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."
The uranium that goes into a reactor isn't all that radioactive - it's the spent fuel that comes out that's the problem. If a rocket carrying this thing explodes on take off it isn't going to be Chernobyl. In fact, it sounds a good deal safer than all those Pu-238 RTGs that have been sent up there.
It's a Stirling Engine....not Sterling.
An engine made out of silver? Or just a generally excellent one? Ah, a Stirling engine.
More quality editing from Slashdot...
Then they can give the reactor to me and I can finally send the power company a photocopy of my ass
What, your photocopier only works with on-site nuclear power?
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
Why not re-open research into nuclear thermal rockets? They were able to get them up to 40% efficiency back in 1972, I'm would hope we can do better than that now. Use the reactor to heat a propellant to get you to the moon, then use the reactor on the moon to power the base. If it's time to head home, you only need to ship a relatively stable propellant up, rather than actual rocket fuel.
The problem would be what exactly?
The impact to the wildlife on the moon?
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.
This is the most intelligent comment on this thread so far, why it is posted as AC I cannot imagine. It reminds me of a brilliant comment on the assembly of nuclear fuel rods: that they are so nonradioactive that they can be assembled by hand. The operators wear gloves, not to protect them from the fuel, but to protect the fuel from their fingers.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Read the article. 2.3 kW is the test version, they want to scale it up to 40 kW for the base:
The recent tests examined technologies that would see a nuclear reactor coupled with a Stirling engine capable of producing 40 kilowatts of energy--enough to power a future lunar or Mars outpost.
40 kW is approximately 17 outlets that can handle 20 A at 115 V. Yeah, it's still not a ton but it's a start and you could potentially put up several of these reactors as you expand the facility. This would also add fault-tolerance to the entire system.
Sapere aude!
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.
Kind of like how letting wood rot is not burning it.
Uranium is "huggably safe" before a reactor is actually turned on. With a half-life of a billion years it's more dangerous as a heavy metal than anything else.
Plutonium is nasty if powdered or vaporized, but NASA designed a "safe" for the Cassini plutonium RTG that would survive being dropped at any point during the launch path.
The hydrazine fuel used in the maneuvering thrusters in spacecraft and the Space Shuttle's APUs is amazingly toxic. In most scenarios a tank of hydrazine is more of a danger than a lump of plutonium. Off-Earth, a hydrazine APU is just exposing astronauts to unneeded danger to avoid "scary nuclear scary scary".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Never, ever, place you power source outside the buildings.
The aliens will simply cut the line, leaving you only 120 minutes (less Coming Attraction Previews) to figure out what's going on and go fix it.
Then, of course, the first few people you send after it will be killed and turned into alien zombies.
Then, when you finally figure that out, you have to crawl through the air ducts to get to the reactor (even though the reactor is supposedly isolated from the buildings) to sneak into the Alien queen's chamber and burn her to a crisp with the flame thrower that is standard issue on a moon colony.
Sheesh...don't you guys know anything?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Lol, sounds like another opportunity! Head out to the next anti-nuclear rally and get people to sign a petition to shut down this unshielded fusion reactor. It's exposing us to several types of radiation every day, even as we speak! It causes severe burns on many people every day! Many species won't come out of their burrows because of it! While you're at it, you can ask them about their opinion of dihydrogen-monoxide.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
...unless you're ok with only breathing during the day...
I don't know about you, but I SLEEP during the night. Sheesh, this isn't rocket surgery.
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
Actually, Moon dust is a bigger problem on the than Mars dust exactly because there is no weather. Weathering wears down the rough edges of dust particles. Without it, the dust retains jagged edges. It is extremely abrasive, sticks to everything, and is electrically charged. Once it sticks to something, it is extremely difficult to get off. On Mars, however, you can just wipe the dust away. It's weathered and smooth, like the dust we are all familiar with on Earth.
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2005/04/67110
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090421-st-moon-dust-sunangle.html
metric ass-load = about .85 of a fuck-ton.