Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 138 posts

Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars

#41

Post by sebcat »

Jesus_Jones wrote: post #14
pishpash wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a vehicle that is on a one-way trip to Mars, and where the reactor will be brought online after it's out of Earth's orbit, this isn't a problem. Polluting the new homeland from the start, eh?

Just bury it out back, we'll clean it up later just like we did in Hanford. No problemo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site . More seriously, we can afford to have a small amount of nuclear waste there, but we need to plan for it better than we have previously. First, document where it is and what it contains. Second, I don't know.

Or Runit Island: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runit_Island

Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars

#42

Post by lmilcin »

I am not sure this is a good idea.

Nuclear reactor is an easy way out of a problem that has alternative solutions. Restriction on using nuclear power for previous missions did a lot of good in terms of researching and perfecting the alternatives (solar arrays).

Restricting the use of nuclear power does not prevent missions, it only adds to the cost of the mission, which is not really a technical problem.

Maybe launching one, fresh, yet inert reactor, is not a big issue. The issue starts when we fly a lot of them and they start falling back to Earth after some service time.

It is relatively easy to build safe reactors on Earth (if only everybody was interested in safety and not their own agenda). It is much more difficult when you are going to shoot the entire device into space and you can't have 1000:1 of shields and casings.

Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars

#44

Post by schwarrrtz »

lmilcin wrote: post #42

I am not sure this is a good idea. Nuclear reactor is an easy way out of a problem that has alternative solutions. Restriction on using nuclear power for previous missions did a lot of good in terms of researching and perfecting the alternatives (solar arrays). Restricting the use of nuclear power does not prevent missions, it only adds to the cost of the mission, which is not really a technical problem. Maybe launch…

What power source do you propose for a long-duration human mission to Mars, if not nuclear? Solar won’t work, given the loss of output during a dust storm.

Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars

#45

Post by icelancer »

lmilcin wrote: post #42

I am not sure this is a good idea. Nuclear reactor is an easy way out of a problem that has alternative solutions. Restriction on using nuclear power for previous missions did a lot of good in terms of researching and perfecting the alternatives (solar arrays). Restricting the use of nuclear power does not prevent missions, it only adds to the cost of the mission, which is not really a technical problem. Maybe launch…

There is essentially no actual ecological or serious fear about these devices. The weapons ban was meant to help avoid nuclear exchange between nations; there's very little scientific data that shows there's added cost or risk of thousands of reactors falling to Earth and causing radiation poisoning.

Nuclear is exceptionally safe and all the recent accidents (and ones in the past, really) are all due to human stupidity and bypassing several failsafes. You can argue that's an issue that will never go away, and that's true in the absolute sense, but it's not a nuclear problem. It's a human issue. We're holding ourselves back for scientific research because of arbitrary issues; and the weapons test ban didn't even solve nuclear proliferation anyway.

Solar won't be held back because nuclear is finally an option. They serve two different purposes entirely.

Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars

#47

Post by jonathanstrange »

icelancer wrote: post #45
lmilcin wrote: post #42

I am not sure this is a good idea. Nuclear reactor is an easy way out of a problem that has alternative solutions. Restriction on using nuclear power for previous missions did a lot of good in terms of researching and perfecting the alternatives (solar arrays). Restricting the use of nuclear power does not prevent missions, it only adds to the cost of the mission, which is not really a technical problem. Maybe launch…

There is essentially no actual ecological or serious fear about these devices. The weapons ban was meant to help avoid nuclear exchange between nations; there's very little scientific data that shows there's added cost or risk of thousands of reactors falling to Earth and causing radiation poisoning. Nuclear is exceptionally safe and all the recent accidents (and ones in the past, really) are all due to human stupidi…

Modern nuclear power plants are relatively safe. However, there is not enough data to determine how safe nuclear power is in general, because you have to take into account the whole production cycle including all long-term storage of nuclear waste.

Half life time of nuclear waste ranges from 30 years to 24,000 years, so it's possible that hundreds of people die in 30,000 years from now by being exposed to nuclear waste from our time.

Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars

#48

Post by DangerousPie »

lmilcin wrote: post #42

I am not sure this is a good idea. Nuclear reactor is an easy way out of a problem that has alternative solutions. Restriction on using nuclear power for previous missions did a lot of good in terms of researching and perfecting the alternatives (solar arrays). Restricting the use of nuclear power does not prevent missions, it only adds to the cost of the mission, which is not really a technical problem. Maybe launch…

I'm not sure I am convinced by this argument. You say it "only adds to the cost of the mission" as if that wasn't an issue, but unfortunately our resources are finite. If we increase the cost of any given mission that means we cannot do other missions. There is always a trade-off here, and I am not sure if the advantages of solar would be worth the cost of holding back research that much.

You could easily make the opposite argument - solar power is an easy way out of making nuclear power safe enough to go up into space. Having to use nuclear power for missions might do a lot of good in terms of researching and perfecting safe nuclear power.

Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars

#49

Post by scrollaway »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #47
icelancer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is essentially no actual ecological or serious fear about these devices. The weapons ban was meant to help avoid nuclear exchange between nations; there's very little scientific data that shows there's added cost or risk of thousands of reactors falling to Earth and causing radiation poisoning. Nuclear is exceptionally safe and all the recent accidents (and ones in the past, really) are all due to human stupidi…

Modern nuclear power plants are relatively safe. However, there is not enough data to determine how safe nuclear power is in general, because you have to take into account the whole production cycle including all long-term storage of nuclear waste. Half life time of nuclear waste ranges from 30 years to 24,000 years, so it's possible that hundreds of people die in 30,000 years from now by being exposed to nuclear was…

If you're taking that kind of thing into account you need to take the same time range into account in other power sources.

How many hundreds of billions of people will die over the next 30000 years from coal effects? How does that compare to your 'hundreds'?

Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars

#50

Post by batushka2 »

lmilcin wrote: post #42

I am not sure this is a good idea. Nuclear reactor is an easy way out of a problem that has alternative solutions. Restriction on using nuclear power for previous missions did a lot of good in terms of researching and perfecting the alternatives (solar arrays). Restricting the use of nuclear power does not prevent missions, it only adds to the cost of the mission, which is not really a technical problem. Maybe launch…

This is just perpetrating renewable hoax to a higher level. Primary energy source for Mars can't be solar - it's not reliable (batteries, dust storms, atmospheric events). Nuclear offers unmatched reliability.
Post reply on HN