• The first nuclear power plant for settlements on Moon, Mars
    137 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;32022581]They just need better safety standards. The Challenger Disaster easily could've been avoided if NASA was willing to wait until it was warmer before launching. (it failed because the shuttle was only tested at 40 degrees but they decided to launch the Challenger despite knowing it was 18 degrees)[/QUOTE] Better saftey standards means it will be even more expensive. I seriously don't see this happening for quite some time. Since it is much more important for the US to build their ultra-expensive army, instead of contributing to human progression by funding this. The US budget logic, fucking love it.
[QUOTE=booster;32022639]Better saftey standards means it will be even more expensive. I seriously don't see this happening for quite some time. Since it is much more important for the US to build their ultra-expensive army, instead of contributing to human progression by funding this. The US budget logic, fucking love it.[/QUOTE]It doesn't have to mean it'd be more expensive, it just means using more common sense. Like with the Challenger, don't launch your expensive shuttle at temperatures it was never intended to be used in or something bad's gonna happen. It's common fucking sense.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;32022688]It doesn't have to mean it'd be more expensive, it just means using more common sense. Like with the Challanger, don't launch your expensive shuttle at temperatures it was never intended to be used in or something bad's gonna happen. It's common fucking sense.[/QUOTE] Still, a rocket isn't really that cheap, not to mention the power plant. There are always flaws in space shuttles, and it's going to be expensive to eradicate them.
[QUOTE=booster;32022745]Still, a rocket isn't really that cheap, not to mention the power plant. There are always flaws in space shuttles, and it's going to be expensive to eradicate them.[/QUOTE] Then make them simpler. The more complex we make our shit the more likely it is to fail.
Stop writing Challanger, it's Challenger.
Fuck yeah! wait shit
[QUOTE=LarparNar;32023149]Stop writing Challanger, it's Challenger.[/QUOTE] It was a typo that Google Chrome apparently didn't catch, sorry.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;32022804]Then make them simpler. The more complex we make our shit the more likely it is to fail.[/QUOTE] The more simpler we make [B]space shuttles[/B] the more likely they will fail. There is really too much at stake to make something like this "simple and cheap". If this fucks up, it will be just as big of a punch to space exploration, as Chernobyl was to nuclear science.
[QUOTE=petieng;32022017]The radiation levels on the Moon, especially in sunlight are extreme and make any of the nuclear disaster on Earth insignificant. Over 4 Sv a day on the surface of the Moon, 4-5 times what you'd experience standing next to the Chernobyl sarcophagus and hundreds or thousands of times what you'd experience most places in the exclusion zone. The lack of an atmosphere means you wouldn't get fallout over large areas even if a disaster did happen and raised very localised radiaiton levels insignificantly.[/QUOTE] If it was within Earth's region of space you'd likely get radiation belts though.
[QUOTE=booster;32022639]Better saftey standards means it will be even more expensive. I seriously don't see this happening for quite some time. Since it is much more important for the US to build their ultra-expensive army, instead of contributing to human progression by funding this. The US budget logic, fucking love it.[/QUOTE] We send highly radioactive materials such as plutonium 238 and isotopes of americium, curium, caesium and other really nasty alpha and beta radiation emitters in large quantities, in the form of nuclear 'RTG' generators into space all the time. Deep space probes like New Horizons, the Voyager and Pioneer crafts, the Cassini probe etc all have RTG's to power them because they're too far out for photovoltaics. Safe rockets do cost a lot, and depending on the cost of the payload or hazards involved such as radioactive material is factored into the deciding what rocket to send it up in. Communication or military satellites which aren't exactly cheap but aren't really worth the cost of a very safe and expensive rocket will launch on something like the USAF's Delta rockets which can explode, albeit very rarely. Extremely expensive scientific instruments and probes, or payloads containing something hazardous like RTG's will be sent up on safer rockets like the Atlas V, which hasn't had a single major accident in its entire service history. I'm not saying, because an Atlas V has never exploded, it never will, I'm just saying we do have safe rockets and we do launch highly radioactive material into space. Using the space shuttle as an example isn't very fair because the Shuttle is no longer in service partly due to its safety record and the costs associated with keeping it safe. Despite this, I totally agree this won't happen for a long time and it will be because of silly US budget logic :v: [editline]30th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;32024561]If it was within Earth's region of space you'd likely get radiation belts though.[/QUOTE] I don't see how. This is for use on the moon. If you had a nuclear meltdown on the moon, it would be contained to the moon and an extremely localised area of it's surface. No wind to distribute fallout. If you're talking about if there was an accident during it's transportation to the Moon, then I'm pretty sure they would not have the device actually fissioning during launch and transport, so all you'd have in it is nuclear fuel, which really is not very radioactive at all. It's the products created during the fissioning process that are the nasty radioactive isotopes which leak out during a meltdown. As I've just explained, we send much nastier materials into space in RTG's.
Even if they get that power plant up there, which I hope they will ASAP. How do they plan on getting a base set up there? Because I expect it to be pretty god damn huge in order to be worth it. So wouldn't it take several careful launches to send all parts necessary? And wouldn't that alone take years if not over a decade (with current budgets). It'll be interesting to see how NASA will deal with this.
[quote]The reactor itself may be about 1 1/2 feet wide by 2 1/2 feet high, about the size of a carry-on suitcase.[/quote] [IMG]http://www.infobarrel.com/media/image/29296.jpg[/IMG] [b]It's all coming together now[/b]
Fucking awesome.
[QUOTE=booster;32025947]Even if they get that power plant up there, which I hope they will ASAP. How do they plan on getting a base set up there? Because I expect it to be pretty god damn huge in order to be worth it. So wouldn't it take several careful launches to send all parts necessary? And wouldn't that alone take years if not over a decade (with current budgets). It'll be interesting to see how NASA will deal with this.[/QUOTE] I assume NASA will launch and build the base similar to how they planned to with the Constellation program. I'm willing to bet it won't be NASA who will be the first to build a Moon base and possibly use this reactor. SpaceX actually have a plan to build a base on the Moon whilst NASA's is kind of on the backburner. And yes it will take several launches, but so did the ISS. Also it won't have to be that big to make it worth it. This reactor is the size of a suitcase and has a 40KW output, about the same needed to power 8 houses.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32002515][release][h2]STOP[/h2][/release][/QUOTE] [release][h2]STOP[/h2][/release] [u]Living[/u].
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32013965]True. Put them in caaarrrsss[/QUOTE] Maybe electric cars will actually be useful for anything beyond pretending to "be green" then.
I like using clones to harvest moon rocks better.
Nuclear reactors the size of a carry on suitcase? Radical.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.