Difficulties of the Nuclear Powered Prometheus Project 54
brandido writes "Space.com is reporting on some of the technological difficulties facing the nuclear powered Prometheus Project. In particular, it is focusing on the fact that the Prometheus project promises to represent a paradigm shift in the capabilities of interplanetary probes. Such a large shift in capabilities entails the development of new technologies and designs, a process that is often full of mishaps and setbacks."
Just one problem... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just one problem... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just one problem... (Score:1)
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/atmosphr/
Not A Lot (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, the fuel can (and is) built into very strong and resilliant "cans" and can be further protected to the point that even a fall from a great height such as earth-orbit will not result in any radioactive release.
Thirdly, any engineer woth their salt will design the darned thing such that it will not start its nuclear reactor (when the nasty fission products start to be produced) until the craft is either a significant distance away from earth already, or has achieved escape velocity and can not fall back to earth.
I am a qualified nuclear engineer with several years reactor physics experience at a nuclear power station.
Re:Not A Lot (Score:2, Funny)
Is that you, Mr. Simpson?
Re:Just one problem... (Score:5, Informative)
1965 [mit.edu]
Re:Just one problem... (Score:2)
Re:Just one problem... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just one problem... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's nice to hear about this project... (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I hope we don't find any sort of lifeforms beyond the microsopic, at present Humans have enough trouble dealing with other humans, let alone a compleatly differnt being from a vastly differnt evolutionary chain.
But I do hope that this technology gets up there, and gets used, one more step in the refinement of space tavel, even if it doesn't work, at least it wa
Re:It's nice to hear about this project... (Score:1)
I mean.... faced with something so radically different as a completely non-terrestrial form of life, racial differences between humans start to look pretty pissant, don't they?
This is why we need manned missions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrast those catastrophic failures with events on human-occupied craft. Fires [space.com] and collisions on Mir, and of course Apollo 13 [usra.edu] for those who get their science from the local multiplex -- yet the craft kept flying, due to human involvement and ingenuity. The conclusion is clear: the more complex the system, the more likely you need a non-silicon-based intelligence to keep it from self-destructing.
To address the issue at hand: NASA wants to send a nuclear-powered spaceship to Jupiter? Cool, but you'd darned well better include a crew compartment, unless you *want* to see what happens during a space-based meltdown.
The bottom line is that there is no way to predict everything that can go wrong with any complex system. That's why we need more manned missions. Spend less money on absolutely "perfect" systems, and more on systems to support a human presence to fix it when it breaks.
After all, Captain Cook explored the south Pacific with nothing more than boats of wood, and men of iron. He also had a whip, and generous quantities of very strong beer...
Re:This is why we need manned missions... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is why we need manned missions... (Score:1)
Why should robots get all the fun?
Space Isn't About Science, Its About Migration (Score:2)
Re:Space Isn't About Science, Its About Migration (Score:3, Interesting)
The early explorations of the Americas, IIRC, were intended to 1) find a shorter route from point A to point B, 2) exploit the resources, and 3) establish settlements. Unfortunately, none of these lead directly to getting more manned missions:
1) Space, like the American continents, isn't a shortcut to anywhere (although communicaions satellites do provide a "shortcut" for information -- but not people).
2) It's still cheaper to rape Earth-bound resources than it i
Re:Space Isn't About Science, Its About Migration (Score:2)
With that in mind, maybe a better analogy than European migration to the Americas would be the broader human migration from Africa throughout the globe. If there were political debates about the wisdom of expanding beyond the immediate neighborhood of the Olduvai, I'd guess that some folks reject
Asteroid mining... (Score:2)
Re:This is why we need manned missions... (Score:5, Insightful)
As cool as the shuttle program is, I'm afraid it's turned out to be another example of overengineering: so heavily dependent on supposedly failsafe systems that a single failure (O-ring, foam strike) destroys the entire system.
Contrast with the comparatively simple Soyuz launch system. It may seem primitive, but by golly, the thing usually works. And when it doesn't, you can still survive [nasa.gov] (though "15-17 Gs" doesn't sound like a picnic in the Russian countryside).
And the reference to Cook's terrestrial explorations has another parallel with space exploration: sailors on his ships (or any ship of the time) had no guarantee that they'd make it back home. They don't call it a "widow's walk" for nothing. I'm not sure we can get anywhere on the "new frontier" until we're able to accept the sort of losses that were common on the "old frontier".
Of course, this is easy to say, sitting in a comfy chair in an air-conditioned office, listening for the boss' footsteps so I can minimize my browser when she walks by...
Re: $$$ (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, we
Re:This is why we need manned missions... (Score:1)
Re:This is why we need manned missions... (Score:2)
With Apollo 13, keep in mind that it completely failed all of its scientific objectives.
Re:This is why we need manned missions... (Score:2)
Get some on who can talk on your level to tell you about relativity and then maybee youll understand why we dont send manned missions to jupiter.
I'll confess right away that my knowledge of Einstein's physics is extremely limited. I've allocated those brain cells to the Grammar, Punctuation, Spelling and Capitalization Department.
Yes, the speed of light would cause a huge la
How about the damn name? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe we could call it Magellan Mark IV or something a bit more optimistic?
--
Re:How about the damn name? (Score:2)
So the probe gets locked into an orbit arround some space rock ^H^H^H^H asteriod and the space eagle pecks out it liver.... oh hum.
Could be worse (Score:3, Funny)
--
Re:How about the damn name? (Score:1)
-C
Maybe nuclear power for a small little probe (Score:2)
fuel? (Score:2, Interesting)
You mean "propellant?" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:fuel? (Score:3, Informative)
this is a great idea (Score:1)
Interesting topic... (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a NASA page [nasa.gov] on Project Prometheus.
Have a good weekend, all.
-Carolyn
Nice idea, no chance it'll fly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice idea, no chance it'll fly. (Score:2)
Of course, a nuclear reactor is much safer than even RTGs because at launch, the reactor would only have virtually benign uranium. While of course, the RTGs are fuelled with plutonium. (RTGs are very safe, mind you. They can withstand a rocket failure intact without a problem.)
Re:Nice idea, no chance it'll fly. (Score:2, Interesting)
This thing will spend it's service life on or very near Earth, and when it's shot down, this is where the shit will land. Which has a higher risk, launching something once, or spending months at a time in combat a
Re:Nice idea, no chance it'll fly. (Score:2)
Right.
Look, I agree that much of the public response to nuclear energy is irrational, but it's hardly as simple as you portray it. I'd happily live next to a nuclear power plant -- if the people who financ
Re:Nice idea, no chance it'll fly. (Score:1)
Ion Engines? (Score:2)
Re:Ion Engines? (Score:1)
Re:Ion Engines? (Score:2)
the naquadria? (Score:1)
Re:the naquadria? (Score:1)
Next let's check the Fooselezer and the Rat-atatter and hope for the best when the Bring-atilly goes online for the quarkdrive.
The Orion? (Score:1)
It can move fast, once you get over the problem of sudden acceleration killing the crew.
You can build it big enough to hold hundreds of people and the hydroponics to sustain them. ( You just use bigger/more bombs to propel