Nuke Powered Rover

Obviously, due to the power short commings which limit the range and service
life of the rovers presently on Mars, the next rover sent there should be
nuclear powered. This would give it the ability to last years on the surface
and to rove great distances.

A manned mission is, IMO, just not economically feasible in the near future
until such time as the Federal budget can be brought back to reality. But, now
that water has been discovered, surely further explorations are warranted.

What other features should the nuke rover include and how will we land this
much heavier object on the surface of Mars?
Dave

Dav1936531 wrote:

Obviously, due to the power short commings which limit the range and service
life of the rovers presently on Mars, the next rover sent there should be
nuclear powered. This would give it the ability to last years on the surface
and to rove great distances.

A manned mission is, IMO, just not economically feasible in the near future
until such time as the Federal budget can be brought back to reality. But, now
that water has been discovered, surely further explorations are warranted.

What other features should the nuke rover include and how will we land this
much heavier object on the surface of Mars?
Dave

At the very least, it seems that a small plutonium oxide heater buried
in the battery would save a lot of power that is now wasted just to
control battery temperature. It would allow a rover to park (or do
minimal work) during the winter and keep its battery from freezing, to
wake in spring and continue, for at least a few years.
--
John Popelish

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:33:08 +0000, John Popelish wrote:

Dav1936531 wrote:

Obviously, due to the power short commings which limit the range and
service life of the rovers presently on Mars, the next rover sent there
should be nuclear powered. This would give it the ability to last years
on the surface and to rove great distances.

A manned mission is, IMO, just not economically feasible in the near
future until such time as the Federal budget can be brought back to
reality. But, now that water has been discovered, surely further
explorations are warranted.

What other features should the nuke rover include and how will we land
this much heavier object on the surface of Mars? Dave

At the very least, it seems that a small plutonium oxide heater buried
in the battery would save a lot of power that is now wasted just to
control battery temperature. It would allow a rover to park (or do
minimal work) during the winter and keep its battery from freezing, to
wake in spring and continue, for at least a few years.

If the Rover crashes, as happens more frequently than soft landing, a
significant area would be contaminated with radioactive material. Is it
really worth the risk ?

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to

From: Gautam Majumdar
pan.2004.03.14.18.38.37.423701.11371@XSPAMfreeuk .com

If the Rover crashes, as happens more frequently than soft landing, a
significant area would be contaminated with radioactive material. Is it
really worth the risk ?
Gautam Majumdar

Sure it's worth the risk. What's the risk? That very tiny swath of land on a
virtually unihabited huge planet like Mars would be contaminated with
radioactive materials? That would injure whom? And how?

In any event, the major risk of contamination is during an accident on lift off
from Earth.....but we've sent nuclear powered payloads into space on many
previous occasions.

Of course, I suppose crashing a radioactive payload on Mars could lead to the
creation of a giant Martian Godzilla in which case we'll have to send some
Japanese astronauts to Mars to shoot the beast with bazooka shells while it
stomps around tearing the planet up. Or, possibly, the payload could eat
through the Martian crust, pop a hole in Mars itself, and let all the gas out
of the planet........in which case Mars would fly away as it deflated like one
of those gizmos in a Road Runner cartoon.
Dave

In message pan.2004.03.14.18.38.37.423701.11371@XSPAMfreeuk. com,
Gautam Majumdar writes
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:33:08 +0000, John Popelish wrote:

Dav1936531 wrote:

Obviously, due to the power short commings which limit the range and
service life of the rovers presently on Mars, the next rover sent there
should be nuclear powered. This would give it the ability to last years
on the surface and to rove great distances.


What other features should the nuke rover include and how will we land
this much heavier object on the surface of Mars? Dave

At the very least, it seems that a small plutonium oxide heater buried
in the battery would save a lot of power that is now wasted just to
control battery temperature. It would allow a rover to park (or do
minimal work) during the winter and keep its battery from freezing, to
wake in spring and continue, for at least a few years.

If the Rover crashes, as happens more frequently than soft landing, a
significant area would be contaminated with radioactive material. Is it
really worth the risk ?

NASA thinks so. Future plans for Mars include a nuclear powered rover
(without checking, I'd guess it's powered by an RTG rather than a
reactor). They have launched RTG powered systems to the Moon and outer
planets for nearly 40 years without a hitch.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Dav1936531 posted:

Obviously, due to the power short commings which limit the range and service
life of the rovers presently on Mars, the next rover sent there should be
nuclear powered. This would give it the ability to last years on the surface
and to rove great distances.

That is the plan. The next rover will be nuclear powered (Mars Science
Laboratory) and will have the range and ability to reach and study more
interesting geologic features, as well as look for signs of possible life on
the planet.

What other features should the nuke rover include and how will we land this
much heavier object on the surface of Mars?

Probably using a combination of descent rockets and parachutes like that used
on the Viking Landers. Clear skies to you.

--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Gautam Majumdar wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:33:08 +0000, John Popelish wrote:

Dav1936531 wrote:

Obviously, due to the power short commings which limit the range and
service life of the rovers presently on Mars, the next rover sent there
should be nuclear powered. This would give it the ability to last years
on the surface and to rove great distances.

A manned mission is, IMO, just not economically feasible in the near
future until such time as the Federal budget can be brought back to
reality. But, now that water has been discovered, surely further
explorations are warranted.

What other features should the nuke rover include and how will we land
this much heavier object on the surface of Mars? Dave

At the very least, it seems that a small plutonium oxide heater buried
in the battery would save a lot of power that is now wasted just to
control battery temperature. It would allow a rover to park (or do
minimal work) during the winter and keep its battery from freezing, to
wake in spring and continue, for at least a few years.

If the Rover crashes, as happens more frequently than soft landing, a
significant area would be contaminated with radioactive material. Is it
really worth the risk ?

The radioactive heat source I mentioned is just a chunk of ceramic in
a metal container and a small thing at that. I am not talking about a
nuclear reactor.

--
John Popelish

Gautam Majumdar :

If the Rover crashes, as happens more frequently than soft landing, a
significant area would be contaminated with radioactive material. Is it
really worth the risk ?

???? What risk? You do realize that Mars is not that close?

???? What do you consider a significant area? We are talking about planet
with land area equal to Earth's meanwhile a broken RTG will affect a few
hundred square meters.

Earl Colby Pottinger


--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message pan.2004.03.14.18.38.37.423701.11371@XSPAMfreeuk. com,
Gautam Majumdar writes
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:33:08 +0000, John Popelish wrote:

Dav1936531 wrote:

Obviously, due to the power short commings which limit the range and
service life of the rovers presently on Mars, the next rover sent there
should be nuclear powered. This would give it the ability to last years
on the surface and to rove great distances.


What other features should the nuke rover include and how will we land
this much heavier object on the surface of Mars? Dave

At the very least, it seems that a small plutonium oxide heater buried
in the battery would save a lot of power that is now wasted just to
control battery temperature. It would allow a rover to park (or do
minimal work) during the winter and keep its battery from freezing, to
wake in spring and continue, for at least a few years.

The current MERs each have eight LWRHUs (Light Weight Radioisotope
Heater Units) to help keep things warm. See:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/missi...over_temp.html

If the Rover crashes, as happens more frequently than soft landing, a
significant area would be contaminated with radioactive material. Is it
really worth the risk ?

NASA thinks so. Future plans for Mars include a nuclear powered rover
(without checking, I'd guess it's powered by an RTG rather than a
reactor). They have launched RTG powered systems to the Moon and outer
planets for nearly 40 years without a hitch.

There have been a few hitches in RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric
generator) history, but nobody hurt and no significant contamination
issues. The current radisotope generators are designed to withstand a
great deal of abuse, such as accidental Earth reentry, with no release
of material.

Options for future Mars rovers include both RTGs (which convert decay
heat directly into electricity) and Stirling generators (more
efficient, but technically new and challenging). RTGs are amazingly
reliable.