11–20 of 187 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RTGs have been going to space since the 60s [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_...
RTGs do not use fission and do not create fission products. Nuclear fuels are harmless in comparison to Strontium-90 and Cesium-137.
Now, imagine them with nuclear materials aboard.
Finally! This is one of the few fission uses I'm genuinely excited about. Nuclear-thermal just makes so much sense for in-space propulsion of large vessels compared to chemical rockets.
I think the obvious concern would be failure scenarios. There will always be failures in space technology. As space expands exponentially (as it is likely to do so in the future), failures will become relatively regular. So the obvious question would be what would happen if a nuclear rocket, with reaction in process, crashed to Earth. Or even if it broke up in the atmosphere.
This might be a good time to review the number of failed rocket launches we've seen in the last few years. Now, imagine them with nuclear materials aboard.
This might be a good time to review the number of failed rocket launches we've seen in the last few years. Now, imagine them with nuclear materials aboard.
(Could be worse, but the Orion drive is currently illegal by treaty and hopefully nobody is dumb enough to use that in Earth's ionosphere anyway).
This might be a good time to review the number of failed rocket launches we've seen in the last few years. Now, imagine them with nuclear materials aboard.
This might be a good time to review the number of failed rocket launches we've seen in the last few years. Now, imagine them with nuclear materials aboard.
Depending on the design, failure during launch can be anywhere from "meh" to "basically high-altitude Chernobyl" — random actinide decay products (and plutonium fuel) are bad, unreacted uranium fuel is mostly a heavy metal hazard rather than a radiation hazard. (Could be worse, but the Orion drive is currently illegal by treaty and hopefully nobody is dumb enough to use that in Earth's ionosphere anyway).
Btw, the video I saw was on Veritasium.
This might be a good time to review the number of failed rocket launches we've seen in the last few years. Now, imagine them with nuclear materials aboard.
Falcon9 hadn’t had a failure for nearly a decade
It also has well over 100 successful landings in a row, while the next closest rocket has 0. (Rocket, not capsule or shuttle, which are all still far lower)
This might be a good time to review the number of failed rocket launches we've seen in the last few years. Now, imagine them with nuclear materials aboard.
Depending on the design, failure during launch can be anywhere from "meh" to "basically high-altitude Chernobyl" — random actinide decay products (and plutonium fuel) are bad, unreacted uranium fuel is mostly a heavy metal hazard rather than a radiation hazard. (Could be worse, but the Orion drive is currently illegal by treaty and hopefully nobody is dumb enough to use that in Earth's ionosphere anyway).
The fuel will only be needed for a lighter craft in deep space. Getting it up with a high reliability rocket (like Falcon 9) significantly decreases risk.