5 ms·

I am not sure this is a good idea. Nuclear reactor is an easy way out of a problem that has alternative solutions. Restriction on using nuclear power for previ

I am not sure this is a good idea. Nuclear reactor is an easy way out of a problem that has alternative solutions. Restriction on using nuclear power for previous missions did a lot of good in terms of researching and perfecting the alternatives (solar arrays). Restricting the use of nuclear power does not prevent missions, it only adds to the cost of the mission, which is not really a technical problem. Maybe launching one, fresh, yet inert reactor, is not a big issue. The issue starts when we fly a lot of them and they start falling back to Earth after some service time. It is relatively easy to build safe reactors on Earth (if only everybody was interested in safety and not their own agenda). It is much more difficult when you are going to shoot the entire device into space and you can't have 1000:1 of shields and casings.

schwarrrtz 9y ago
What power source do you propose for a long-duration human mission to Mars, if not nuclear? Solar won’t work, given the loss of output during a dust storm.
- twothamendment 9y ago
  If I were on my way to Mars I wouldn't go without nuclear power. It is too far away to have an Amazon drone drop off a fresh batch of batteries or solar panels.
icelancer 9y ago
There is essentially no actual ecological or serious fear about these devices. The weapons ban was meant to help avoid nuclear exchange between nations; there's very little scientific data that shows there's added cost or risk of thousands of reactors falling to Earth and causing radiation poisoning. Nuclear is exceptionally safe and all the recent accidents (and ones in the past, really) are all due to human stupidity and bypassing several failsafes. You can argue that's an issue that will never go away, and that's true in the absolute sense, but it's not a nuclear problem. It's a human issue. We're holding ourselves back for scientific research because of arbitrary issues; and the weapons test ban didn't even solve nuclear proliferation anyway. Solar won't be held back because nuclear is finally an option. They serve two different purposes entirely.
- jonathanstrange 9y ago
  Modern nuclear power plants are relatively safe. However, there is not enough data to determine how safe nuclear power is in general, because you have to take into account the whole production cycle including all long-term storage of nuclear waste. Half life time of nuclear waste ranges from 30 years to 24,000 years, so it's possible that hundreds of people die in 30,000 years from now by being exposed to nuclear waste from our time.
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    If you're taking that kind of thing into account you need to take the same time range into account in other power sources. How many hundreds of billions of people will die over the next 30000 years from coal effects? How does that compare to your 'hundreds'?
    - jonathanstrange 9y ago
      I completely agree and don't think coal is better than nuclear power at all. Reduction of energy waste, renewable energy sources and nuclear fushion are the obvious way to go, but it may make sense to temporarily accompany them with nuclear power.
      - scrollaway 9y ago
        Sure, I didn't mean to imply that. I just meant that whatever long term damages are done need to be put on a timescale that actually helps us compare alternatives. If hundreds of billions of lives are saved in the time it takes for nuclear to do real damage, maybe that's just worth it.
        jerven 9y ago
        It is also worth to estimate how quickly nuclear production can scale up and deplace coal. I personally think wind and solar can scale up much faster economically and socially and more easily deplace coal and gas than nuclear could in the best case.
DangerousPie 9y ago
I'm not sure I am convinced by this argument. You say it "only adds to the cost of the mission" as if that wasn't an issue, but unfortunately our resources are finite. If we increase the cost of any given mission that means we cannot do other missions. There is always a trade-off here, and I am not sure if the advantages of solar would be worth the cost of holding back research that much. You could easily make the opposite argument - solar power is an easy way out of making nuclear power safe enough to go up into space. Having to use nuclear power for missions might do a lot of good in terms of researching and perfecting safe nuclear power.
- lmilcin 9y ago
  Nuclear reactors that have some service time on them are very, very, very radioactive. Just look what happens when a very small portion of that radioactivity finds itself into the atmosphere or water (Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc.) It is maybe not as big a problem if we never plan it to return to Earth or Mars orbit (reactor is not as radioactive until it actually is started), but if we are using it to supply energy to the crew for the duration of the mission in deep space, the reactor will inevitably be radiactive and brought at least to Mars orbit or even back to Earth orbit. Now, if that piece of junk falls to Earth, we have a big problem. Not the same kind of problem as falling solar array.
  - ageofwant 9y ago
    Exactly what do you think "happens" ? Not even Chernobyl, that had an atmospheric nuclear fire, the worst case scenario imaginable, had a economic, environmental or human live cost comparable to the impact of a single coal power plant. It really concerns me when people on this forum, that has no excuse to not know better, parrots this anti-nuclear FUD.
    - the_duke 9y ago
      Please provide a citation for this claim. Chernobyl still is a massive cost factor for plenty of countries ( all that are helping out financially with building the new mantle ). Also look at the large effects of Fukushima. Every time nuclear power comes up here on HN, there are some fierce defenders. No matter how 'safe' newer generation plants are and how much it was the oprators fault, the potential for disaster is there. And that's not even mentioning the high lifetime cost when you consider safely storing the material, which often falls to the public.
batushka2 9y ago
This is just perpetrating renewable hoax to a higher level. Primary energy source for Mars can't be solar - it's not reliable (batteries, dust storms, atmospheric events). Nuclear offers unmatched reliability.
ageofwant 9y ago
The use of nuclear power should be encouraged and popularised whenever we can. Years of nuclear FUD needs to be unwound and humanity re-educated on the benefits of nuclear power. So much of our current climate change predicament could have been avoided. Its a crying shame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak

schwarrrtz 9y ago

What power source do you propose for a long-duration human mission to Mars, if not nuclear? Solar won’t work, given the loss of output during a dust storm.

twothamendment 9y ago
If I were on my way to Mars I wouldn't go without nuclear power. It is too far away to have an Amazon drone drop off a fresh batch of batteries or solar panels.

icelancer 9y ago

There is essentially no actual ecological or serious fear about these devices. The weapons ban was meant to help avoid nuclear exchange between nations; there's very little scientific data that shows there's added cost or risk of thousands of reactors falling to Earth and causing radiation poisoning. Nuclear is exceptionally safe and all the recent accidents (and ones in the past, really) are all due to human stupidity and bypassing several failsafes. You can argue that's an issue that will never go away, and that's true in the absolute sense, but it's not a nuclear problem. It's a human issue. We're holding ourselves back for scientific research because of arbitrary issues; and the weapons test ban didn't even solve nuclear proliferation anyway. Solar won't be held back because nuclear is finally an option. They serve two different purposes entirely.

jonathanstrange 9y ago
Modern nuclear power plants are relatively safe. However, there is not enough data to determine how safe nuclear power is in general, because you have to take into account the whole production cycle including all long-term storage of nuclear waste. Half life time of nuclear waste ranges from 30 years to 24,000 years, so it's possible that hundreds of people die in 30,000 years from now by being exposed to nuclear waste from our time.
- scrollaway 9y ago
  If you're taking that kind of thing into account you need to take the same time range into account in other power sources. How many hundreds of billions of people will die over the next 30000 years from coal effects? How does that compare to your 'hundreds'?
  - jonathanstrange 9y ago
    I completely agree and don't think coal is better than nuclear power at all. Reduction of energy waste, renewable energy sources and nuclear fushion are the obvious way to go, but it may make sense to temporarily accompany them with nuclear power.
    - scrollaway 9y ago
      Sure, I didn't mean to imply that. I just meant that whatever long term damages are done need to be put on a timescale that actually helps us compare alternatives. If hundreds of billions of lives are saved in the time it takes for nuclear to do real damage, maybe that's just worth it.
      - jerven 9y ago
        It is also worth to estimate how quickly nuclear production can scale up and deplace coal. I personally think wind and solar can scale up much faster economically and socially and more easily deplace coal and gas than nuclear could in the best case.

DangerousPie 9y ago

I'm not sure I am convinced by this argument. You say it "only adds to the cost of the mission" as if that wasn't an issue, but unfortunately our resources are finite. If we increase the cost of any given mission that means we cannot do other missions. There is always a trade-off here, and I am not sure if the advantages of solar would be worth the cost of holding back research that much. You could easily make the opposite argument - solar power is an easy way out of making nuclear power safe enough to go up into space. Having to use nuclear power for missions might do a lot of good in terms of researching and perfecting safe nuclear power.

lmilcin 9y ago
Nuclear reactors that have some service time on them are very, very, very radioactive. Just look what happens when a very small portion of that radioactivity finds itself into the atmosphere or water (Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc.) It is maybe not as big a problem if we never plan it to return to Earth or Mars orbit (reactor is not as radioactive until it actually is started), but if we are using it to supply energy to the crew for the duration of the mission in deep space, the reactor will inevitably be radiactive and brought at least to Mars orbit or even back to Earth orbit. Now, if that piece of junk falls to Earth, we have a big problem. Not the same kind of problem as falling solar array.
- ageofwant 9y ago
  Exactly what do you think "happens" ? Not even Chernobyl, that had an atmospheric nuclear fire, the worst case scenario imaginable, had a economic, environmental or human live cost comparable to the impact of a single coal power plant. It really concerns me when people on this forum, that has no excuse to not know better, parrots this anti-nuclear FUD.
  - the_duke 9y ago
    Please provide a citation for this claim. Chernobyl still is a massive cost factor for plenty of countries ( all that are helping out financially with building the new mantle ). Also look at the large effects of Fukushima. Every time nuclear power comes up here on HN, there are some fierce defenders. No matter how 'safe' newer generation plants are and how much it was the oprators fault, the potential for disaster is there. And that's not even mentioning the high lifetime cost when you consider safely storing the material, which often falls to the public.

batushka2 9y ago

This is just perpetrating renewable hoax to a higher level. Primary energy source for Mars can't be solar - it's not reliable (batteries, dust storms, atmospheric events). Nuclear offers unmatched reliability.

ageofwant 9y ago

The use of nuclear power should be encouraged and popularised whenever we can. Years of nuclear FUD needs to be unwound and humanity re-educated on the benefits of nuclear power. So much of our current climate change predicament could have been avoided. Its a crying shame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak