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

NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 164 posts

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#81

Post by thehardsphere »

jerrylives wrote: post #72
simias wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I agree. Creating a self-sustainable colony on Mars will take a very long time and even if we manage to do it can we really afford to "lose" the earth? Mars is an inhospitable hell for humans and practical terraforming technology is still in the realm of science fiction. Maybe if we manage to destroy earth completely out of selfishness and hate we don't really deserve to spread the virus throughout th…

>If we can't sustain our development in a civilized manner on a lush and hospitable planet I don't think we'll fare much better on Dune. Arrakis at least had an oxygen and nitrogen rich atmosphere.

And a valuable natural resource to make the whole colonization thing worth it.

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#82

Post by nsxwolf »

nkrisc wrote: post #47
krasin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a related note, I very much like the fact that "The Martian" movie uses RTG as a life saving device and the best car climate control ever. It helps with the public perception that it's not that dangerous.

Generally I agree with you, but I don't know if it's wise to promote the unintended use of a device by a fictional character as a last hope in a dire survival situation as the bar for what's "safe". Regardless of whether it's actually safe, showing me it's safe enough to sit near in a situation where one would probably die anyway isn't exactly comforting.

Culture is better at transmitting ideas and changing perceptions than elitist blowhards are.

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#83

Post by jerrylives »

thehardsphere wrote: post #81
jerrylives wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If we can't sustain our development in a civilized manner on a lush and hospitable planet I don't think we'll fare much better on Dune. Arrakis at least had an oxygen and nitrogen rich atmosphere.

And a valuable natural resource to make the whole colonization thing worth it.

Well, heh, when you look at the events that unfold afterwards, "worth it" is debatable.

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#84

Post by thehardsphere »

tiku wrote: post #9
sp0ck wrote: post #2

It's about time. Engineering decisions shouldn't be made based of irrational fears of general population. If nuclear power plant is best option for space mission we should use it.

I don't thinnk it was the fear of the general population, because what influence do we have on dangerous endeavors? If the scientist can do it safely, they could just do it. It must have something to with the state of technology and not being able to do it safe until now.

It's always been political, both in terms of the relative "scariness" of nuclear technology after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the costs of space programs.

Most of the space flight technologies using nuclear power were devised for manned flights beyond Earth's gravitational influence, and were on the drawing boards as early as the fifties. Once America successfully landed on the moon and the Soviets gave up, there was immense political pressure to scale back the US space program. With the Space Race won, it was harder to justify the costs of manned interplanetary spaceflight, so a lot of more exotic (read: expensive) plans were shelved. This included more than a couple nuclear propulsion ideas for spacecraft, including one for a nuclear thermal rocket that had been successfully prototyped in the lab and was ready for an actual launch.

Lots of stuff we could have done and could be doing in space if there was money for it.

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#85

Post by Cumulonimbus »

Before we can consider seeding terrestrial stations on Mars, we should consider seeding a communications net around Mars. Once we have a half dozen satellites circling Mars, we can start stable comms from the surface to orbit to Earth. It may take 10-20 minutes (for a signal to be received), but the communication is the essential piece here.

I'd also consider putting satellites in Earth and Mars lagrange L3, L4, and L5. It's the start of a solar system based internet, even if it is rudimentary. Think of this as a store-and-forward network where signals may be too weak for Earth to pick up, but can hit Jupiter L5 to Mars planet, to Earth L3.

And greetings, all, BTW.

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#86

Post by mathw »

Symmetry wrote: post #38
kobeya wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concern was never about a nuclear reactor having a failure mode on Mars. It was about the rocket carrying the nuke having a failure mode and spewing radioactive fuel over central Florida.

Before a rector is turned on the inside of it isn't particularly radioactive. In order to last from the creation of the solar system to the present day uranium had to decay very slowly when not in a critical mass, specifically U235 has a half life of 700 million years. So it's really the radiation of uranium that you have to worry about if you find yourself in a room with a hunk of it but the toxicity. Still, people…

Sure it's not in critical mass or particularly radioactive, but Plutonium is toxic...

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#87

Post by thehardsphere »

mikejb wrote: post #58
DiThi wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very safe if you don't disable safety systems put in place (like it was explicitly done in Chernobyl to do dangerous experiments, even though they labeled it as "routine tests"). And if you don't ignore many warnings given in the industry (like TEPCO ignoring many recommendations of raising their tsunami protection walls many years before the catastrophe, like other plants closer to the epicenter that were unaff…

I fully agree that newer designs are safer, but ignoring the human factor in the equation is IMO not very reasonable. Without the human factor, driving a car is very safe. That argument is valid, but it doesn't reflect reality.

There are some "human factor" problems that engineers cannot and should not be expected to resolve.

I mean, how can someone design a communist-proof nuclear reactor?

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#88

Post by TomK32 »

SCAQTony wrote: post #79

Wouldn't the moon would be a better choice? Asteroids could be processed there, it could be a de facto source of microwave power for asteroid mining ops and a weigh station to bring metals back safely.

The moon is boring, Mars once had water and very likely life on it. Moon has a month-long day/night cycle and less gravity, two thing humans aren't well adapted.

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#89

Post by TomK32 »

Cumulonimbus wrote: post #85

Before we can consider seeding terrestrial stations on Mars, we should consider seeding a communications net around Mars. Once we have a half dozen satellites circling Mars, we can start stable comms from the surface to orbit to Earth. It may take 10-20 minutes (for a signal to be received), but the communication is the essential piece here. I'd also consider putting satellites in Earth and Mars lagrange L3, L4, and…

Bulding the Network is the best part about KSP, right?

Re: NASA Revives Plan to Put Nuclear Reactors on Mars

#90

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

sp0ck wrote: post #2

It's about time. Engineering decisions shouldn't be made based of irrational fears of general population. If nuclear power plant is best option for space mission we should use it.

Irrational fears? What are the chances of the rocket launcher blowing up with the reactor? How would we compute the fallout range as a function of altitude of the blast?
Post reply on HN