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

61–70 of 138 posts

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

#61

Post by Kutta »

lmilcin wrote: post #54
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…

Hi, just to point out a hole in your reasoning, if these reactors are so safe then why even a small portion of the radioactivity escaping the containment shell can cause such a big disaster like Fukushima or Chernobyl? Now, I understand there are differences in size and the level of radioactivity used (they won't be driven as close to prompt criticality as the power reactors) and they may be designed to be less relia…

> small portion of the radioactivity escaping the containment shell

The Chernobyl reactor was very unsafe by modern standards, it did not have a containment vessel and tens of tons of reactor material was blown into the air, not a small amount.

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

#62

Post by scrollaway »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #59
scrollaway wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'?

I completely agree and don't think coal is better than nuclear power at all. Reduction of energy waste, renewable energy sources and nuclear fushion are the obvious way to go, but it may make sense to temporarily accompany them with nuclear power.

Sure, I didn't mean to imply that. I just meant that whatever long term damages are done need to be put on a timescale that actually helps us compare alternatives.

If hundreds of billions of lives are saved in the time it takes for nuclear to do real damage, maybe that's just worth it.

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

#63

Post by the_duke »

ageofwant wrote: post #58
lmilcin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear reactors that have some service time on them are very, very, very radioactive. Just look what happens when a very small portion of that radioactivity finds itself into the atmosphere or water (Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc.) It is maybe not as big a problem if we never plan it to return to Earth or Mars orbit (reactor is not as radioactive until it actually is started), but if we are using it to supply energy to…

Exactly what do you think "happens" ? Not even Chernobyl, that had an atmospheric nuclear fire, the worst case scenario imaginable, had a economic, environmental or human live cost comparable to the impact of a single coal power plant. It really concerns me when people on this forum, that has no excuse to not know better, parrots this anti-nuclear FUD.

Please provide a citation for this claim.

Chernobyl still is a massive cost factor for plenty of countries ( all that are helping out financially with building the new mantle ).

Also look at the large effects of Fukushima.

Every time nuclear power comes up here on HN, there are some fierce defenders.

No matter how 'safe' newer generation plants are and how much it was the oprators fault, the potential for disaster is there. And that's not even mentioning the high lifetime cost when you consider safely storing the material, which often falls to the public.

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

#65

Post by maushu »

feliix42 wrote: post #39
yellowapple wrote: post #10

If each core really is the size of a paper towel roll, then this seems like a solid step toward me eventually owning a nuclear-powered car.

This oddly reminds me of the story of Fallout. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_(series)#Setting

I love the story of Fallout. They decided to use nuclear reactors on cars because there as a lack of petroleum. It was too late though since the Great War started (and ended) a couple of years later.

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

#66

Post by mtgx »

lostlogin wrote: post #38
sjcsjc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"maybe people working on nuclear power need to change the name" Renaming things with bad public images is a popular trick. Windscale > Sellafield Blackwater > Xe Services > Academi Philip Morris > Altria

The Blackwater one always mystified me. It’s like they set out to be villains.

They aren't?

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

#67

Post by caf »

yellowapple wrote: post #10

If each core really is the size of a paper towel roll, then this seems like a solid step toward me eventually owning a nuclear-powered car.

Unfortunately for these miniaturized Uranium reactors, the Uranium must be highly enriched - in other words, weapons-grade.

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

#68

Post by ageofwant »

the_duke wrote: post #63
ageofwant wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what do you think "happens" ? Not even Chernobyl, that had an atmospheric nuclear fire, the worst case scenario imaginable, had a economic, environmental or human live cost comparable to the impact of a single coal power plant. It really concerns me when people on this forum, that has no excuse to not know better, parrots this anti-nuclear FUD.

Please provide a citation for this claim. Chernobyl still is a massive cost factor for plenty of countries ( all that are helping out financially with building the new mantle ). Also look at the large effects of Fukushima. Every time nuclear power comes up here on HN, there are some fierce defenders. No matter how 'safe' newer generation plants are and how much it was the oprators fault, the potential for disaster is…

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_200...

Now please provide citations for your claims. Specifically 'Massive Costs' and 'large effects'.

Nuclear power does not need to be safe, only saver than the alternatives, this includes long term pollution from solar panel waste.

Every ounce of nuclear waste is entirely contained, every other power source's waste is dumped into the environment.

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

#69

Post by ourmandave »

Unanswered in article:

How long does the power unit lasts until you have to replace the paper-towel-roll-sized U-235 core? Where are they going to put the old ones?

What's the plug interface? Can I charge my iPhone? What about my electric razor?

Are they going to test burying one in red sand for 15+ years and see if it can be dug up to phone home in an emergency?

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

#70

Post by ifdefdebug »

I find it frustrating NASA talking about putting people on Mars but if you look at reality, it can't even put astronauts in the orbit anymore. What about solving that problem first, and when it's done, then we can dream about Mars...

Or are we going to outsource such mundane tasks like manned orbital space flight to the Russians and Chinese forever, while we are proudly preparing the colonization of Mars? /s

Post reply on HN