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.
No, troll, this isn't simply using 1960s technology. I understand the sarcasm in your post, but I still see that you're a troll.
There are challenges with fission reactors in space that don't exist on Earth. Specifically, you have to cool the fuel to prevent a meltdown. On Earth, this is accomplished by pumping large amounts of water through the reactor. The steam is used to generate electricity, but it also keeps the fuel cool. We generally build nuclear plants by bodies of water such as rivers, and the excess heat is transported downstream. There isn't an easy solution for dissipating heat in space. There isn't such an easy way to use conduction, convection, and advection to dissipate heat.
It's worthwhile to figure out how to do this, but it's not simply using 1960s technology. You, sir, are a troll trying to draw out people to argue with you.
No, NASA is very sane and totally right to use nuclear power for this use case. Nuclear power for earth side, widespread usage is utter lunacy due to the eternal waste, the immense costs and lastly the inherent incalculable dangers. Idiocy like thorium reactors and reprocessing are insane, not this.
For a small bootstrap colony or a science station on mars, nuclear power is by far the best option right now: proven and fairly reliable, small (think reactors from subs), easy to transport and set up (you have to insert the fuel rods on mars, transporting a mostly inert reactor). These small reactors are then used to build the infrastructure and bootstrap industry on mars so they can produce their own industrial base with solar power cells or hopefully fusion power or whatever else one can use on mars.
So as long as the nuclear reactors are limited in power and numbers, this is the exactly right solution until fusion reactors are possible.
One of the few upsides of a manned mission to Mars is that we can send all the infrastructure there before the trigger is pulled to lift any humans off of Earth. We can make sure it arrives safely, and works, rather than having to send it on the same trip as the astronauts. Even if the solar cells, ice purifiers, and hydroponics work at a rate too slow to keep up with human consumption, they could be designed to operate when noone is there, to stockpile enough resources to last the duration of a human visit. Food silos, batteries, water tanks, and a habitat can be sent and filled up beforehand. Assuming everything but the seeds were sterilized, I wonder if the resultant food could be preserved indefinitely on Mars; ya know, until the humans show up and spread their microbiome everywhere.
If a colony is dependent on regular shipments of fissile material, that could cause problems, particularly if a shipment blows up/gets its launch delayed, or if the colony desires independence. Hawking et al suggest that we should get a Mars colony in part so that we wouldn't be doomed by a third world war; however, if said colony belonged to one of the major world powers, it's much more likely to be targeted. China already has tested weapons that can destroy satellites, I wouldn't put it past them to use a weapon that would destroy their enemy's Mars colony.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Research & exploration are NASAs main missions and there is a need for around 500Kw in order to produce Methane & O2 for return flights from Mars that would be difficult to produce otherwise (at least on initial missions).
Spending billions on ILS launchers that have no mission is insanity (though Nasa spends the money it's the Senate that directs them to do so and micromanages the budget so that they must spread it around all 50 states).
It's interesting that the SNAP-10A is still up there as almost all opposition to the use of reactors in space is "What it it crashes on launch" by people that refuse to believe that we can build containment vessels sufficient to not spill the reactants even after a failed launch. I wonder, given that SNAP-10A is already in orbit, and didn't stop working due to any fault of the reactor itself whether it's fuel could be recovered to power a modern reactor. Probably not as it certainly wasn't engineered to to be disassembled easily, especially in space and things like vacuum welding may be an issue but it'd be a great hack if they could.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Here's my conspiracy theory.
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. 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.
That being the case, if this can bring nuclear into the public consciousness as something that's good and safe and useful, then it won't be about Mars, it will be about how we can "leverage what was learned from developing reactors usable in the harsh Martian landscape for use safely at home".
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.