Nuclear 'Asteroids' Due In A Few Hundred Years

easyCoder writes "In this space.com article, it mentions a RORSAT satellite that has been leaking radioactive coolant, leaving little droplets of it in orbit around our planet. However, further down, it also mentions this, quoted here for maximum impact: 'After a RORSATs tour-of-duty was over, the reactor's fuel core was shot high above Earth into a "disposal orbit." Once at that altitude the power supply unit would take several hundred years before it reentered the Earth's atmosphere.' Wow. So ... our great-grandchildren can expect a lovely day, partly cloudy with the occasional nuclear reactor plummeting down from outer space."

Comments

They'll be able to deal with it....

[dew-genen-ny]

....in a couple of hundred years, I'd be most depressed if they can't deal with a small nuclear reactor falling back to earth.

I mean we're meant to be progressing in our knowledge and abilities, no?

Re:They'll be able to deal with it....

[RallyNick]

Not only that they're likely to be able to handle them without huge costs, but the most dangerous radioactive components will probably be gone by that time. So you'll have a bunch of somewhat harmless spent uranium burning in the atmosphare and spreading over a wide area.

Re:They'll be able to deal with it....

[WuphonsReach]

Unless it happens within a short time-frame (e.g. less then 6 months) where we suddenly go from 100% production to 0% production (which is highly unlikely), there should be plenty of reaction time to make the adjustment. You'll have at least a few years where the cost of raw oil slowly rises, probably with periodic price shocks. Perhaps as long as a decade or two.

During the adjustment time, as oil gets more expensive, it will become more cost-efficient to use oil to make alternative energy sources rather then directly burning oil. This, of course, will drive down the manufacturing/deployment costs of alternative energy sources (mass production instead of one-ofs). Which will re-inforce the cycle and make oil-based energy even less cost-effective.

So yes, there will be a period of adjustment, but barring global catastrophes, it won't be the end of the world as we know it.

Re:They'll be able to deal with it....

[mwood]

Indeed.

There are people who are environmentalists because they're sincerely concerned about our descendants having a nice place to live and they see a way to do something about that.

There are people who are environmentalists because they were going to be scared to death about *something* and environmental damage is as good as anything else.

There are people who are environmentalists because they hate big business and this is a way to hurt big businesses.

There are people who are environmentalists because they're confused by technology and want a weapon to keep it away.

There are people who are environmentalists because some other political party is vulnerable to environmental scandals.

There are apparently even people who are environmentalists because they despise their own species and see a good way to make us all suffer.

I have a great deal of respect for the first group. As for the rest, the best I can say is that I find *some* of them pitiable rather than contemptible.

Whine, whine.

[momerath2003]

A little radiation won't kill anyone. Sheesh. The amount of radiation released by the NaK coolant drops (especially after being vaporized on hitting the atmosphere) will be negligible.

Once again, the media makes a big deal out of a little thing.

(Note that this doesn't excuse the Soviets' lack of foresight on the reactor. Then again, they did manage Chernobyl...)

Re:A good example against nuclear powered *

[DAldredge]

Yea, because the only thing that comes out of the current Solid Rockets we use is rainbows and perfume...

Re:Simple-minded solution

[r5t8i6y3]

We do not inherit the world from our parents; we borrow it from our children
- American Indian Proverb

Re:Lets keep this a secret

[Spyffe]

The spent fuel will burn up in the atmosphere, disintegrating into small particles. It will spread out and deliver a dose probably less than what you get in a doctor's office from an X-ray machine.

The posting of this article to Slashdot is FUD, pure and simple, as is most anti-nuclear propaganda. Radioactive material, like all other toxins, requires a certain concentration to be lethal. The danger is only to spacecraft, and that from collisions.

Re:why this is hooey

[debest]

Not only that, but it is a fallacy that the earth will ever "run out" of oil. What we will run out of is easily obtainable oil. Oil that requires refining out of oil sands deposits are going to be far more expensive to produce than a nice oil well, but is in far, FAR greater supply on this earth. Where oil will continue to be needed (where an alternate fuel or source is not practical), oil will always be there.

Re:Lets keep this a secret

[AKAImBatman]

If things like this are being handled so sloppily now, what else is being irresponsibly handled?

If it was nuclear and built by the Soviets, it was probably handled irresponsibly. NASA has *never* flown an automated reactor in orbit, and the deep space probes with RTGs (a passive power generation system that works by converting the heat generated by Plutonium into electricity) have nearly all had the RTG packaged in an indestructable black-box.

What's that? You were trying to blame the Americans for this? You didn't read the article? Oh. Sorry to burst your bubble.