4 ms·

I think a lot of the folks who have claimed musk is wrong on the science (ie, pro hydrogen, anti nuke etc folks) are surprisingly poorly informed. They have nu

I think a lot of the folks who have claimed musk is wrong on the science (ie, pro hydrogen, anti nuke etc folks) are surprisingly poorly informed. They have nuclear designs which are 98% fusion. The radioactive fallout for these is much more limited. For example, atomic lake (which was terraformed with nuclear bombs), has radiation levels of 9 µSv vs 3 from background per week What's even weirder about the "pro-science" folks - they don't seem to understand radiation exposure ranges in space. Surface of mars is going to have radiation levels on the order of 20 uSv per HOUR - we are talking RADS/year (not mili rads). That said, impactors or nuclear power on the surface are likely more feasible.

magicalist 5y ago
> They have nuclear designs which are 98% fusion. The radioactive fallout for these is much more limited. > For example, atomic lake (which was terraformed with nuclear bombs), has radiation levels of 9 µSv vs 3 from background per week It's kind of weird to take an authoritative stance with that example. "atomic lake" was from an underground detonation of a moderate-yield fission device 50 years ago and largely just moved dirt around while still sending up detectable radioactive waste. OK, you can go near the lake now without ill effect but you've accomplished...what exactly? So scale it up to what is actually needed to vaporize a meaningful amount of the ice caps and look at how effective that would be at making a dent in the Martian atmosphere and the GP has a very good point. It's not a workable idea.
tsimionescu 5y ago
> Surface of mars is going to have radiation levels on the order of 20 uSv per HOUR - we are talking RADS/year (not mili rads). Sure, but there is a difference between solar radiation coming from a clear source that you can shield against, versus potentially coating the planet in fine radioactive dust that would get into every nook and cranny it finds. Radiation from the sky is bad, but radiation inside our lungs is many times more deadly. To be fair, martian dust is already extremely toxic, so mixing in radioactive fallout may not significantly increase the need for scrubbing everything down.

magicalist 5y ago

> They have nuclear designs which are 98% fusion. The radioactive fallout for these is much more limited. > For example, atomic lake (which was terraformed with nuclear bombs), has radiation levels of 9 µSv vs 3 from background per week It's kind of weird to take an authoritative stance with that example. "atomic lake" was from an underground detonation of a moderate-yield fission device 50 years ago and largely just moved dirt around while still sending up detectable radioactive waste. OK, you can go near the lake now without ill effect but you've accomplished...what exactly? So scale it up to what is actually needed to vaporize a meaningful amount of the ice caps and look at how effective that would be at making a dent in the Martian atmosphere and the GP has a very good point. It's not a workable idea.

tsimionescu 5y ago

> Surface of mars is going to have radiation levels on the order of 20 uSv per HOUR - we are talking RADS/year (not mili rads). Sure, but there is a difference between solar radiation coming from a clear source that you can shield against, versus potentially coating the planet in fine radioactive dust that would get into every nook and cranny it finds. Radiation from the sky is bad, but radiation inside our lungs is many times more deadly. To be fair, martian dust is already extremely toxic, so mixing in radioactive fallout may not significantly increase the need for scrubbing everything down.