Live data from Hacker News

NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

nbcnews.com

161–164 of 164 posts

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#161
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the largest problem in orbital manufacturing is actually rejection of waste heat. Otherwise, being able to run robots in an oxygen-free environment and move around large masses without conveyors sounds pretty good.

It's also an environment full of cosmic rays, which requires hardening of all your electronics, an environment where fluids don't flow through pipes, an environment where dust and powders don't settle, an environment where conveyor belts don't work because things float off them... Almost every single industrial process that we have relies on a constant, freely available, predictable, unidirectional acceleration of 9.…

You're thinking of it the wrong way. The goal is not to transplant existing Earth manufacturing processes to orbit. That's currently impossible without a launch vehicle powered by nuclear bombs.

There is no 20 Mg steel smelter in orbit. The use cases are very different. First off, you're not starting with coke and iron ores and ending with flat carbon steel. Whatever you make is staying in orbit, to replace something that would otherwise have to be launched. You probably need to make 17-4 PH stainless steel, with synthetic thin-film silica surface coatings to prevent vacuum welding. And where is the raw material--iron, nickel, tantalum, chromium, etc.--coming from?

You can't just replace an existing industry with vertical conveyor belts 5 miles high and expect it to work.

Firstly, the raw materials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mond_process , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonyl_metallurgy , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_vapor_deposition .

You would likely be reacting powdered asteroid dust with CO + H2 (syngas), distilling the carbonyl vapors, and depositing nearly pure metals at higher temperature. The purified metals do not subsequently react with oxygen, because that is all kept bottled up for other purposes. Now you don't need the Bessemer process or oxygen converter process, because the iron is already pure, and also you don't have enough oxygen to waste on it. Since you're already using CVD in high vacuum to build up your ingot, you might as well just add the alloying elements and silica coating right there, on the asteroid, before you fling it to whatever orbit you want it to be in.

Metal carbonyl chemistry works at relatively low temperatures, below 250 degC. You don't have to worry about toxicity if you don't even have humans on site at the facility.

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#162
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small centrifuge is not a viable place to have an entire colony to live in. Sure, you can stick someone in a high-g centrifuge by himself for a little while, but I'm talking about a habitat that people live indefinitely. Equating the two clearly shows you don't know what you're talking about.

> having a major engineering challenge due to the existing gravity? Rotating a habitat is a hard problem in space or on a planet. But, Mars's is gravity would make the problem easier not harder. The atmosphere might be a problem, scale might be a problem etc etc, but gravity is not. Further, there may be little need for 24/7 1g, perhaps a tiny room to work out in is enough, perhaps you should sleep in 1g or perhaps 1…

Rotating something that size in Mars' gravity is far more difficult that rotating something in space. Clearly, you're far less competent than you think you are.

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#163
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having a major engineering challenge due to the existing gravity? Rotating a habitat is a hard problem in space or on a planet. But, Mars's is gravity would make the problem easier not harder. The atmosphere might be a problem, scale might be a problem etc etc, but gravity is not. Further, there may be little need for 24/7 1g, perhaps a tiny room to work out in is enough, perhaps you should sleep in 1g or perhaps 1…

Rotating something that size in Mars' gravity is far more difficult that rotating something in space. Clearly, you're far less competent than you think you are.

We literally already rotate large structures for amusement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolving_restaurant...

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#164
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rotating something that size in Mars' gravity is far more difficult that rotating something in space. Clearly, you're far less competent than you think you are.

We literally already rotate large structures for amusement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolving_restaurant...

To be fair, they intentionally rotate slow enough as to have no perceivable g forces.

The example on that list that I had been to most recently is the Westin in Atlanta.

It's 57M in diameter and it's upper floor spins at once every 30 minutes. Plugging that into Mω²r, you end up with 0.0000354084g.

Not exactly the best example.

Post reply on HN