5 ms·

I don't see why this is such a big deal outside of the wacky environmentalists. Nuclear power is a viable and powerful way to power spacecraft, especially if w

I don't see why this is such a big deal outside of the wacky environmentalists. Nuclear power is a viable and powerful way to power spacecraft, especially if we want to do more than robotic space exploration.

Afton 17y ago
My naive concern has always been about the fallout of a spectacular launch fail of the sort that involves fuel rods spread over a large area. If this is a solved problem, then my fears are unfounded. Let me know.
- jasonkester 17y ago
  You realize, of course, that not too long ago we were launching actual nuclear bombs into the upper atmosphere and detonating them on purpose. And it didn't really mess things up that bad. In that context, the remote possibility that a rocket might accidentally fail in a way that somehow managed to crack open its little reactor, spilling some radioactive material in a way that somehow harms anything whatsoever, would seem quite trivial. I'd be more worried about airliners crashing into me on the freeway if I were you. In other words, I'll bet you five bucks that nothing radioactive will drop onto your house the next time they launch a satellite with a nuclear reactor onboard.
- evgen 17y ago
  You should really check out the safety features of RTGs. As one example, in 1970 the lunar module from the failed Apollo 13 mission (which had an RTG with a plutonium dioxide core) was burnt up over Fiji and dropped into the Tonga trench in the Pacific. The heat and stress of this event was far beyond anything that would happen during the launch of a spacecraft. The area where the RTG ended up is still tested for an increase in background radiation and to date nothing has shown up that would indicate that the containment vessel has leaked.
  - Tuna-Fish 17y ago
    But we are not talking about RTG:s here, we are talking about real reactors. ... Which are potentially even safer, because the fuel is not terribly radioactive until it has actually been in the reactor. Ship it up in parts, assemble when safely in orbit.
Keyframe 17y ago
There are a bunch of radioisotope thermoelectric generators in space right now, cassini for instance.
- ars 17y ago
  Those don't put out enough energy for this. You'd need an actual reactor. And I remember reading that we are a little short on the right fuel for those right now, since it has not been manufactured in years.
meatbag 17y ago
While for the most part I agree, I don't see why being concerned about the well-documented hazards of nuclear fission equates to "wacky", or why being flippant about these risks should equate to "non-wacky" for that matter.
- stuff4ben 17y ago
  True, I should have toned down the rhetoric. I just get frustrated with how a small minority of people can delay progress in something that, to me, is so fundamental to the advancement of our civilization.

Afton 17y ago

My naive concern has always been about the fallout of a spectacular launch fail of the sort that involves fuel rods spread over a large area. If this is a solved problem, then my fears are unfounded. Let me know.

jasonkester 17y ago
You realize, of course, that not too long ago we were launching actual nuclear bombs into the upper atmosphere and detonating them on purpose. And it didn't really mess things up that bad. In that context, the remote possibility that a rocket might accidentally fail in a way that somehow managed to crack open its little reactor, spilling some radioactive material in a way that somehow harms anything whatsoever, would seem quite trivial. I'd be more worried about airliners crashing into me on the freeway if I were you. In other words, I'll bet you five bucks that nothing radioactive will drop onto your house the next time they launch a satellite with a nuclear reactor onboard.
evgen 17y ago
You should really check out the safety features of RTGs. As one example, in 1970 the lunar module from the failed Apollo 13 mission (which had an RTG with a plutonium dioxide core) was burnt up over Fiji and dropped into the Tonga trench in the Pacific. The heat and stress of this event was far beyond anything that would happen during the launch of a spacecraft. The area where the RTG ended up is still tested for an increase in background radiation and to date nothing has shown up that would indicate that the containment vessel has leaked.
- Tuna-Fish 17y ago
  But we are not talking about RTG:s here, we are talking about real reactors. ... Which are potentially even safer, because the fuel is not terribly radioactive until it has actually been in the reactor. Ship it up in parts, assemble when safely in orbit.

Keyframe 17y ago

There are a bunch of radioisotope thermoelectric generators in space right now, cassini for instance.

ars 17y ago
Those don't put out enough energy for this. You'd need an actual reactor. And I remember reading that we are a little short on the right fuel for those right now, since it has not been manufactured in years.

meatbag 17y ago

While for the most part I agree, I don't see why being concerned about the well-documented hazards of nuclear fission equates to "wacky", or why being flippant about these risks should equate to "non-wacky" for that matter.

stuff4ben 17y ago
True, I should have toned down the rhetoric. I just get frustrated with how a small minority of people can delay progress in something that, to me, is so fundamental to the advancement of our civilization.