Slashdot Mirror
Russia Plans Martian Nuclear Station
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that Russian scientists have announced plans to build a nuclear power station on Mars.
They say that all the necessary technical drawings have now been completed, and all will be ready for the construction work to begin. The power plant should be up and running by 2030."
And with all of the demand for a nuclear power plant on Mars, it's a miracle this wasn't created earlier!
...That way, at least SOMEONE will set foot on Mars in my lifetime. I mean, jeez, Arthur C. Clarke thought we'd be to Saturn by now, and we probably would be if we'd kept up what we were doing in the 60's.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
This is ridiculous, Russia can't afford the upkeep on the International Space Station, let alone Mars adventures, even with the international support the article mentions, this is just hot air. It may be prestigious to be the first nation with a base on Mars, but it just isn't going to happen for Russia in the next 30 years.
On the bright side, after Red Planet and Mission to Mars, they can 'Pull A Chernobyl' and it'll still be only the third worst Mars disaster ever.
Please help metamoderate.
All I'm expecting are jokes about soviet Russia. You think they'll post jokes about fucking, too?
The power plant should be up and running by 2030.
Power station timelines rock. I'd love to propose this kind of schedule for my projects.
"New Version? Sure, we should start beta testing in (deep, echoing voice) the year 2030."
-n-
The main thing that will worry most people is where the fuel is comming from.
Uranium may well be available on Mars, but I can't imagine they will have the facilities to mine it.
If that means they have to take it from Earth then it could be messy if a launch goes wrong.
That said, I guess they won't need much fuel, its not like there are going to be any big cities any time soon...
Spell checker (c) creative spelling inc. (aka my dyslexic brain)
What about the small problem of finding 6 people to go to Mars....
what about actually getting to Mars?
Do you need a website upgrade?
I have an idea: just launch nuclear missiles to mars and detonate on the surface. No need to manned misions, the same result. And we get the plus of a war with another planet to watch on CNN.
"I think this line is mostly filler"
Seriously, though, Russia can't even keep up payments on the ISS. No one in the world right now has any plans on how to ship a live human being to Mars (and have him remain live there). "Technical drawings" alone won't cut it; I have some technical drawings in my closet that show how to build an SSTO spacecraft out of crayons (I was in kindergarten at the time of this techincal breakthrough), but I am not holding my breath waiting for NASA to knock on my door.
>|<*:=
There is a Russian version of the article, in which there is this paragraph (in my translation):
The scientists admit that they have no idea how this [taking large pre-built components and delivering them 300 mln km away] can be achieved. However, they are certain that once the station starts operating, all future inhabitants of Mars will have plenty of electrical power for many years to come.
Now THIS is what I call vaporware. :)
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
I can see the headlines now:
All of Russia was plunged into total darkness tonight, when their Mars plant transmission lines were accidently severed by an orbiting Soyuz rocket piloted by a joyriding Lance Bass.
The world won't end in darkness, it'll end in family fun, with Coca-cola clouds behind a Big Mac sun.
Forget North Korea, now the Martians will have the bomb!
From article
From nasa:
Consider that radiation on Mars is very intense this should be a simple problem to solve. NOT!
I shouldn't say that. Human engineering has overcome much worse. I'm torn, though... a country that can produce very reliable Soyuz but at the same time consider shooting up one of the back street boys up there for the money.
Maybe they can do it. I am not holding my breath. This is a press release, not a reviewed plan.
Martians concerned over Russian nuke plans (October 5th, 2006)
Rocky Canyon, MARS - Local residents plan to block Russian efforts to build nuclear power plants on Mars. Fearing potential health risks from nuclear accidents and what they claim to be a spotty safety record from Russians, representatives of a coalition of Martian leaders plan to raise awareness of the issues and protect or attempt to block the Russian plans. "Not in my back yard!" claims local long-time resident Marvin the Martian, "We do not want an Earth-shattering kaboom on our planet. We have no demodulator for nuclear waste."
Local retiree, Flash Gordon, points out that other environmentally sound energy alternatives are available like geothermal and solar energy. "I don't understand why we should be the dumping ground for Earth's waste. I'm also concerned about their need to use what little water we have to cool their power plants. It sounds like a bad idea to me."
Russia's Nuclear Energy Ministry plans to send a delegation to the planet in 2010 to hold a series of public hearings and town meetings on the matter. "We hope that once the great people of Mars learn the facts about our advances in safety of nuclear energy, that they will welcome a new cheaper source of energy," informed Dr. Strangelove, interim leader of the earth-based planning and research committee. The spotty record of Terran nuclear safety is well known to Martians, including the well-known 20th century Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents and the San Onofre security incident last year.
Total Recall star and former California Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger is rumored to be an investor in the contruction company contracted by the Russian agency to develop the terra-forming technology required to build the power plant. When asked about his links between his commercial investments and campaign contributions to Russian elected officials, he withheld comment.
Mars and Earth are seperated by millions of miles, both literally and apparently in viewpoints about the nuclear project. We look forward to seeing if they can come closer together on this issue.
...but at the same time consider shooting up one of the back street boys up there for the money.
Don't be so quick to judge. We don't have any proof that they ever intended to return him.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
It seems extremely conservative to me that Russia would take 30 years to get to Mars, especially considering their stated plan is to build a reactor - they'll get to Mars faster if the reactor is in fact what gets them to Mars in the first place.
The U.S. has had a working nuclear rocket engine for forty years, according to a PDF on the ROVER/Nerva project off this page. These are relatively simple engines which shoot hydrogen out the back.
Of course the reference to "already built" is bizarre, who cares if it is already built if they are going to take 30 years to do it? No reason to mention that unless maybe they are talking about tested submarine reactors.
Of course the U.S. has a deal according to this March 2003 article to get Russian nuclear rocket fuels for the nuclear rocket program of Project Prometheus through 2009.
This pdf says that using the NERVA rockets of the 1970s we could get to the moon in a day, or to Mars in 4 months. The article by a Los Alamos researcher is interesting as it talks about the social problems versus technical problems. In all it seems that the nuclear rocket costs half as much, is twice as powerful, and is safe (at least from this paper it seems that reactor core products stay in the reactor). Also from about page 21 there is an interesting section on radiation and human exploration.
It talks about using a gas core nuclear rocket (GCNR) in which we are talking about how to shield crew from radiation in flight, not on the ground, but that this will mean we can get to and from Mars in much less than NASA's planned (1998) mission of 3 years. With a specific impulse of over 3000 seconds, a GCNR ship can have a 3 month transit to Mars, 2 months on the planet, and 4 months back - thus reducing psychological stress factors by keeping the mission to 6-7 months' duration.
There is also the physical deterioration from a long flight.. Apparently the current U.S.-Russia program is aiming for even better, perhaps 2 months each way using small reactors for an unlimited fuel supply and three times better propulsion.
More info:
link
link
link
pro-nuclear space space group with more information