Slashdot Mirror
NASA Seeks Nuclear Power For Mars (scientificamerican.com)
New submitter joshtops shares a report from Scientific American: As NASA makes plans to one day send humans to Mars, one of the key technical gaps the agency is working to fill is how to provide enough power on the Red Planet's surface for fuel production, habitats and other equipment. One option: small nuclear fission reactors, which work by splitting uranium atoms to generate heat, which is then converted into electric power. NASA's technology development branch has been funding a project called Kilopower for three years, with the aim of demonstrating the system at the Nevada National Security Site near Las Vegas. Testing is due to start in September and end in January 2018. The last time NASA tested a fission reactor was during the 1960s' Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power, or SNAP, which developed two types of nuclear power systems. The first system -- radioisotope thermoelectric generators, or RTGs -- taps heat released from the natural decay of a radioactive element, such as plutonium. RTGs have powered dozens of space probes over the years, including the Curiosity rover currently exploring Mars. The second technology developed under SNAP was an atom-splitting fission reactor. SNAP-10A was the first -- and so far, only -- U.S. nuclear power plant to operate in space. Launched on April 3, 1965, SNAP-10A operated for 43 days, producing 500 watts of electrical power, before an unrelated equipment failure ended the demonstration. The spacecraft remains in Earth orbit.
Where do you think Uranium comes from in the first place, the magic nuclear tree? It comes out of the ground. There is zero reason not to put the spent fuel back into it.
While they may see potential value for Mars, I see this as a way to acclimatize people to the idea that nuclear is a safe option.
So please tell me what other options does NASA have for power initially? Solar which can't provide all the amount of energy necessary? Fossil fuels because Mars is full of oil? Wind energy is minimal and you have to send/assemble extremely large wind mills. Geo-theormal is good for long term; however, it requires construction. Right now solar and nuclear are not the "safe" options. They are the best options for initial colonization.
Where NASA is in the industry and previous accidents aside, the American public, as a whole, still regards NASA as being the same, awesome NASA that it was in the 50s.
Doesn't change the fact that nuclear and solar are the best option for the initial settlement for Mars.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"Nuclear waste" is a bit of a misnomer, from what I understand a VAST majority (I think like 95%) of what we term as nuclear waste is still perfectly usable fuel, it is simply contaminated with highly radioactive components. Those components can be removed via reprocessing, which most countries do. Once that is done the actual waste is far more compact and radioactive for far less time. The US however sabotaged its own reprocessing program by banning it back in the 70s, and then wrapping the industry in obscene levels of red tape that effectively prevented most new projects.