Slashdot Mirror
NASA Developing Nuclear Reactor For Moon and Mars
Al writes "NASA recently finished testing a miniature nuclear reactor that would provide power for an astronaut base on the Moon or Mars. The reactor combines a small fission system with a Stirling engine to make a 'safe, reliable, and efficient' way to produce electricity. The system being tested at NASA's Glenn Research Center can produce 2.3 kilowatts and could be ready for launch by 2020, NASA officials say. The reactor ought to provide much more power than solar panels but could prove controversial with the public concerned about launching a nuclear power source and placing it on the Moon or another planet."
It shouldn't be more controversial than the reactors that powered Voyager and other deep space probes. There have been protests over some of the more potentially dangerous reactors that might have caused contamination over a wide area if they blew up; but IIRC they launched anyway.
A reactor that small shouldn't require a huge ammount of fissile material. I bet it could blow up in the atmosphere and produce less radiation than we get from a day of coal fired power in the Eastern US. Coal is full of trace radioactive elements, and it adds up when you burn as much as we do.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
And if a meteor *does* strike the reactor, we are going to contaminate the Moon with radioactivity? More than being exposed to an unshielded fusion reactor for 4.5 billion years?
Brett
When I first saw this, I thought it was for powering VASIMR plasma engines.
Recently, AW&ST had an article suggesting that transit times between Mars and Earth 30 days could be possible using a continuously running VASIMR engine (it has an insanely high specific impulse). BUT, it would require a nuclear power source because the amount of solar panels (especially outside of earth's orbit) woudl be impractical.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
1. Ignorance.
2. The Internet
There is a whole lot of people who can now be offended at things they would never have heard of before or hand reason to be offended of. Never under estimate the ability of humans to make ignorance even more prevalent. What many thought would free us from ignorance only seemed to exaggerate it more.
I guess there is another option, it never ceases to amaze me how many people can find offense in anything. I think they have a need to be noticed or to find a way to blame others for any condition they are in.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
If a sizable meteor strikes your moon colony, you're going to be worried about the chance that it hits the reactor? Not the mess hall or the kindergarten? Any accident on the moon that gives people time to don space suits is a best-case accident. What is it about "nuclear" that makes people's brains turn off?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The real danger to the west is the overwhelming number of complete fucking idiots it breeds that demand that all technological progress is halted "for teh children!1".
They're a danger to the rest of the world too.
Wake me when I can buy me a Ford Nucleon. 5000 miles on a single fueling. Take that, Tesla Motors!
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
When your talking about space, spending a fortune on exotic, super lightweight materials will save you many times more than that cost in launches. Weight is the main factor in the number of things that can go up in a rocket. I think I remember hearing someone mention in the ballpark of $25,000 per pound. So while you look at Cheap as the total cost, they look at it a bit differently.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
What is it about "nuclear" that makes people's brains turn off?
Hmm, that's a tough question, but I'm gonna go with the past 50 or so years of media hysterics.