Russia Plans Martian Nuclear Station 619
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that Russian scientists have announced plans to build a nuclear power station on Mars.
They say that all the necessary technical drawings have now been completed, and all will be ready for the construction work to begin. The power plant should be up and running by 2030."
SHIT. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SHIT. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:SHIT. (Score:5, Funny)
solar system atomic race (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SHIT. (Score:5, Informative)
From article
From nasa:
Consider that radiation on Mars is very intense this should be a simple problem to solve. NOT!
I shouldn't say that. Human engineering has overcome much worse. I'm torn, though... a country that can produce very reliable Soyuz but at the same time consider shooting up one of the back street boys up there for the money.
Maybe they can do it. I am not holding my breath. This is a press release, not a reviewed plan.
That AP/CNN article... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SHIT. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be so quick to judge. We don't have any proof that they ever intended to return him.
Re:SHIT. (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, what's wrong with sending Lance Bass into space?
Wait. They're not going to bring him back, are they?
Re:SHIT. (Score:3, Funny)
Next thing you know, we'll have Martians with 2 eyes, 10 fingers, 10 toes, two legs, two nostrils and one mouth!
Re:hypersonic winds (Score:3, Informative)
Re:SHIT. (Score:4, Funny)
It is true! (Score:2, Interesting)
Red Mars (Score:3, Informative)
Genious! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Genious! (Score:2, Funny)
Don't bother clicking the link if you're Russian: In Soviet Russia, link clicks you.
Re:Genious! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Genious! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Genious! (Score:5, Informative)
Reactor types. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, part of the point of a pebble-bed reactor is that it can't run away. Pellets expand as temperature increases, moving them outside of the envelope for criticality. The result is a core that automatically balances itself right at the critical threshold, resisting changes in either direction. The number of fuel spheres present (and the shape of the collection) determines the temperature at which the whole thing stabilizes (more material, and it needs to be farther apart - and so hotter - to stabilize). When designed with safety in mind (e.g. with the best possible core arrangement and little enough fuel to stay below problematic temperatures) there's no way for it to have a runaway reaction.
Tapping heat off drops the temperature, cooling the pile, and increasing the reaction rate until temperature stabilizes. Losing coolant causes it to heat and expand, dropping the reaction rate, and letting it stabilize. The only way you'd get an accident happening is by adding more fuel, or breaking up the fuel pebbles and carefully arranging fuel and graphite moderator for a higher reaction rate. Not going to happen by accident.
Re. RTGs, a radiothermal source generally doesn't cause activation of its surroundings. It's neutron radiation that does that; RTGs generally just emit alpha or beta radiation (depending on material used, of course). They're easy to shield, too (against primary radiation; you'll still get gama shining through, and x-rays as secondary radiation produced in the shielding).
A fission reactor, by contrast, produces neutron radiation and makes everything near the unshielded core radioactive.
Re:Reactor types. (Score:5, Informative)
They use graphite as a coolant, and there may be significant risk of a graphite fire (chernobyl, anyone?). Also, unlike a fuel rod, where the waste products are the fuel, the PBMR system produces much more waste, since the coolant and spheres must be properly disposed of.
Here's a link [aps.org] that discusses much of this. (apologies for the PDF, I know it sucks ass, but that's the format this is in)
Re:Genious! (Score:3, Informative)
Russian compact reactor technology is based on fast neutron breeders with Bismuth based alloys as a first level cooling agent. As a result they can be considerably smaller in size and weight then the conventional U235/water or U235/graphite jobs and can run at higher core temperatures.
I have seen pictures of a portable generator (not very big one (it was not written anywhere how many kW could it give) that fits on a standard size Ural truck.Even if they were fake (Soviet Russia jokes), it would
details, details, details... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:details, details, details... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope this turns into a space race (Score:5, Interesting)
Use some perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)
Arthur C. Clarke thought we'd be to Saturn by now, and we probably would be if we'd kept up what we were doing in the 60's.
If our governments kept everything up at the rate they were in the 60s, humanity would have been replaced by a series of radioactive craters by now.
All things change for a reason.
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of my favorite quotes (and email sigs), from one in the biz (granted, some time ago, but I think the quote is no less relevant now than back then...and will be for some time).
"Man is the best computer we can put aboard
a spacecraft... and the only one that can
be mass produced with unskilled labor."
--Wernher von Braun
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:4, Funny)
a spacecraft... and the only one that can
be mass produced with unskilled labor."
However a *lot* has changed since von Braun's statement: Harris, Intel, AMD and a host of other's can mass produce radiation hardened computers to put aboard spacecraft (not to mention telemetry back to earth for human processing, albeit with a lag that renders it non-realtime, I'll grant you that) for far less that it takes to stow oxygen plants, food pills, water, tang, entertainment, exercise equipment, medical supplies, etc etc etc.
However, for public relations purposes, the taxpaying public would be fascinated by sex in space, the first space kid, etc
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm sorry Jim, you've been voted out the airlock this week."
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of would-be aviators got themselves killed in unproven flying (or non-flying) contraptions before the Wright brothers got their plane off the ground. Plenty more were killed trying to punch through the "sound barrier" before Chuck Yeager succeeded. Any kind of experimental or exploratory mission is fraught with risk. Those who engage in such activities are aware of the risks, and choose to take them anyway because they know something good will come out of it either way (you learn as much from your failures as from your successes). That some of them end up dead is unfortunate, but the consequences if nobody did what they do would be far worse.
If we took your advice, it'd still take days or weeks to get from the US to Europe or Asia, instead of hours. You probably wouldn't be reading this message either, as neither of us would have computers on our desktops linked by a global communications network. I'm sure there are more examples, but those are just the ones that come to mind right now.
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:5, Informative)
The only way to make space flight safer for men in space is to send men in space. Even in our enlightened computing era, automated probes are good only for reporting back on things we anticipate ahead of time and build sensors for. They cannot report on the unexpected, nor can they cope with it. Also the speed of light is a factor, our best control systems are far from instantaneous over the distances in question.
I don't advocate sending live humans into totally unknown and unpredictable situations. And smaller unmanned probes are certainly a cheap way of doing just that. At some point however you need a real brain out there on the spot, and the day is coming.
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, there would still just be a few thousand of us wandering around a valley somewhere in eastern Africa picking at grubs and nuts.
Of course, depending on your perspective, this may be good or bad. Personally, I prefer my current state to that possibility.
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:4, Insightful)
The technology that may enable mankind to really "reach the stars" is still decades, if not centuries away. Sure, there have been some interesting developments resulting from manned space-flight. But things like modularized space stations aren't extremely helpful when spacecraft are built by nanobots.
No matter how much science fiction you read, sending people into space simply isn't worth the effort at this point in time. Yes, there are lessons that can be learned by manned exploration. But I don't know whether those lessons are going to be worth the tens of billions of dollars that they will cost.
There's more to things than just how much they cost; there's the benefit that society gets for that cost. Right now, that benefit isn't enough.
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, we could go to Mars. But what will it get you? Mars is a dead planet. There may be enough resources to run a colony. Fine, you have a million or so people living in a dome, breathing recycled air, drinking recycled water, and eating hydroponically grown soyburgers. That's just a drop in the population bucket. And if that's the way you're going to live, why go all the way to Mars to do it? Why not just build your dome here on Earth?
Face it, we are trapped in our own solar system. Pioneer 10 has been travelling for thirty years, and is less than 0.03% of the way to the closest star. It should arrive in a little over 9000 years from now. The only two technologies that can get us away, are hibernation, and multi-generation craft. Are we going to put a couple of hundred people onto one of these spaceships and wait around for 9-10 thousand years to see if they find a habitable planet? No, we're stuck here.
So, we've got the Moon, Mars, maybe Mercury and a couple of the other moons to play with. All of them, lifeless hunks of rock, dull and boring. Maybe if SETI found something, maybe it would be worthwhile. But as it stands, what's the point?
No, I think our future lies not in space, but in the other frontier: the oceans. Abundant resources, plenty of space, and not nearly as expensive to get to with enough equipment to do something worthwhile. I mean, it will take 30 years to get a nuclear power plant to Mars. We could put an entire nuclear powered research plant on the floor of the Atlantic within five months (convert a submarine).
...or maybe I'm watching too much "Stingray", and not enough "Star Trek".
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:3, Funny)
Multiple colonies is insurance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Colonies on multiple worlds is insurance against world-destroying events. A very large asteroid impact could disrupt the crust or kick up enough dust to freeze the oceans over, killing most non-bacterial life on the planet. On the more mundane front, toss a few cobalt bombs around and you can gamma-sterilize all landmasses. It is extremely unlikely for a natural cataclysm to take out multiple colonized worlds at once. It is far more difficult for an artificial cataclysm to be propagated between worlds than to have it occur on one world. This makes colonizing (and ideally terraforming) multiple worlds desirable for the long-term survival of our species.
This doesn't mean we have to devote all possible resources to it; just that it's a good thing to do at some point, and a nice long-term goal to shoot for.
Face it, we are trapped in our own solar system. Pioneer 10 has been travelling for thirty years, and is less than 0.03% of the way to the closest star. It should arrive in a little over 9000 years from now. The only two technologies that can get us away, are hibernation, and multi-generation craft. Are we going to put a couple of hundred people onto one of these spaceships and wait around for 9-10 thousand years to see if they find a habitable planet? No, we're stuck here.
First of all, we'd have picked out destination worlds and verified their ability to support life long before sending colonization craft. The cost of building a big enough telescope is far lower than the cost of building an interstellar colony ship.
Secondly, several approaches to building interstellar craft that don't carry their own power sources with them have been proposed. These would allow interstellar craft to reach their destinations within a human lifetime, if we're in that much of a hurry.
Heck, you can in principle do it with a big enough and efficient enough fusion craft (smallest mass ratio you can do it in is about 100:1, but even 1000:1 could be built, albeit expensively).
Assuming less design optimization or smaller craft gives a longer travel time, but I don't see why this is intrinsically unacceptable. Fully colonizing a world will take a comparable amount of time (generations). Terraforming a world (as is desirable if the world is to support human life indefinitely) will take at least that long.
Interstellar colonization is desirable from a species point of view for two reasons. Firstly, there are some classes of catastrophe that can sterilize entire star systems (nearby supernovae are the most popular so far). Spreading between stars, even slowly, would put colonies out of range of such catastrophes in a time much shorter than their expected interval of occurrence, and so is a suitable long-term safeguard. More importantly, launching an interstellar war is possible, and arguably reasonably practical. Launching a slower-than-light interstellar war without some magical new physics making things a lot cheaper is far less practical. Interstellar colonization would give us very good protection against most conceivable species-destroying catastrophes, either natural or artificial.
Thus, as a long-term goal, I believe colonization both in-system and out-of-system is desirable.
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way to change that is to increase the number of places where we can live independantly. I agree the ocean is an untapped frontier that we will sooner or later explore. I have long held we will go down before we truly go up and still hold to it. However we still must leave. First to the rest of the solar system if for no other reason than to lessen our weakness in living on only one planet, and then beyond. Do not think in terms of evacuating the earth but in terms of the destiny of humanity as a whole. This is our home and will remain so forever, unfortunately it will not last forever. So if humanity does not exist elsewhere we will only know it as our home as long as it can support us. If Humanity expands beyond the realm of earth it can outlive the earth, if it expands beyond the solar system it can outlive the solar system and on and on. In my mind that is a worthy goal and most certainly not a 'dead end'.
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:5, Interesting)
Just thought I'd insert a little historical perspective, here. These opinions are not new. Nor are they especially important, since colonization efforts generally aren't governed by entirely rational impulses. Look at the United States. Maryland was founded by Lord Baltimore as an experiment in utopian feudalism. Massachusetts was founded by people looking to worship Jesus however they pleased. Virginia was established by a private company whose sole interest was in turning a profit. Not one of 'em worked out as planned -- Maryland is not a feudal state and never really was; Massachusetts discovered that religious freedom and strict orthodoxy don't go well together (see: formation of Connecticut); and the Virginia Company went bust. All three of those (and arguably the other colonies as well, each in their own ways) were founded by slightly bonkers people whose grand plans went poof on contact with reality. And in all those cases there were plenty of people back home in England saying "What, are you nuts? The East Indies are the future!"
That said, I would be greatly surprised if we established a colony on Mars without first putting together a few near-Earth projects, first. Colonists setting out for America had a long history of seafaring experience to rely on to get them there, and could look forward to practicing agriculture on their arrival. We have very little experience in long-distance space journeys, and even less in domed living. Personally, I think we're much more likely to establish a moon-base first. We've already visited it a few times. It's closer, so if something goes hideously wrong help can show up in days or weeks rather than months. And it's even less hospitable than Mars, so we'll get some good experience.
Re:I hope this turns into a space race (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is the driving force for a colony on Mars, or on the Moon? It's not economics. We can get whatever is there from here more cheaply. Protection from cataclysm? That would rank, like,
Europa!?! (Score:3, Funny)
damn.
*honk*
Power, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, pessimism...
In Soviet Russia, Nuclear Power Stations Oh, wait. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In Soviet Russia, Nuclear Power Stations Oh, wa (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm all for a mission to mars, it should be a very well financed, international, and permenent settlement. The people sent there should not be coming back.
Re:In Soviet Russia, Nuclear Power Stations Oh, wa (Score:5, Insightful)
So... (Score:2, Funny)
Mars Disasters (Score:5, Funny)
On the bright side, after Red Planet and Mission to Mars, they can 'Pull A Chernobyl' and it'll still be only the third worst Mars disaster ever.
Can't .... Resist! ....... (Score:3, Funny)
2.
3. Profit!
Nuclear willy waving (Score:2, Insightful)
And just how are they planning to fund all this? Considering the dilapidated state of the russian economy at the moment, you'd think they'd be more concerned with looking after terraferma and getting their house straight back home instead of firing billions of dollars into outer space.
Re:Nuclear willy waving (Score:2, Funny)
thats good (Score:5, Funny)
I also love:
Scientists say that the station is now almost ready to be built - all they have to do is to find a way to protect staff and environment from radiation
What about the small problem of finding 6 people to go to Mars, to work in a nuclear power station for no people for 30 years?. I think they have been watching 'The Simpson's' too much.
Re:thats good (Score:5, Interesting)
What about the small problem of finding 6 people to go to Mars....
what about actually getting to Mars?
Re:thats good (Score:5, Funny)
A bit premature? (Score:4, Interesting)
So it needs people on Mars to run it, and people on Mars to take advantage of it. Do they actually have any firm plans for getting people to Mars?
I suppose maybe since it's so much easier to get hardward to Mars that maybe they'll send the nuclear power plant there and then use that to justify research into getting people over there. "After all, we've already got the equipment there for them to use, and it will be a waste if we don't send anyone."
Re:A bit premature? (Score:4, Funny)
An economist is in a public restroom and see's a quarter ($.25) in the toilet. He does some quick calculations in his head, and decides that the effort of bending over to pick up the 25 cents, the possibility of disease for sticking his hand in a filthy toilet, and the mental anguish of doing such a despicable act isn't worth the measly one quarter dollar. So he throws another quarter in the toilet, bends over, sticks his and in, and retrieves the 50 cents.
It's not the funniest joke on the planet, but this is the first chance I've had to use it and it does make one think of the logic of some people/professions.
Re:A bit premature? (Score:3, Insightful)
So it needs people on Mars to run it, and people on Mars to take advantage of it. Do they actually have any firm plans for getting people to Mars?
In practice, they don't have to. All that has to happen is for _anyone_ to have manned missions to Mars 30 years from now.
When the US, or Europe, or Japan, or China starts thinking seriously
Transmission Lines (Score:5, Insightful)
They should think first on getting men on Mars. And then back to Earth. Alive. What to do there should be planned later, since of course there will be unpredicted issues about the environment. And there would be no point placing a power plant there if there were no people to use that power for something.
Get them back alive (Score:2)
See, that's where you're wrong!
What we need to do is throw some of those nifty processors that make fuel from Martian air plus a few habitat modules at the red planet every time we can afford to do so. When there is enough there to provide basic life support for people for, say six months, ship off a load of people.
Have the best guess at the necessary tools waiting for them and let them try and live there forever. You'd get hundreds of useful volunteers even if you only gave them a 50% chance of lasting
Here we go (Score:2, Funny)
This Mars Nuclear plant.... (Score:2, Funny)
Can't Wait (Score:2)
Best part? Contractors have 26 years to be proved wrong
"I want my hoovercraft!"
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred With American Buttering
Time line (Score:5, Funny)
Power station timelines rock. I'd love to propose this kind of schedule for my projects.
"New Version? Sure, we should start beta testing in (deep, echoing voice) the year 2030."
source of fuel (Score:5, Insightful)
Uranium may well be available on Mars, but I can't imagine they will have the facilities to mine it.
If that means they have to take it from Earth then it could be messy if a launch goes wrong.
That said, I guess they won't need much fuel, its not like there are going to be any big cities any time soon...
Re:source of fuel (Score:3, Insightful)
Uranium may well be available on Mars, but I can't imagine they will have the facilities to mine it.
Most people aren't aware that there are dozens of Soviet-era nuclear reactors whizzing over their heads every day. These full-fledged reactors (not RTGs) powered the RORSAT [fas.org] naval radar surveillance satellites. Over 30 were launched. A couple accidents sent the reactor cores crashing to earth (most famously in Canada in 1978), but
Re:source of fuel (Score:5, Funny)
For someone working at a nuclear power plant, that's a pretty scary sig.
Hey cool... (Score:2, Funny)
Very sensational! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Very sensational! (Score:4, Funny)
Er, it's a little mean to the Weekly World News to compare them to the BBC.
Interesting if anything (Score:3, Interesting)
The only real problem (Score:4, Informative)
So close (Score:2, Insightful)
All they have left to do is everything.
Uranium on a rocket? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just imagine if something went wrong like chernobyl. Except this time it's 30 miles in the air where it can travel around the globe quite nicely.
Don't get me wrong, i'm all for space exploration, but the first hurdle Russia will have to overcome is a social one, not technilogical.
Re:Uranium on a rocket? (Score:2)
Except that nuclear material tends to be rather heavy.
Re:Uranium on a rocket? (Score:2, Troll)
The good news about this, as well as the recent announcements by China and India is that
Re:Uranium on a rocket? (Score:2, Funny)
You know (Score:4, Insightful)
All this interest in space has me worried a bit. Not about people crashing down or reactors being pulverized in the atmosphere, but about the same flaw people made when using other forms of mass transportation for the first time. Standards. For example think of old railways; the rails used to be at different lengths apart, depending on which company owned said railway. That was a major bugger if you had to travel over railways owned by multiple companies. I think that between continents and some countires it's still an issue. And how about shipping? Everything used to be handled individually, using cargo nets and common cranes to lift goods on board. Nowadays everyone uses containers when shipping goods around the world. Lorries/trucks, trains, cranes and various things are used to transport containers around when they reach land and with great efficiency, when compared to the old way of unloading from ship, storing in warehouse, loading in train, transporting, unloading. Also important are pallets, which are more or less standardized these days.
The way this affects the current "space race" (a bit early to call it that but what the hell...) is that everyone is now developing their own transportation system. It's quite obvious that as a method of delivery, the shuttle is an immense failure due to extreme costs and limited capacity and that it's strong points are out of the scope of this comment. What would be ideal would be a solution where spacecraft can lift standard shipping containers (yes, those same ones used all over the world that can be carried around by various methods) into orbit and then to wherever the hell you want them. The fact that contianers are easy to get a hold of for machinery such as cranes should make them quite useful in space for both transport and storage. Just imagine a large structure made out of girders with container clamps all around and a few mobile crans to move stuff around...
Re:You know (Score:4, Interesting)
Your example of international shipping involves cargo being traded back and forth between countries, thereby necessitating standard shipping practices.
With space travel, however, you're mostly looking at each country doing this independently. The only example to support your case would be the ISS, where both US and Russian shuttles had to dock. They didn't have to design their entire craft to a set of common standards, though, just the interface from their respective shuttles to the ISS.
Unless we're very, very close to doing joint missions with other countries, I think the standardization issue is actually a non-issue. In fact, it would probably benefit technology and discovery more at this point to avoid standards between nations. Darwin's theories will go to work on a much grander (albeit unintended by Darwin) scale, weeding out the inferior designs and ideas, whether by minor failure or full-out destruction.
accident potential during launch (Score:2)
You know, I just remembered why we don't launch nuclear waste out into space. It would -really- suck if it blew up before it cleared orbit, wouldn't it?
Satellites don't contain much at all in the way of nuclear power because their needs are so low. How much material are they sending up, and how do they plan on keeping us safe if the launch vehicle has, uh, 'issues'? You'd think even with a creatively planned trajectory, you'd end up spreading material over a massive area...
Russia's master plan (Score:3, Funny)
2) ???
3) Profit?
In a related story (Score:2, Funny)
Good Idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Send the equipment ahead.
When the US sends a manned probe (unfortunately, it's highly unlikely that anyone else can do it, let alone do it first; only the US has the resources, finances, and expertise available to perform these feats of super-engineering), how much easier will the mission be if most of their cargo is already there ahead of them? Everything they'd need to build a base station and pe
In Other News (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, though, Russia can't even keep up payments on the ISS. No one in the world right now has any plans on how to ship a live human being to Mars (and have him remain live there). "Technical drawings" alone won't cut it; I have some technical drawings in my closet that show how to build an SSTO spacecraft out of crayons (I was in kindergarten at the time of this techincal breakthrough), but I am not holding my breath waiting for NASA to knock on my door.
And I'm building Condos on Jupiter's Moon (Score:3, Funny)
Only $10,000 down! You make payment right now, I let you pick corner room or lake-side unit.
And why do they want to do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait wait wait, hold the phones... (Score:4, Funny)
Call up G.W., and get Larry Ellison down here, I smell a hostile takeover!
Key omission. :) (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a Russian version of the article [bbc.co.uk], in which there is this paragraph (in my translation):
The scientists admit that they have no idea how this [taking large pre-built components and delivering them 300 mln km away] can be achieved. However, they are certain that once the station starts operating, all future inhabitants of Mars will have plenty of electrical power for many years to come.
Now THIS is what I call vaporware. :)
Talk about grid problems... (Score:5, Funny)
All of Russia was plunged into total darkness tonight, when their Mars plant transmission lines were accidently severed by an orbiting Soyuz rocket piloted by a joyriding Lance Bass.
Martians... (Score:4, Funny)
And the judges say... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Russians? They've got plans for a nuclear power plant on Mars. 10/10 for style, boys. It's refreshing to see a little ambition for once.
Still, there are practical uses. With a reasonable supply of water, a nuclear power plant could be used to create oxygen and hydrogen, both for surviving on and performing experiments, and for fueling any return craft.
NIMBYism could delay Mars nuclear project (Score:5, Funny)
Rocky Canyon, MARS - Local residents plan to block Russian efforts to build nuclear power plants on Mars. Fearing potential health risks from nuclear accidents and what they claim to be a spotty safety record from Russians, representatives of a coalition of Martian leaders plan to raise awareness of the issues and protect or attempt to block the Russian plans. "Not in my back yard!" claims local long-time resident Marvin the Martian, "We do not want an Earth-shattering kaboom on our planet. We have no demodulator for nuclear waste."
Local retiree, Flash Gordon, points out that other environmentally sound energy alternatives are available like geothermal and solar energy. "I don't understand why we should be the dumping ground for Earth's waste. I'm also concerned about their need to use what little water we have to cool their power plants. It sounds like a bad idea to me."
Russia's Nuclear Energy Ministry plans to send a delegation to the planet in 2010 to hold a series of public hearings and town meetings on the matter. "We hope that once the great people of Mars learn the facts about our advances in safety of nuclear energy, that they will welcome a new cheaper source of energy," informed Dr. Strangelove, interim leader of the earth-based planning and research committee. The spotty record of Terran nuclear safety is well known to Martians, including the well-known 20th century Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents and the San Onofre security incident last year.
Total Recall star and former California Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger is rumored to be an investor in the contruction company contracted by the Russian agency to develop the terra-forming technology required to build the power plant. When asked about his links between his commercial investments and campaign contributions to Russian elected officials, he withheld comment.
Mars and Earth are seperated by millions of miles, both literally and apparently in viewpoints about the nuclear project. We look forward to seeing if they can come closer together on this issue.
What about the dead people (Score:5, Funny)
Russian Nuclear Reactors? Ouch (Score:5, Informative)
If you're gonna put a nuclear reactor on Mars, ferchrissake, make it a CANDU [candu.org]. Not only was the CANDU designed in Canada (w00t!), but it's also really, really safe.
University of Maryland's reactor (Score:3, Interesting)
Very clean, IMPOSSIBLE to produce weapons grade material from it or its fuel, and provides a solution (actually a use) for today's nuclear waste.
http://www.caesar.umd.edu/
Of course the russians have to do that (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, couldn't resist this one. :-)
The power station IS the rocket. (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems extremely conservative to me that Russia would take 30 years to get to Mars, especially considering their stated plan is to build a reactor - they'll get to Mars faster if the reactor is in fact what gets them to Mars in the first place.
The U.S. has had a working nuclear rocket engine for forty years, according to a PDF on the ROVER/Nerva project off this page [lascruces.com]. These are relatively simple engines which shoot hydrogen out the back.
Of course the reference to "already built" is bizarre, who cares if it is already built if they are going to take 30 years to do it? No reason to mention that unless maybe they are talking about tested submarine reactors.
Of course the U.S. has a deal according to this March 2003 article [mywisecounty.com] to get Russian nuclear rocket fuels for the nuclear rocket program of Project Prometheus through 2009.
This pdf [lascruces.com] says that using the NERVA rockets of the 1970s we could get to the moon in a day, or to Mars in 4 months. The article by a Los Alamos researcher is interesting as it talks about the social problems versus technical problems. In all it seems that the nuclear rocket costs half as much, is twice as powerful, and is safe (at least from this paper it seems that reactor core products stay in the reactor). Also from about page 21 there is an interesting section on radiation and human exploration.
It talks about using a gas core nuclear rocket (GCNR) in which we are talking about how to shield crew from radiation in flight, not on the ground, but that this will mean we can get to and from Mars in much less than NASA's planned (1998) mission of 3 years. With a specific impulse of over 3000 seconds, a GCNR ship can have a 3 month transit to Mars, 2 months on the planet, and 4 months back - thus reducing psychological stress factors by keeping the mission to 6-7 months' duration.
There is also the physical deterioration from a long flight.. Apparently the current U.S.-Russia program is aiming for even better, perhaps 2 months each way using small reactors for an unlimited fuel supply and three times better propulsion.
More info:
link [caltech.edu]
link [space.com]
link [news-syndicate.com]
pro-nuclear space space group with more information [nuclearspace.com]
2030? Pfft. (Score:3, Insightful)
I see a few problems:
1. We've never been to mars. Maybe we should walk on the thing before we build a nuke plant. There are more than a few stumbling blocks to sending a human to mars...let's prove we can surmount those before we go build a freaking nuclear plant.
2. How big is this thing going to be? I doubt that we can get the parts there in two seperate flights. (umanned beagle type thing, and manned flight)
You know this thing won't finish on time. They'll forget a screw driver or something and *boom*....the project is behind 7 years.
What, is it April 1st again? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah (Score:2)
Tim
Jackson Browne predicted... (Score:2)
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Funny)
-Bush: "We need to bomb the atmosphere, no radiation is going to fire back America..."