5 ms·

> I'm really sort of surprised that nobody is seriously discussing how to build a nuclear reactor in space yet. Isn't the fear that this would start another nu

by knz 9y ago

> I'm really sort of surprised that nobody is seriously discussing how to build a nuclear reactor in space yet. Isn't the fear that this would start another nuclear arms race? I'm not sure if the threat is that much worse (considering how effective the nuclear triad is) but any perceived advantage would have consequences that increase the threat of nuclear war.

Symmetry 9y ago
It's nuclear weapons that nobody wants in space, not nuclear reactors. Almost every outer solar system probe has had a nuclear power source that relied on decay and the Russians even put reactors on one series of satellites IIRC. And people are working on building reactors. NASA has plans for one[1] in the 100kWe range. But mostly spacecraft have had low power needs and so people haven't wanted to deal with the complexity of a reactor. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Affordable_Fission_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Affordable_Fission_Engine
- WalterBright 9y ago
  I'd rather have nuclear weapons in space than on earth.
  - DanHulton 9y ago
    I don't think you would. They're a lot more potentially dangerous up there.
  - Symmetry 9y ago
    Nuclear weapons in space can be dropped on Earth with very little warning. An ICBM has an obvious launch flare but nuclear weapon equipped satellites might be able to deploy their nukes with almost no warning.
- knz 9y ago
  > It's nuclear weapons that nobody wants in space I should have been more specific - isn't the fear that nuclear power generation in space could be utilized as part of a weapons program.
  - Symmetry 9y ago
    Developing the infrastructure to take moderately enriched Uranium and enrich it to something weapons grade is likely to be outside the industrial scope of any space facility for quite a while. When we've got 10,000,000 people living on the Moon we can use the same enforcement regime as we do with small countries on Earth. Until then it's not worth worrying about.
njarboe 9y ago
It seems like for nuclear power to be accepted it needs to change its name like every other product using radiation or the word nuclear. One of my favorites is how Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging dropped the the Nuclear. Many people now use radioisotopic instead of radioactive when they want to avoid the negative feelings around the word radioactive. Maybe isotopic power? Use it for both fission and fusion.

by knz 9y ago

Symmetry 9y ago

It's nuclear weapons that nobody wants in space, not nuclear reactors. Almost every outer solar system probe has had a nuclear power source that relied on decay and the Russians even put reactors on one series of satellites IIRC. And people are working on building reactors. NASA has plans for one[1] in the 100kWe range. But mostly spacecraft have had low power needs and so people haven't wanted to deal with the complexity of a reactor. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Affordable_Fission_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Affordable_Fission_Engine

WalterBright 9y ago
I'd rather have nuclear weapons in space than on earth.
- DanHulton 9y ago
  I don't think you would. They're a lot more potentially dangerous up there.
- Symmetry 9y ago
  Nuclear weapons in space can be dropped on Earth with very little warning. An ICBM has an obvious launch flare but nuclear weapon equipped satellites might be able to deploy their nukes with almost no warning.
knz 9y ago
> It's nuclear weapons that nobody wants in space I should have been more specific - isn't the fear that nuclear power generation in space could be utilized as part of a weapons program.
- Symmetry 9y ago
  Developing the infrastructure to take moderately enriched Uranium and enrich it to something weapons grade is likely to be outside the industrial scope of any space facility for quite a while. When we've got 10,000,000 people living on the Moon we can use the same enforcement regime as we do with small countries on Earth. Until then it's not worth worrying about.

njarboe 9y ago

It seems like for nuclear power to be accepted it needs to change its name like every other product using radiation or the word nuclear. One of my favorites is how Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging dropped the the Nuclear. Many people now use radioisotopic instead of radioactive when they want to avoid the negative feelings around the word radioactive. Maybe isotopic power? Use it for both fission and fusion.