5 ms·

Not likely. This engine is meant to be used purely outside of the atmosphere, as a means for a ship to transit space efficiently. It's for traveling between pl

by mabbo 6y ago

Not likely. This engine is meant to be used purely outside of the atmosphere, as a means for a ship to transit space efficiently. It's for traveling between planets. There's some risk during takeoff, as we put it into orbit, but that risk can be handled- make it that the radioactive bits are protected even during an explosive launch failure. Nuclear reactor have been safely put into space many times before.

m4rtink 6y ago
For the record an RTG was recovered from the seabed after a launch failure intact - and then relaunched! https://rps.nasa.gov/about-rps/safety-and-reliability/ https://rps.nasa.gov/about-rps/safety-and-reliability/ I'm sure the same can be done for nuclear reactor fuel. Even better actually, as reactor fuel is basically just a very expensive and pure heavy metal & only slightly radioactive. Only once the reactor is first started all sorts of unstable radiation releasing elements are formed in the fuel. So if you only start the reactor once it is in space & pack the fuel securely for launch, all should be good to go! :-)
Jaruzel 6y ago
The voyager probes from the '70s are both nuclear powered.
- unnouinceput 6y ago
  The difference is that a Voyager from 70's nuclear engine if it fails and explodes on launch you'll get the equivalent of Beirut explosion at worse. This one looks like Hiroshima instead. I don't think people living in nearby cities would appreciate that.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    Nuclear reactors don't explode. The risk is the chemical rocket exploding and spreading the nuclear fuel. The fuel doesn't get very radioactive until the reactor is started and proper packaging can protect against that.
    - unnouinceput 6y ago
      Nuclear reactors don't explode? I suppose then Chernobyl was just another bomb and this: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster) is just the official cover-up, eh? </sarcasm>
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        It was not a nuclear explosion. If it were a nuclear explosion there wouldn't be anything left of the building and other reactors around it and capping it with a concrete and steel structure would be rather pointless.
        unnouinceput 6y ago
        No? Then what was it? Quote from said wiki: "The reactor explosion killed two of the reactor operating staff." Yeah, I guess it wasn't an explosion </sarcasm> And North Korea underground explosions that were detected and consequently destroyed some of their underground facilities were too nuclear explosions. You know, there is such big explosion and smaller explosions.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        > No? Then what was it? A steam explosion. That's very different from a nuclear explosion. > And North Korea underground explosions Those were not reactors exploding. Those were bombs, which were pretty much designed to explode and, as expected, exploded.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > It was not a nuclear explosion. The claim upthread was not “nuclear reactors don't have nuclear explosions” (which would also be overgeneralized), but “nuclear reactors don't explode”. The reactor at Chernobyl did explode. The fact that it was a steam explosion induced by energy from a nuclear chain reaction and followed by a reactor core fire does not change the fact that it was a nuclear reactor, and it did explode. > If it were a nuclear explosion there wouldn't be anything left of the building and other reactors around it and capping it with a concrete and steel structure would be rather pointless. You seem to be confusing “nuclear explosion” with “nuclear explosion whose yield is maximized via explosive containment, in the manner typical of deliberately engineered nuclear weapons”.

by mabbo 6y ago

m4rtink 6y ago

For the record an RTG was recovered from the seabed after a launch failure intact - and then relaunched! https://rps.nasa.gov/about-rps/safety-and-reliability/ https://rps.nasa.gov/about-rps/safety-and-reliability/ I'm sure the same can be done for nuclear reactor fuel. Even better actually, as reactor fuel is basically just a very expensive and pure heavy metal & only slightly radioactive. Only once the reactor is first started all sorts of unstable radiation releasing elements are formed in the fuel. So if you only start the reactor once it is in space & pack the fuel securely for launch, all should be good to go! :-)

Jaruzel 6y ago

The voyager probes from the '70s are both nuclear powered.

unnouinceput 6y ago
The difference is that a Voyager from 70's nuclear engine if it fails and explodes on launch you'll get the equivalent of Beirut explosion at worse. This one looks like Hiroshima instead. I don't think people living in nearby cities would appreciate that.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  Nuclear reactors don't explode. The risk is the chemical rocket exploding and spreading the nuclear fuel. The fuel doesn't get very radioactive until the reactor is started and proper packaging can protect against that.
  - unnouinceput 6y ago
    Nuclear reactors don't explode? I suppose then Chernobyl was just another bomb and this: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster) is just the official cover-up, eh? </sarcasm>
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      It was not a nuclear explosion. If it were a nuclear explosion there wouldn't be anything left of the building and other reactors around it and capping it with a concrete and steel structure would be rather pointless.
      - unnouinceput 6y ago
        No? Then what was it? Quote from said wiki: "The reactor explosion killed two of the reactor operating staff." Yeah, I guess it wasn't an explosion </sarcasm> And North Korea underground explosions that were detected and consequently destroyed some of their underground facilities were too nuclear explosions. You know, there is such big explosion and smaller explosions.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        > No? Then what was it? A steam explosion. That's very different from a nuclear explosion. > And North Korea underground explosions Those were not reactors exploding. Those were bombs, which were pretty much designed to explode and, as expected, exploded.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > It was not a nuclear explosion. The claim upthread was not “nuclear reactors don't have nuclear explosions” (which would also be overgeneralized), but “nuclear reactors don't explode”. The reactor at Chernobyl did explode. The fact that it was a steam explosion induced by energy from a nuclear chain reaction and followed by a reactor core fire does not change the fact that it was a nuclear reactor, and it did explode. > If it were a nuclear explosion there wouldn't be anything left of the building and other reactors around it and capping it with a concrete and steel structure would be rather pointless. You seem to be confusing “nuclear explosion” with “nuclear explosion whose yield is maximized via explosive containment, in the manner typical of deliberately engineered nuclear weapons”.