8 ms·
This is a very cool technology, but frankly I have a hard time imagining that it will see much use. NASA sees public protests and scare mongering whenever it tr
by GlenTheMachine 9y ago
This is a very cool technology, but frankly I have a hard time imagining that it will see much use. NASA sees public protests and scare mongering whenever it tries to fly an RTG, which is based in the radioactive decay of (usually) plutonium, and does not use a nuclear chain reaction. They did fly one on Mars Science Lab, because it was the only way to get enough power for the rover. But it takes a PR hit every time it does so. RTGs are therefore only used when no other technology will work.
It think it's likely that the public relations nightmare NASA would have to go through to fly an actual reactor will be through the roof.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoHas anyone studied these protesters? My off-the-cuff sense is they’re mostly older environmentalists.
- sp332 9y agoIt's because sometimes a rocket explodes on the launch pad or a few seconds later, and it could spread radiactive material over a very wide area.
- ethbro 9y agoThe alternatives still seem worse.
- rwcarlsen 9y agoThe half-life of fuel for these reactors is very long - over 100,000 years. So for all practical biological effects they are basically stable. If it exploded before it was activated (far into space), it would be about the same danger to people and the environment as the rest of the exploding metal the rocket was made of.
- bildung 9y agoThe half-life of the currently used fuel (Plutonium 238) is 87 years.
- zoe1337 9y agoFor that case there are launch escape systems typically used for crewed missions.
- freeone3000 9y agoPretty much any uncontrolled explosion propels highly toxic material over a large area (rocket fuel is not lickable). I don't see how alpha radiation is inherently worse than hydrazine.
- maxxxxx 9y ago"RTGs are therefore only used when no other technology will work." I think this is a good thing. And it seems they can use them if nothing else works.
- jlebrech 9y agothey should be indoctrinating kids at school that nuclear is safe, rather than other "stuff" they tell them nowadays
- TeMPOraL 9y agoTotally. You're probably catching downvotes from people offended by "indoctrination", but a) indoctrination is what schools do, that's their purpose, and b) nuclear is actually pretty safe. I agree with the sentiment. Anti-science sentiments proliferate partly because science doesn't spend much on public outreach, especially compared to people who want to make a buck off scaring others about new technologies. NASA has been doing more and more PR work over the past few years, and that's great - but IMO in this case, they really need to get someone who looks and sounds confident, and who would go on national TV and say "Yes, we are totally sending a nuclear reactor to space, why wouldn't we?".
- matt4077 9y agoIn your zeal to defend nuclear energy, you're come around full circle, defending something indefensible, with arguments far removed from actual science. Nuclear energy may be safe, if done under near-perfect condition, with extremely large budgets to understand risks, and plans to mitigate incidents. There is truth to the argument that nuclear power saves lives compared to coal power. But nuclear power isn't inherently safe. It is, by its very nature, extremely dangerous. Actual nuclear scientists understand that. See, for example, Feynman's work on nuclear safety during the Manhattan project. Strapping a nuclear reactor to a rocket is almost by definition a dirty bomb. Depending on the height and mode of an eventual launch failure, the result could be anything from Tchernobyl to a less-dramatic yet more deadly dispersal of nuclear material in the upper atmosphere. The dose-response relationship of radiation exposure is largely linear, meaning the latter event might just increase your risk of brain cancer by 0.005%. Yes, you may consider it negligible. But statistically, it would kill half a million people. To blithely state that "nuclear is safe, hoho, why shouldn't we strap Plutonium to a rocket, you environmental nincompoops" has nothing to do with science, and gives science a bad name. Maybe NASA could come up with a way to protect a reactor during a missile launch. But it wouldn't be easy, and saying "why wouldn't we?" on TV would not inspire confidence in their abilities, but doubts in their sanity. The right thing to say on TV is "We're sending a reactor into space, and here are the mechanisms we've come up with to make it safe..."
- andygates 9y agoThey used to get protests back when Galileo launched, but I don't recall any for Curiosity. There's the soothing effect over time of a known technology not screwing up. Kilopower is safer, because it would launch inert, and it avoids Pu so any failures would be less toxic. Downplaying the usefulness of a technology because of imaginary protesters isn't very helpful.
- lholden 9y agoI don't think New Horizons received any protestors either.
- InclinedPlane 9y agoIt did: https://www.space.com/1929-nasa-pluto-mission-draws-dozen-protesters.html https://www.space.com/1929-nasa-pluto-mission-draws-dozen-pr... (Not many, but more than zero.)