may seem primitive, but by golly, the thing usually works. And when it doesn't, you can still survive (though "15-17 Gs" doesn't sound like a picnic in the Russian countryside).

And the reference to Cook's terrestrial explorations has another parallel with space exploration: sailors on his ships (or any ship of the time) had no guarantee that they'd make it back home. They don't call it a "widow's walk" for nothing. I'm not sure we can get anywhere on the "new frontier" until we're able to accept the sort of losses that were common on the "old frontier".

Of course, this is easy to say, sitting in a comfy chair in an air-conditioned office, listening for the boss' footsteps so I can minimize my browser when she walks by...

Not A Lot

[turgid]

Firstly, unused nuclear fuel is not very radioactive relatively speaking and is not very toxic.
Secondly, the fuel can (and is) built into very strong and resilliant "cans" and can be further protected to the point that even a fall from a great height such as earth-orbit will not result in any radioactive release.
Thirdly, any engineer woth their salt will design the darned thing such that it will not start its nuclear reactor (when the nasty fission products start to be produced) until the craft is either a significant distance away from earth already, or has achieved escape velocity and can not fall back to earth.
I am a qualified nuclear engineer with several years reactor physics experience at a nuclear power station.

How about the damn name?

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

IIRC, Prometheus' story didn't exactly have a happy ending. (obSlashjoke: This project will surely open a Pandora's Box)
Maybe we could call it Magellan Mark IV or something a bit more optimistic?

--