Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Nuclear Reactor tested
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Greg (Strider) Moore
Nov 28, 2012, 10:07:48 AM11/28/12
to
Matt
Dec 30, 2012, 6:07:54 PM12/30/12
to
On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 8:07:48 AM UTC-7, Greg (Strider) Moore wrot
e:
> http://thespacereporter.com/2012/11/nasa-successfully-tests-nuclear-react
ors-for-deep-space-exploration/
I worked several years ago on a study for the now-defunct NASA Exploration
Team (NEXT) on long-range propulsion investments. Our #1 conclusion was tha
t, while there are various methods for making use of fission reactors for p
ropulsion, and we didn't know yet which approach was best, there was no esc
aping the need to have a fission system for "routine" travel within the sol
ar system. NASA at the time didn't listen to us, but this is a bit of good
news.
e:
> http://thespacereporter.com/2012/11/nasa-successfully-tests-nuclear-react
ors-for-deep-space-exploration/
I worked several years ago on a study for the now-defunct NASA Exploration
Team (NEXT) on long-range propulsion investments. Our #1 conclusion was tha
t, while there are various methods for making use of fission reactors for p
ropulsion, and we didn't know yet which approach was best, there was no esc
aping the need to have a fission system for "routine" travel within the sol
ar system. NASA at the time didn't listen to us, but this is a bit of good
news.
Joe Pfeiffer
Dec 31, 2012, 1:31:14 PM12/31/12
to
Message has been deleted
Robert Heller
Jul 10, 2014, 10:40:33 PM7/10/14
to
At Thu, 10 Jul 2014 18:51:58 EDT gree...@gmail.com (greenaum) wrote:
>
> I realise this is an old post, but Usenet's hardly busy these days...
>
> Just makes me wonder, is there any known Uranium on the Moon? Or maybe
> an asteroid?
>
> The main problem with nukes in space seem to be launching them from
> Earth. Obviously they wouldn't go critical (though most of the public
> probably don't know that), but even then nobody fancies a ton of
> radioactive dust spread through *any* layer of the atmosphere, however
> high up the hypothetical launch rocket would be when it blew up.
>
> There's the possibility of staggering launches, sending a few KG up
> alongside satellites etc, maybe. That way we're only risking a small
> amount each time. OTOH more launches = greater risk of exploding. The
> fact that rockets still fail catastrophically at such a high rate
> (compared to most other human endeavours) is a big part of it.
>
> If rockets were more reliable, then launch worries would lessen,
> though there's still the worry of having it up there, over our heads,
> waiting to come back down. So you'd have to keep any nuclear fuel out
> of Earth orbit, launch it as the last part of a multi-launch mission,
> or a single mission that leaves Earth's gravity straight away.
>
> But Uranium on the Moon might be an ideal solution. Nobody would mind
> accidents up there, although as ever it's better to keep things tidy.
Ah, but OTOH, we wouldn't want to Moon to leave Earth's orbit... :-)
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072564/)
>
> Failing that, what about Thorium? It's seen by some as the perfect
> solution for nuclear fission. Don't know a lot about it but it seems
> like a wonder fuel from it's proponents, much less worry in every way.
>
> Didn't the Soviets fly a working reactor ages ago? Steven Baxter's
> novel "Titan" has it as the power-source for a mission to Saturn's
> moon. Aboard a modified Space Shuttle launching on a load of Apollo
> odds 'n' ends, including the Saturn V sat out on the lawn of some
> museum for the last 30 years.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "hey let's educate the brutes, we know we are superior to them anyway,
> just through genetics, we are gentically superior to the working
> class. They are a shaved monkey. If we educate them, they will be able
> to read instructions, turn up on time and man the conveyor belts,
> sorted." #
>
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
hel...@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
>
> I realise this is an old post, but Usenet's hardly busy these days...
>
> Just makes me wonder, is there any known Uranium on the Moon? Or maybe
> an asteroid?
>
> The main problem with nukes in space seem to be launching them from
> Earth. Obviously they wouldn't go critical (though most of the public
> probably don't know that), but even then nobody fancies a ton of
> radioactive dust spread through *any* layer of the atmosphere, however
> high up the hypothetical launch rocket would be when it blew up.
>
> There's the possibility of staggering launches, sending a few KG up
> alongside satellites etc, maybe. That way we're only risking a small
> amount each time. OTOH more launches = greater risk of exploding. The
> fact that rockets still fail catastrophically at such a high rate
> (compared to most other human endeavours) is a big part of it.
>
> If rockets were more reliable, then launch worries would lessen,
> though there's still the worry of having it up there, over our heads,
> waiting to come back down. So you'd have to keep any nuclear fuel out
> of Earth orbit, launch it as the last part of a multi-launch mission,
> or a single mission that leaves Earth's gravity straight away.
>
> But Uranium on the Moon might be an ideal solution. Nobody would mind
> accidents up there, although as ever it's better to keep things tidy.
Ah, but OTOH, we wouldn't want to Moon to leave Earth's orbit... :-)
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072564/)
>
> Failing that, what about Thorium? It's seen by some as the perfect
> solution for nuclear fission. Don't know a lot about it but it seems
> like a wonder fuel from it's proponents, much less worry in every way.
>
> Didn't the Soviets fly a working reactor ages ago? Steven Baxter's
> novel "Titan" has it as the power-source for a mission to Saturn's
> moon. Aboard a modified Space Shuttle launching on a load of Apollo
> odds 'n' ends, including the Saturn V sat out on the lawn of some
> museum for the last 30 years.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "hey let's educate the brutes, we know we are superior to them anyway,
> just through genetics, we are gentically superior to the working
> class. They are a shaved monkey. If we educate them, they will be able
> to read instructions, turn up on time and man the conveyor belts,
> sorted." #
>
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
hel...@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
David Spain
Jul 11, 2014, 5:43:58 PM7/11/14
to
On Thursday, July 10, 2014 6:51:58 PM UTC-4, greenaum wrote:
> I realise this is an old post, but Usenet's hardly busy these days...
>
True, but this is really an old post... You could have just as well started
> I realise this is an old post, but Usenet's hardly busy these days...
>
a new thread.
>
>
> Just makes me wonder, is there any known Uranium on the Moon? Or maybe
> an asteroid?
>
http://www.space.com/8644-moon-map-shows-uranium-short-supply.html
In fact compared to the Earth only areas within Copernicus crater seems to
have abundance ratios comparable to what we have in the Earth's crust. Ther
efore the mining and purification processes needed would be more complex th
an those needed to extract fission-grade Uranium here on Earth simply due t
o the fact that we are on the Moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust
An asteroid? Perhaps, but which one? We have so little to no survey data on
that. And even among raging optimists, anything other than a NEO would not
be practical to mine within the next decade or two.
> The main problem with nukes in space seem to be launching them from
> Earth. Obviously they wouldn't go critical (though most of the public
> probably don't know that), but even then nobody fancies a ton of
> radioactive dust spread through *any* layer of the atmosphere, however
> high up the hypothetical launch rocket would be when it blew up.
amounts of materials aka Shuttle-C fashion (i.e. directly across from your
fuel tanks) explosions aboard modern rockets would take place BELOW the pa
yload. If the payload were to be placed in a hardened "cask" there is littl
e change it would fragment. Rather it would just be pushed into a different
ballistic trajectory. Most scenarios would have the cask come down into th
e deep ocean. There are three defunct nuclear submarines I can think of tha
t are resting at the bottom of the ocean whose reactors present no threat t
o anyone on land.
> There's the possibility of staggering launches, sending a few KG up
> alongside satellites etc, maybe. That way we're only risking a small
> fact that rockets still fail catastrophically at such a high rate
> (compared to most other human endeavours) is a big part of it.
Suggest you read up on the casks used to transport highly radioactive nucle
> (compared to most other human endeavours) is a big part of it.
ar waste within the US. Amazingly sturdy devices.
> If rockets were more reliable, then launch worries would lessen,
> though there's still the worry of having it up there, over our heads,
> waiting to come back down. So you'd have to keep any nuclear fuel out
> of Earth orbit, launch it as the last part of a multi-launch mission,
> or a single mission that leaves Earth's gravity straight away.
. Look we *already* have literally TONS of fissile nuclear material all wit
hin a 100 miles or so of major urban/suburban areas, (think Indian Point on
the Hudson in NY north of NYC, or Braidwood Station near suburban Chicago)
.
Having something in orbit that *might* present a problem 50-60 years down t
he road, assuming absolutely NO supervision in all those intervening years
is a big stretch IMHO. But unlike our nuclear power stations on Earth, the
"problem" with orbiting nuclear material is easily overcome with simple del
ta-V!
No the biggest problems to overcome are emotional/political not scientific
or engineering.
> But Uranium on the Moon might be an ideal solution. Nobody would mind
> accidents up there, although as ever it's better to keep things tidy.
tent and at Copernicus no more abundant than here on Earth! You think minin
g and processing U on Earth is expensive? Hold on to your wallet.
> Failing that, what about Thorium? It's seen by some as the perfect
> solution for nuclear fission. Don't know a lot about it but it seems
> like a wonder fuel from it's proponents, much less worry in every way.
Unlike the light-water pressurized or boiling water reactors in use in the
US, Thorium bead reactors have some advantages when used to build electric
al power stations. One is they are hard if near impossible to drive into me
ltdown. However, the reason you don't see these in widespread use in ships
and submarines is not because they were unknown at the time we began a nucl
ear navy, but because of their sheer size compared to smaller PWR/BWR react
ors of equivalent power output. Similar engineering constraints would be in
play for spacecraft applications. Space reactors, except those used solely
for propulsion, will have a lot more in common with their Naval cousins (e
sp. submarines) because of size/mass constraints than they would with elect
rical power plants.
> Didn't the Soviets fly a working reactor ages ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor
Dave
0 new messages