|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear power in space
OK, I've not seen this one lately.
I noted in news that there is to be a push to get reactors going that are able to run in space unattended for long periods. A few questions come to mind here. Would these be screened, and if so, surely this would make them very heavy. If they were to be used for a manned vehicle, say some kind of interplanetary shuttle, they would need to screen it. Even on an unmanned probe, surely the radiation would upset the science instruments? Also, the environmental impact of a failed launch with a reactor on board would be a nightmare, and I'm sure the idea would be ought by the lobby. So, anyone out there know what exactly is planned? From the sci.space.news text, it looks like they are also going to look into a better version of the thermo electric system used now. Brian -- Brian Gaff.... graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________ __________________________________ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/03 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear power in space
"Brian Gaff" wrote in
I noted in news that there is to be a push to get reactors going that are able to run in space unattended for long periods. A few questions come to mind here. Would these be screened, and if so, surely this would make them very heavy. Typical designs use a more-or-less bare reactor with a "shadow shield" placed between the reactor and the rest of the spacecraft. Also typically, the reactor is mounted on a boom to get it away from the rest -- thus the shadow shield can be smaller/lighter and the distance further attenuates the radiation that does get through the shield. You need to be careful when operating such a system in the vicinity of other radiation-sensitive objects, of course. :-) Even on an unmanned probe, surely the radiation would upset the science instruments? It's a design consideration, not a show-stopper except for some very special cases. Also, the environmental impact of a failed launch with a reactor on board would be a nightmare, and I'm sure the idea would be ought by the lobby. Typical concepts use a uranium-fueled reactor that never goes critical until it's in a no-return orbit/trajectory and is designed not to be able to go critical accidentally even in an extreme crash scenario. Such designs aren't all that hard to come up with. So, anyone out there know what exactly is planned? From the sci.space.news text, it looks like they are also going to look into a better version of the thermo electric system used now. At the moment, I get the impression that there is a dual track program, with more/better RTGs on one track and something like son-of-SP-100 on the other. Nuclear thermal rockets and other stuff may come along at some point. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear power in space
"Doug..." wrote in message
... | In article , | says... | OK, I've not seen this one lately. | | I noted in news that there is to be a push to get reactors going that are | able to run in space unattended for long periods. A few questions come to | mind here. | | Would these be screened, and if so, surely this would make them very heavy. | | If they were to be used for a manned vehicle, say some kind of | interplanetary shuttle, they would need to screen it. | | Even on an unmanned probe, surely the radiation would upset the science | instruments? | | Also, the environmental impact of a failed launch with a reactor on board | would be a nightmare, and I'm sure the idea would be ought by the lobby. | | So, anyone out there know what exactly is planned? From the sci.space.news | text, it looks like they are also going to look into a better version of the | thermo electric system used now. | | The thermo-electric system (Radioisotopic Thermal Generators, or RTGs) | are certainly the historically preferred approach to "nuclear energy" | sources in American space probes. While I can't say for certain that the | U.S. hasn't flown any actual nuclear reactors (i.e., moderated fission | piles) on spacecraft, I know that the Soviets are far more well known for | having done this, especially on their ocean surveillance radar | satellites. (One of those was the one that had an uncontrolled entry | over Canada a couple of decades ago.) | | The Soviet mishap obviously is one of the reasons why anti-nuclear | lobbies would object to flying fission reactors in space. Also, AIUI, a | fission reactor requires a far larger mass of fissile material than an | RTG does to provide power, so reactors pose a greater threat in case of | impact with Earth or any other body. | | However, that said, nuclear reactors also offer more efficient power and | propulsion for interplanetary flight than the currently available | technologies. A Pluto probe, for example, with a nuclear reactor-driven | propulsion system could get to Pluto in only a few years and have the | energy available to orbit the planet. A Mars mission could reach Mars in | a matter of three or four weeks, rather than the six to nine months a | minimum-energy transfer orbit would require. The savings in life support | and maintenance systems for such a vehicle are obvious. | | It's a double-edged sword. And you're right, the anti-nuclear lobbies | might bring so much pressure to bear that using such systems (for | propulsion, especially) might be very difficult. But the benefits, | especially in travel times to other planets, are damned attractive. | | -- | | Do not meddle in the affair of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn | thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup | Really, a few weeks to Mars? I don't see how that could work, you would be flying so fast you would need to slow down VERY quickly when you got there, or slow down slowly from a long way out wohich would lengthen the trip time. Brian -- Brian Gaff.... graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________ __________________________________ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/03 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear power in space
In article ,
says... snip Really, a few weeks to Mars? I don't see how that could work, you would be flying so fast you would need to slow down VERY quickly when you got there, or slow down slowly from a long way out wohich would lengthen the trip time. We're talking a constant-thrust profile. You accelerate halfway out to Mars, getting up to a pretty good clip, then you decelerate the rest of the way. Doesn't have to be very high thrust, either, to achieve a transit time of less than two months. Franklin Chiang-Diaz has worked with NASA on a plasma propulsion system that would do just that. I'm sure there are references to it on the web somewhere... -- Do not meddle in the affair of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup | |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear power in space
I'm very interested in nuclear-thermal rockets.
I've been wondering for a while if some sort of throttleable fusion-based rocket with a non-radioactive exhaust would ever be possible. That would really be the ultimate in rocket power, I think. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Asteroid first, Moon, Mars Later | Al Jackson | Space Science Misc | 0 | September 3rd 03 03:40 PM |
Space Station Agency Leaders Look To The Future | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 30th 03 05:51 PM |
News - Two space tourists may go to ISS aboard one spacecraft | Rusty Barton | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 23rd 03 02:05 AM |
Is space over? | Tony Rusi | Space Science Misc | 0 | July 6th 03 12:40 PM |