4 ms·
No, it indicates exactly nothing. You’re talking about 1970e technology (ie when the computing power on Apollo was roughly a pocket calculator) vs how we will a
by robbiep 5y ago
No, it indicates exactly nothing. You’re talking about 1970e technology (ie when the computing power on Apollo was roughly a pocket calculator) vs how we will actually get there, a period during which nuclear reactor designs have also evolved, and the navy in particular has learned a huge amount.
How does one article on the third portable reactor built tell us clearly anything at all about how we should power a hypothetical Mars base more than 60 years later
- Clewza313 5y agoWe've made great leaps in safety measures since then. I'm not convinced we've made much in the way of progress in terms of miniaturization, simplicity or cost of operation though, as you can see from the ludicrous cost overruns seen for basically all recent reactors.
- Manuel_D 5y agoMiniaturization is not desirable for nuclear power because of regulation. Each nuclear power plant is required to pay 375 million dollars in insurance, regardless of size. So this incentivizes building plants as large as possible. Even without regulation, things like surface area to volume ratio still make larger reactors more efficient.