4 ms·
The part of this that surprised me is that the amount of radioactive fission products in the reactor is fairly insignificant for the first part of a mission --
by pjscott 14y ago
The part of this that surprised me is that the amount of radioactive fission products in the reactor is fairly insignificant for the first part of a mission -- a nuclear thermal rocket can be well out of Earth's orbit before it's as radioactive as the RTG that powers the Curiosity rover.
- Wingman4l7 14y agoGood luck explaining that to people.
- jlgreco 14y agoHonestly the best way to handle that would probably be to simply not mention it. If directly asked about it, just start spewing jargon at them until they get bored and walk away. Just don't give them something that would make a good soundbite.
- Wingman4l7 14y agoThat sounds like it would backfire horribly. Honestly, it's a lose-lose situation. If you didn't mention it, they'd spin it as some sort of cover-up; if you spewed jargon at them, they'd just take whatever snippet sounded good to them and spin it into something unrecognizable that fits their agenda. Journalists never let truth get in the way of a good story.
- jlgreco 14y agoYou would need to pick your jargon carefully. The words that tend to set people off are pretty particular. Just avoid words like "radioactive", "isotope", any element name, "nuclear", etc. Don't call it a "reactor", call it a "thermal generator". Be honest and open about everything, but don't brag about it on twitter or in press releases. The idea is to act like it is nothing special to give off the impression that it is nothing special. Make it all seem very routine and boring. Hyping actually boring aspects of the mission could also help. Do lots of things like making twitter accounts for rocks: https://twitter.com/N165Mars https://twitter.com/N165Mars
- Wingman4l7 14y agoWell, just look at the kerfuffle over the Cassini RTG back in 1997: Reporter: "Could this probe fail on launch, re-enter the atmosphere, and explode, showering the U.S. with radioactive particles?" Scientist: "Yes, but there's a one-in-a-million chance of that happening, and we have safeguards against that..." Headline: "SPACE PROBE COULD EXPLODE AND SHOWER RADIATION EVERYWHERE!" The key here is the "Yes, but..." -- if a reporter wants a sensational story, they'll find a way to get it, even if they have to play fast and loose with the truth to do it. (Thanks for that Twitter account link -- I love NASA's sense of humor.)
- jlgreco 14y agoYeah, they really botched Cassini. However with the experiance they gained from that, and a healthy awareness that PR issues like that can happen in the first place, I think they could overcome any issues they might run into. The answer they gave was correct, and they were correct to not be concerned. They know RTGs are safe, but they forgot that the public doesn't know that. (and yeah, I love NASA's twitter accounts :D)
- sliverstorm 14y agoAn excellent summary of what you describe, in comic form http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623
- Wingman4l7 14y agoNicely done! I think he's done other comics that have a similar message. There is also a somewhat relevant xkcd, of course: http://xkcd.com/882/ http://xkcd.com/882/
- DeepDuh 14y agoCan someone ELI5 how that works?
- johngalt 14y agoThe fuel that goes into the reactor isn't that dangerous, but the spent fuel is very dangerous.
- InclinedPlane 14y agoUranium or Plutonium isn't that dangerous, it's fission byproducts that are super dangerous, and they only build up over time.
- arethuza 14y agoI'm not sure I'd call plutonium metal "not that dangerous" - it is pretty toxic, can catch fire spontaneously and once if does catch fire you have to be really careful trying to put the fire out. There is an excellent book on the history of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant near Denver that describes some of the problems with handling plutonium on an industrial scale: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Real-Killing-Rocky-Nuclear/dp/0826327982 http://www.amazon.com/Making-Real-Killing-Rocky-Nuclear/dp/0... Edit: Of course these things are relative. I guess compared to chemicals like chlorine trifluoride or FOOF it is pretty tame from a chemical perspective: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_sa...
- InclinedPlane 14y agoWell yes. What I meant to say was that in trace amounts in the atmosphere Plutonium isn't terribly dangerous. When you're working with bulk metal there are heavy metal toxicity and radioactivity concerns, of course, and if you're working with powder or fines then that can be particularly dangerous in terms of radioactivity exposure (because Plutonium in your lungs is pretty much where it can do the most damage). But compared to fission byproducts like I-131 or Sr-90 which are both crazy radioactive and eagerly taken up by your body and placed into your bones and your thyroid, Plutonium barely registers.
- InclinedPlane 14y agoOne of the best ways to take advantage of an NTR is to use it as an upper stage where it will only ever operate outside of the atmosphere.