4 ms·
The problem with LEO is the Earth's atmosphere, while tenuous, is enough to deorbit. Farther orbits are just fine. SNAP-10A, a Soviet nuclear reactor, is in a
by dalke 10y ago
The problem with LEO is the Earth's atmosphere, while tenuous, is enough to deorbit.
Farther orbits are just fine. SNAP-10A, a Soviet nuclear reactor, is in a 1,300-kilometer orbit which won't decay for 4,000 years (estimated).
"Stable" is also very relative. The Earth has been in a stable orbit for a few billion years, though it's not at a Lagrange point. A satellite in GEO has an effectively unlimited orbital life.
- 323454 10y agoThe Soviets put a nuclear reactor in orbit!?
- dalke 10y agoYes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A > The US-A programme was responsible for orbiting a total of 33 nuclear reactors, 31 of them BES-5 types with a capacity of providing about two kilowatts of power for the radar unit. In addition, in 1987 the Soviets launched two larger TOPAZ nuclear reactors (six kilowatts) in Kosmos satellites (Kosmos 1818 and Kosmos 1867) which were each capable of 6 months of operation.
- maxerickson 10y agoOne dumped its fuel on Canada, an interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954
- dragonwriter 10y ago> SNAP-10A, a Soviet nuclear reactor SNAP-10A is a US nuclear reactor (the only US one launched, apparently), though the Soviets have launched bunches (just not that one.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A
- dalke 10y agoOh, my! Thank you for the correction. I didn't realize that we also put one into orbit.