5 ms·
Elon Musk addressed the idea of creating nuclear fusion on earth by saying something along the lines of, "why would we do that, there's a huge nuclear fusion ge
by wppick 9y ago
Elon Musk addressed the idea of creating nuclear fusion on earth by saying something along the lines of, "why would we do that, there's a huge nuclear fusion generator in the sky that we can use to generate all the power we need"
- MrBuddyCasino 9y agoThats what I‘d say if I was selling energy storage.
- bhhaskin 9y agoOr owned a solar company.
- ben_w 9y agoOn the other hand, it’s exactly what I wouldn’t say if I was building an interplanetary colony ship. Not if I thought it had any realistic chance of success, anyway.
- bmcusick 9y agoThe Sun shines on Mars too. Solar energy is a practical source of energy as far out as the asteroid belt. Nuclear energy isn't needed to accomplish anything that Musk wants to accomplish in life.
- ben_w 9y agoNuclear propulsion would make colonisation much more practical, much safer, and return trips much cheaper.
- bmcusick 9y agoMaybe. I understand the physics says there's an ISP benefit. Standard rocket engines are well-understood though, work well, allow for retro-propulsion, and you can synthesize methane easily on Mars. In the long term when the space transport infrastructure is as well developed as the terrestrial one, I can see the benefit of having different systems for different purposes, so you get the specialized benefits. But I'm not sure we are there yet. To use an analogy from history, we aren't at the Golden Spike moment yet where California was sufficiently settled to warrant a continental rail road connecting the East and West Coasts. We're still in the exploration and settlement stage, and while trains may be more energy efficient, what we need is a Conestoga Wagon that can be operated and maintained by the settlers themselves while they live off the land and develop the first homesteads.
- ben_w 9y agoIn the absence of a working fusion reactor, everything is necessarily speculative. That said, going from chemical to nuclear propulsion is estimated to reduce round-trip times from ~600 days (you have to wait at Mars for the orbits to realign), to 30 days. This is roughly the difference between an 1881 steamliner from London to Syndey, and a 747.
- bmcusick 9y agoNASA is working on it, but until there's a working engine available for private rockets it seems premature. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2017/nasa-contracts-with-bwxt-nuclear-energy-to-advance-nuclear-thermal-propulsion-technology.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/201...
- ben_w 9y agoOrdinarily I would agree. However, this is Musk, and both SpaceX and Tesla have made progress beyond what most commentors have thought reasonable when the first press releases went out. I’d guess a 10%-30% chance SpaceX is already Skunkworks-ing some form of atomic rocket, either fusion or fission. Edit: and yes, that estimate is despite the public comments.
- Fnoord 9y agoHe's got a point though [1]. The price of solar has gone down massively as well. We can use it to charge batteries. Farmers here are renting solar cells on their territory, getting free energy and selling the overabundant for money. If we invest in green companies who use solar energy, we end up stimulating that industry instead of giving the grey energy providers our dime. Tesla's at the upper end of the market, but just today I saw on HN an article that GM is selling an EV in China for ~5k USD. In the mid-90s it was GM who, after an experiment, neglected the idea of an EV. See e.g. the documentary Who Killed The Electric Car? [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Potential https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Potential [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
- Koshkin 9y agoMakes sense.