Are Nuclear Powered Mars Rovers a Good Idea?

meatybeans writes "NASA officials are meeting today, with concerned residents around Cape Canaveral, regarding the power system for the upcoming Mars Science Lab mission. MSL is going to be like our current rovers on steroids. The plans call for a larger, heavier rover with a lot more juice for gadgets. This meeting however brings to light the issue of the power system for the MSL. The Mars Science Lab originally called for a nuclear power source, much like the Cassini and New Horizon missions use. Some vocal opposition to this has been voiced in the past. As a result, NASA has backup plans to employ solar power and small amounts of RTG's ^? if arguments against straight nuclear for MSL win out. As with most, things 'NIMBY' ^? seems to be in full effect when it comes RTG's. Does the recent success of the rovers show us that RTG's are not needed for Mars exploration? Are 1:420 odds of an accident that bad? Finally, are the hearings that are taking place between NASA and the public really just a formality in the name of public relations?"

Comments

Yes

[6Yankee]

Of course it's a good idea! Ship all the evil nukuler stuff to Mars and the terrrrrists can't get their hands on it!

For now.

Re:Yes

[Chelloveck]

Of course it's a good idea! Ship all the evil nukuler stuff to Mars and the terrrrrists can't get their hands on it!

Yeah, we tried that seven years ago, and ended up blowing the moon clear out of its orbit. Now you want the same for Mars?

Unnecessary

[tygerstripes]

Why don't they just use batteries? I hear Sony has a surplus.

Re:Unnecessary

[ultranova]

I wonder what Sony is doing with all of their unexploded batteries? I hope they aren't stored too close to each other. Sending them into space would be a good way to dispose of them...

Sell them to terrorists, of course. "Nobody move, he has a Sony battery! Now calm down, son..."

Re:Unnecessary

[Nutria]

I wonder what Sony is doing with all of their unexploded batteries?

Dump them into the ocean. It's pretty big.

Besides, out of sight, out of mind.

They'll be perfectly fine

[jlebrech]

If you send the Fissible material on a seperate rocket. And the Material should rendevous, with the nuclear reactor rocket. then an active nuclear reaction would have no chance of starting in lift off.

The problem with a failed launch, might create the need for recovery, which may be a problem if reactive ingredients, were to land on hostile territory.

I think assembly in space is the safest bet tho.

Re:They'll be perfectly fine

[CosmeticLobotamy]

You're about to get called dumb. Brace yourself.

Re:They'll be perfectly fine

[NekoXP]

In response to that then, I'll change it:

* Someone in Florida will have a nasty headache when it hits them in the head
* Some microbe in Mars will be very, very squished

I think the consequences are equally serious and therefore equally irrelevant :D

Re:I want nuke powered cars!

[Farmer Tim]

We'll never get it though because the anti-nuke lobby would be absolutely horrified at the thought of any nuke powered vehicle accident.

But on the other hand, the idea that a collision between two nuclear-powered cars equates to an implosion bomb would improve driver safety no end, so the road safety crowd will support it.

Re:RTGs are not dangerous

[baffo]

> The Apollo 13 unit fell in the Troga Trench and has been sitting there unpenetrated.

Meanwhile, deep in the ocean, a subacquean race of sentient beings is slowly unravelling the mysteries of nuclear power. In a few centuries they will emerge from the waters in their might! Beweaponed with terrifying RTG powered... mmm... cuttlefish?

The anti-NIMBY

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'm so anti-NIMBY on RTGs that I'd like 3 buried in my foundation for my house.