3 ms·

I always figured it was from Nuclear pearl-clutching and genuine fear about launch disasters. Especially after the various Apollo and shuttle disasters. Though

by ajford 1y ago

I always figured it was from Nuclear pearl-clutching and genuine fear about launch disasters. Especially after the various Apollo and shuttle disasters. Though with how SpaceX has been blowing up rockets left and right, probably a good idea to not have nuclear materials launching until that's been resolved entirely. Boca Chica beach is a mess now, I can only imagine what new Fallout installment we'd get if South Texas became irradiated from a failed launch.

perihelions 1y ago
> "probably a good idea to not have nuclear materials launching until that's been resolved entirely" This isn't an issue at all: fission reactors aren't hazardous until after they first start up (go critical), which in the space electric-propulsion context means after (if) they've successfully launched, and are no longer in the vicinity of Earth. At any rate, China is apparently[0] moving in this direction, regardless of what the US does. [0] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3255889/starship-rival-chinese-scientists-build-prototype-engine-nuclear-powered-spaceship-mars https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3255889/star... ("Starship rival: Chinese scientists build prototype engine for nuclear-powered spaceship to Mars" (2024)) (mirror: https://archive.is/sGUJr https://archive.is/sGUJr )
- GolfPopper 1y ago
  >fission reactors aren't hazardous until after they first start up (go critical) This is only true if the fission reactor's fuel isn't scattered over square kilometers after a launch failure.
  - jjk166 1y ago
    Actually spreading it out over a large area is much safer. What you don't want is a big hunk of highly enriched uranium landing somewhere. Not that it is very likely to harm anyone, but it becomes quite a nightmare to deal with it.
    - SJC_Hacker 1y ago
      Any loss of containment is not going to play well in the news media. We saw the hyperreactivity over Fukushima. I even know some very educated people who should know better like not wanting to eat any seafood caught in the Pacific.
  - perihelions 1y ago
    It's not radioactive enough to matter.
    - Symmetry 1y ago
      Generally the sort of lightweight reactors NASA is looking at for space power use highly enriched uranium. U234 isn't particularly radioactive (it's lasted since the Earth was formed) and far less toxic than the hydrazine propellant our ships carry but it's a significant proliferation risk if it should all into the wrong hands. But yeah, it's not dangerous like the P238 in a radioisotope thermal generator (RTG). To put off enough heat to power a spacecraft just through natural decay you need something ferociously radioactive.
XorNot 1y ago
SpaceX let rockets explode because they're using chemical propellants and the consequences of that are low provided no one gets hit by debris. It's bizarre to suggest that the same strategy would be used with nuclear materials onboard. Developing the "can not fail" rocket is the sort of thing NASA does well, and kind of highlights how we've squandered them.

by ajford 1y ago

perihelions 1y ago

> "probably a good idea to not have nuclear materials launching until that's been resolved entirely" This isn't an issue at all: fission reactors aren't hazardous until after they first start up (go critical), which in the space electric-propulsion context means after (if) they've successfully launched, and are no longer in the vicinity of Earth. At any rate, China is apparently[0] moving in this direction, regardless of what the US does. [0] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3255889/starship-rival-chinese-scientists-build-prototype-engine-nuclear-powered-spaceship-mars https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3255889/star... ("Starship rival: Chinese scientists build prototype engine for nuclear-powered spaceship to Mars" (2024)) (mirror: https://archive.is/sGUJr https://archive.is/sGUJr )

GolfPopper 1y ago
>fission reactors aren't hazardous until after they first start up (go critical) This is only true if the fission reactor's fuel isn't scattered over square kilometers after a launch failure.
- jjk166 1y ago
  Actually spreading it out over a large area is much safer. What you don't want is a big hunk of highly enriched uranium landing somewhere. Not that it is very likely to harm anyone, but it becomes quite a nightmare to deal with it.
  - SJC_Hacker 1y ago
    Any loss of containment is not going to play well in the news media. We saw the hyperreactivity over Fukushima. I even know some very educated people who should know better like not wanting to eat any seafood caught in the Pacific.
- perihelions 1y ago
  It's not radioactive enough to matter.
  - Symmetry 1y ago
    Generally the sort of lightweight reactors NASA is looking at for space power use highly enriched uranium. U234 isn't particularly radioactive (it's lasted since the Earth was formed) and far less toxic than the hydrazine propellant our ships carry but it's a significant proliferation risk if it should all into the wrong hands. But yeah, it's not dangerous like the P238 in a radioisotope thermal generator (RTG). To put off enough heat to power a spacecraft just through natural decay you need something ferociously radioactive.

XorNot 1y ago

SpaceX let rockets explode because they're using chemical propellants and the consequences of that are low provided no one gets hit by debris. It's bizarre to suggest that the same strategy would be used with nuclear materials onboard. Developing the "can not fail" rocket is the sort of thing NASA does well, and kind of highlights how we've squandered them.