2 ms·
Maybe spacecraft might be a better fit, but... a portable generator? I don't see the need, personally I'm not sure I understand how you're concerned about a po
by Johnny555 5y ago
Maybe spacecraft might be a better fit, but... a portable generator? I don't see the need, personally
I'm not sure I understand how you're concerned about a portable nuclear generator failure or attack releasing nuclear materials, but you suggest that it would be somehow safer (?) to strap it on top of hundreds of tons of explosive rocket fuel and launch it into the sky?
- ajross 5y agoArrgh. This is misunderstanding the argument in the OTHER direction. Cost/benefit analysis isn't about deciding what's "safer" in an absolute sense. It's about how much you get for how much risk you're willing to accept. The risk of one meltdown is real, but not impossible to tolerate in all circumstances. Is it worth keep a bunch of these reactors around to deploying to urban Mogadishu or wherever to supply an invading military force with power? I argue not. The risk is high, and electricity is cheaply available already. Is it worth launching one reactor into space if it enables an entirely new capability in solar system exploration? Maybe yes. It's just one launch, you can do it in remote areas. The people directly involved can be made aware of the risks (and are taking significant risks already). I don't have a full whitepaper to hand you on this but my intuition says that this might be OK, yeah.