Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
Why don't they just use batteries? I hear Sony has a surplus.
Meta will eat itself
Yes, of course they're a good idea. People should get over their irrational fear of decaying nuclei.
As I pointed out in the Victoria Crater story, there are places a solar-powered rover can't really explore effectively, or for very long. You can't just land the current MER rovers "anywhere" on Mars and expect them to work. An RTG-powered rover will work longer and better than a MER rover, assuming all other things are equal (not breakdowns elsewhere). Suppose instead Spirit and Opportunity had been RTG-powered... would we now be saying, "Hey, these RTGs work great, so why bother with solar probes anymore?"
But the real answer to your quest is that RTGs aren't dangerous, so the entire premise of the question is flawed. A launch failure isn't going to make Florida a radioactive wasteland. We've launched dozens of RTGs in past missions. The last big "outcry" was over the Cassini mission, and NASA made the correct decision and launched anyway. Hopefully they'll make the correct decision again and use RTGs for the future rovers like MSL. Bottom line: it's not any more risky to launch an RTG powered probe than a solar powered one, so you use RTG power for the missions that need it and solar power for the missions that need it.
Bruce
Even if the launch system fails, the question should be, what happens to the fissile material? And the answer? Absolutely nothing. It is in a container that is meant to withstand that. All in all, it would still be in one piece. The advantage of nukes is that a great deal more science can go on for a LONG time (and at a lighter weight). Considering that there is no real risk, we really should use them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I think it's a great idea. The Russian space agency had plans for a nuclear power "Mars Train" in the 60s. It was manned as well. Mars train.
In a cost/benefit analysis the nuke option makes sense. If you can get a larger rover that can move faster it opens up many new vista. I mean, I love the current Rovers for lasting so long but they move slowly and are too small to get past many geological barriers. A larger rover could carry more equipment and move farther and faster.
No-one likes the idea of the power source rupturing but on a planetwide basis it's not a major issue. Mars has probably received more radioactive material from comets et al than would be found in the battery and as we're not going to get there for another twenty years at best harm to humans isn't an issue. The worst result for us would be the plethora of B-movies about the radioactivity causing hyper-evolution that turns algae into ravening Martian monsters that look suspiciously CGIed.
But maybe the whole strategy is wrong. Instead of a few big rovers make lots of little ones. You get a better sampling of a variety of areas on the planet for your budget and it matters less if a few don't survive the trip.
Would it result in more radiation than an "open air" nuclear explosion test? What does it compare to?
40% Funny, 40% Insightful, 40% Informative, 40% Dolomite
You're about to get called dumb. Brace yourself.
Pu-238 is not fissile, and an RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator) is not a nuclear reactor, it uses the decay heat of the radioisotope to produce electricity.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
'what's wrong with continuing to build solar rovers that we need a nuclear one?
Solar powered rovers can't
1) Operate in shadow for long
2) Supply enough power if you want more insturments
3) Work through the martian winter
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Scores, if not hundreds, of RTGs have been used in space exploration, going back to the '60s. There have only ever been three - iirc - incidents where the RTG's have been breached, resulting in detectable radioactive release.
Despite always having been controversial, RTGs have been proven safe.
Even if you run the space probe from solar cells, you cannot have analytical instruments such as Alpha particle X-ray spectrometers and Mossbauer spectrometers without radioactive sources.
I'm so anti-NIMBY on RTGs that I'd like 3 buried in my foundation for my house.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.