Nuclear 'Asteroids' Due In A Few Hundred Years 589
easyCoder writes "In this space.com article, it mentions a RORSAT satellite that has been leaking radioactive coolant, leaving little droplets of it in orbit around our planet. However, further down, it also mentions this, quoted here for maximum impact: 'After a RORSATs tour-of-duty was over, the reactor's fuel core was shot high above Earth into a "disposal orbit." Once at that altitude the power supply unit would take several hundred years before it reentered the Earth's atmosphere.' Wow. So ... our great-grandchildren can expect a lovely day, partly cloudy with the occasional nuclear reactor plummeting down from outer space."
Grand children? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Grand children? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I'm pedantic or anything
Re:Grand children? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course. Otherwise you would have used a better word than "infected" to describe radiation sickness.
;)
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:5, Insightful)
The posting of this article to Slashdot is FUD, pure and simple, as is most anti-nuclear propaganda. Radioactive material, like all other toxins, requires a certain concentration to be lethal. The danger is only to spacecraft, and that from collisions.
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Since you're so quick to deem it moronic, perhaps you could enlighten us all by telling everyone what you would've done differently. After all, anyone can complain about a bad plan, but an intelligent person will complain and have a better plan ready to present.
Of course, whatever you elect to do must be practical (no "it should be launched into the Sun" or "the Shuttle should go up and retrieve it" plans) and cost-effective.
Now, given those limitations, please, tell everyone how much better your plan is, since I'm sure you have one. This isn't flamebait; I'm honestly challenging you to actually think about the problem instead of just criticizing it. Maybe you can come up with something that the best rocket scientists on the planet couldn't come up with.
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:4, Informative)
So, good suggestion, but not practical.
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was nuclear and built by the Soviets, it was probably handled irresponsibly. NASA has *never* flown an automated reactor in orbit, and the deep space probes with RTGs (a passive power generation system that works by converting the heat generated by Plutonium into electricity) have nearly all had the RTG packaged in an indestructable black-box.
What's that? You were trying to blame the Americans for this? You didn't read the article? Oh. Sorry to burst your bubble.
This SHOULD NOT be a problem. (Score:5, Funny)
As Larry Niven said, "The dinosaurs died out because they didn't have a space program."
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:5, Insightful)
But it probably doesn't matter anyway, because we're going to have to pick up all of our junk sometime in the next hundred years if we want to make significant use of near space -- and there are plenty of people who do and who are arranging the wherewithal to use it. Time wasted on worrying that, "OMG, there's *RADIOACTIVE STUFF* in the universe!" would be better spent starting up the debate at the U.N. *now* over who is going to pay for the cleanup.
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly the words of a Slashdotter with authority in the UN.
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:5, Informative)
It's happened more than you might think. There are problems with those satellites that use nuclear reactors and those that use radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs). From memory...
As for those returning to Earth...
There have been a number of launch failures.
The coolant spills have been seen from some of the later Kosmos reactors which have ejected their cores, so it appears to be a shortcoming in the design of the eject mechanism. The first signs of leakage came from Kosmos 1900 in 1997 - this is also a Kosmos which has failed to send its reactor into a high-level disposal orbit. Having said that, some 14 Kosmos RORSATs did successfully eject their cores between the first flight of the design in 1980 and the suspension of the programme in 1988.
NASA and the Air Force have tracked a number of satellites that have begun to disintegrate after many years in orbit. The cause of this failure is completely unknown, but amongst the ones that are known to have failed are the US SNAPSHOT satellite - the first to be flown with a nuclear reactor in 1965 that began disintegrating in the late 1970s, and Nimbus VI, launched in 1975 which appears to have completely broken up.
Kosmos 1461 appears to have exploded in orbit for no readily apparent reason. Kosmos 1900 is also stuck in a lower orbit that intended and will fall back to Earth before the nominal 600 year period.
Finally, there was the RTG from Apollo 13 which should have powered its Lunar experimental station, but remained on the Lunar Module which acted as a lifeboat for the failed mission. The LM disintegrated in the atmosphere, the RTG appears to have survived and crashed into the West Pacific. No radiation was detected.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:5, Informative)
Unlike a chemical explosion, a nuclear explosion is rarely more than 10% efficient. Most of the fissionable material is not consumed in the nuclear reaction, instead it is vaporised into the environment. The vast majority of fissionable material ever used for explosions has been put into the atmosphere where it has gradually settled back to Earth.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:5, Informative)
Uh no, as the chain reaction starts, the other atoms in the core gain an enormous amount of thermal kinetic energy and the core attempts to vapourise. If it disperses, neutrons are far less likely to hit a nucleus and produce further fission events. If this process is allowed to continue fissile material is physically removed from the path of the neutrons - so some fissile material would never undergo fission.
The outward expansion of the core is unstoppable, it always disassembles the core before the reaction can run to completion - a matter of microseconds. The objective must be to stop the outward expansion of the core for as long as possible by producing an inward pressure of equal or greater force. So modern weapons use a heavy metal tamper around the core to provide a lot of inertia against expansion, and a huge amount of implosion pressure to counteract the outward movement of the core material for as long as possible.
I did some checking [nuclearweaponarchive.org], Little Boy was 1.3% efficient, Fat Man was 16% efficient. Apparently normal fission cores are limited to around 25% efficiency, larger ones might be up to 50% efficient. Some of the later US tests that used so-called levitated cores got efficiencies up to 35% - which is pretty damn impressive - in a horribly scary sort of way.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:5, Interesting)
Here [8k.com] Here [imakenews.com] and here [vanderbilt.edu] for example.
It is true that any ionizing radiation can damage cellular material, but the human immune system seems to derive benefit from practicing fending off such low-level damage.
The evididence is not conclusive for low-level radiation benefits, but there are several good studies that suggest that it is, and not one scientific study that suggest the opposite as far as I know. If so, I would like to see it. Nearly all nuclear radiation threat assesments is based on extrapolation from high-level radiation exposes.
Quick, patent the lead-encased umbrella (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The real tragedy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The real tragedy (Score:5, Funny)
Or...
In Soviet Russia, women LIKE YOU!*
(* Only with more facial hair)
Our great grandchildren can also expect..... (Score:5, Funny)
They'll be able to deal with it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean we're meant to be progressing in our knowledge and abilities, no?
Re:They'll be able to deal with it.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The environmentalist, anti-nuke, anti-industry, anti-technology groups are going to do everything in their power to see that we don't.
Re:They'll be able to deal with it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like this story... [foxnews.com]
Or how about the guy that did more environmental damage burning all those SUVs then they would have caused in 20 years of operation?
Or how about that recycling can cause more pollution than not?
I'm not saying environmentalism is bad, I practice due dilligence myself, but these large "green" groups have become political tools that often simply act contrary to the establishment.
Re:They'll be able to deal with it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are people who are environmentalists because they're sincerely concerned about our descendants having a nice place to live and they see a way to do something about that.
There are people who are environmentalists because they were going to be scared to death about *something* and environmental damage is as good as anything else.
There are people who are environmentalists because they hate big business and this is a way to hurt big businesses.
There are people who are environmentalists because they're confused by technology and want a weapon to keep it away.
There are people who are environmentalists because some other political party is vulnerable to environmental scandals.
There are apparently even people who are environmentalists because they despise their own species and see a good way to make us all suffer.
I have a great deal of respect for the first group. As for the rest, the best I can say is that I find *some* of them pitiable rather than contemptible.
Re:Spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to build a nuclear power plant right next door to me, I'd be all for it. Not only would I rather have a nuclear plant right next door than have a coal plant 100 miles away, why should I be expected to lower my standard of living, and why should other people be denied the opportunity of achieving whatever standard of living we're capable of providing just because you're afraid of some technology that you think you understand but don't.
I want to be able to heat my house without burning oil, wood, or coal (it doesn't have to be a 3000 square foot house either. I live in 800 square feet right now). I want to drive to work without burining gasoline (and I don't have an SUV), or be able to take a train without it burning diesel (to generate electricity no less!). I want the population of the planet to have all the luxuries I have without having to cull about 4 billion people for it to be sustainable. The only technology we're currently capable of that can provide these things is nuclear. If we're going to maintain our current sociatal situation, or if we're going to regress, then what's the point?
Oh, then there's this:
This can best be summed up by my saying I am
Let me give you a healthy dose of reality. People don't like to change. Hell, people don't like other people to change. THere's tons of bullshit out there about preserving cultures to the point that we have cities full of old worthless buildings we can't knock down for historical reasons and people who try to revivie dead languages. People go to war over cultural differences, yet we even try to preserve the cultural differences that cause war. Changing the behavior of people enough to gain the "efficiency" and "responsiblilty" nescicary to stop burning carbon fuels *and* not have nuclear power is not just as close as you can get to impossible without going over, it's also far more dangerous to our society than the worst nuclear power accident we're capable of.
Re:They'll be able to deal with it.... (Score:4, Funny)
I plant a different bomb under his bed each night and before he goes to sleep he has to defuse it. He hasn't failed yet, but I would be dissapointed in the progress of his knowledge and abilities if he did.
Re:They'll be able to deal with it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They'll be able to deal with it.... MAYBE (Score:5, Informative)
years isn't going to be particularly radioactive.
It will release a particle every now and then but
unless you build your house and everything in it
from that material, you should probably be more
worried about natural radon gas emissions.
Re:They'll be able to deal with it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
why this is hooey (Score:5, Informative)
Re:why this is hooey (Score:5, Interesting)
I already run biodiesel in my car. It goes better than it does on the gunk they sell in petrol stations, and it's closer to carbon-neutral than fossil fuels. So, it's win-win. Only drawback is that when you sit for a minute to let the turbo cool before you switch off, the smell of chips, or popcorn, or pakora, or whatever was cooked in the oil, makes you *really* hungry...
Re:why this is hooey (Score:3, Funny)
Animal cruelty must STOP.
Re:why this is hooey (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why this is hooey (Score:5, Informative)
In 2001 the world used 77 million barrels of oil a day. It's predicted that that number will reach almost 119 million barrels a day by 2025, so lets go with 100 million as a nice round number.
As was pointed out later in the thread, the canadian oil sands contain about 300 billion barrels of proven reserve, about as much as Saudi Arabia. So the largest known source of oil sands is about the same as the largest known source of conventional oil. Let's assume that this similarity continues, and that there are 1.2 trillion barrels of proven reserves of oil sands around the world to match the 1.2 trillion barrels of conventional oil we know about.
Usually proven reserves account for about 25% of the total amount of the oil in a field, the rest being economically unrecoverable with current technology. If we could magically recover all of it, the 2.4 trillion proven reserves of oil above would become almost 10 trillion barrels.
So at our proposed "current" rate of use the world would go through that amount of oil in about 273 years. A long time, but certainly not forever. If we imagine that for every source of oil we know about there are 9 other sources we haven't found or considered yet, ten times the amount estimated above, 100 trillion barrels, about 14 trillion tons of the stuff, we'd still go through it all in less than 3000 years.
If you wish you can argue about how likely or unlikely it is that the human race will live that long, how likely that we'll still be using oil for that long (much more likely with the magical 100% recovery process) and whether or not the usage would remain stable (if anything it would most likely increase, if every country became at least as developed as the US, world wide usage would increase to at _least_ 400 million barrels a day.) However the point is that even at our current usage we could eventually burn through any reasonable supply of oil you care to propose.
Claiming that the earth will never run out of oil, period, is simply untenable.
Yes! Don't use nuclear! (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a Geiger Counter outside of a nuclear plant. Now take one outside of a coal plant. Hmmm... Much higher readings outside of the coal plant. What? Coal ore contains radioactive isotopes? Those isotopes don't burn up like the coal around them? Coal ash has concentrated radioactive material? The coal industry isn't as highly regulated as the nuclear industry?
Health problems? Do a google search for black lung disease. Hell, do some research on the total number of deaths from nuclear power generation and coal/natural gas since nuclear power was introduced. Nuclear engineers will normally receive more radiation from a single round of CAT scans than from their entire career at the nuclear plant.
Chernobyl? You mean the substandard plant where operators intentionally ignored warnings and pushed the envelope of safety much too far? The final death count was less than four hundred. Yes, the town of 75,000 had to be abandoned. This is an argument for not intentionally doing stupid things with your power plant.
The worst U.S. nuclear disaster? 3-Mile Island? Go back and check your history books. Look up the number of deaths. Zero. Look up the number of injured. None.
As it stands, U.S. nuclear power technology has fallen behind. Take a look at some of the French or, even better, German designs. I find it hard to believe that anything even approaches their level of safety or efficiency.
Terrorist attacks? Personally I'd be more worried about an exposed warehouse of natural gas where someone dropped a match. How about an oil refinery? Yeah, that'll be easy to clean up...
Nuclear waste? How about the euphemism (according to rabid environmental groups) "spent fuel"? Know why they call it a euphemism? Because all spent fuel in the U.S. is waste. Know why? Because in a bid to stop nuclear proliferation in the seventies, Jimmy Carter banned nuclear enrichment in power generation. No breeders for the U.S. Unfortunately for Carter, Europe gave him the finger and continued using nuclear -- including breeded reactors. Who listened? Japan. However Japan just sends its spent fuel to Europe for re-enrichment and buys it back for further processing.
What's the big deal. Let's take Diablo Canyon on the California coast. Only two turbines. 1/5 of the power production in the region. 20%!!! If anyone is curious, take a look at the number of >0.1MW powerplants in California [ca.gov]. Diablo Canyon is on the coast about 2/3 of the way down from the top of the state. Look at all of those dams. Imagine all of the trucks, materials, and associated air/water pollution necessary for bringing the fuel to the plant.
Folks in California wouldn't even sell Diablo Canyon the water they needed even though the water/steam used to turn the turbines doesn't ever come into contact with the reactor; It isn't radioactive. So in addition to providing power, they had to set up a reverse osmosis water desalinization plant to get the water from the ocean. And it still gives 20% of the power for the region.
For all of the people whining about the number of birds killed by power poles and cell phone towers, I encourage you to take a look at the number of birds killed by power-generating windmills [ncpa.org].
Solar? Anyone want to do the math on the number of panels necessary for even half of the national electricity usage? What about the power and materials required for their inital production?
Tidal? Will someone explain to me how land-locked regions would be able to take advantage of tidal power?
Fuel from soybeans? That would be a nice supplementary energy source. However, let's stop making food. Let's dedicate the nation's farmland to soybeans or other similar fuel generation crops. Reduce that number by the fuel necessary to s
Re:They'll be able to deal with it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
During the adjustment time, as oil gets more expensive, it will become more cost-efficient to use oil to make alternative energy sources rather then directly burning oil. This, of course, will drive down the manufacturing/deployment costs of alternative energy sources (mass production instead of one-ofs). Which will re-inforce the cycle and make oil-based energy even less cost-effective.
So yes, there will be a period of adjustment, but barring global catastrophes, it won't be the end of the world as we know it.
I'll bite ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if the following will be much of a rebuttal, but it might calm your nerves a bit.
To the key to understanding the article is this paragraph:
The human spirit is capable of some miraculous things. We need a miracle right now, so the human spirit had better get its' ass in gear, pronto.
The author is trying to shake us up into action. That doesn't mean that the science behind his polemic i
Wouldn't be the first one (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wouldn't be the first one (Score:5, Informative)
Ob5thElement (Score:5, Funny)
Professor: About... 300 years.
Kid: ...so we have a little time.
Re:Ob5thElement (Score:5, Funny)
Kid: How long do we have? ....
Professor: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Kid: What you say!!
Professor: You are on the way to destruction.
Professor: Ha Ha Ha Ha
Kid: Take off every 'Zig'!!
Kid: You know what you doing.
Kid: Move 'Zig'.
Kid: For great justice.
See? The future's fine, we have Zig.
Thundarr (Score:5, Funny)
That will be cool.
They are nuclear (Score:5, Informative)
Not that it matters much what an asteroid is made of when it's landing on you.
Re:They are nuclear (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe zap them with laser beams!
Re:I doubt it. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I doubt it. (Score:3, Funny)
Do I have to think of everything?
Re:I doubt it. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Well it really does not matter how much of a mess I make now, future generations will be glad to spend a mountain of money and huge amounts of effort on cleaning up after me"
it is really preferable to just design space craft in such a way that they create the minimum mess possible. And that does not just extend to Nuclear Reactors it applies to everything from slips of foil to entire decommissioned satilites floating around up there doing nothing other than endangering space craft. Ther e should be an obligation to build a disposal mechanism into every satilite launched.
Re:I doubt it. (Score:4, Funny)
Two birds with one stone. I like the way you think.
WHEW! (Score:5, Funny)
Boy, I'm sure glad I gave up that career in space flight and instead opted for becoming a laid-off IT guy. And my guidance counselor said I couldn't make a good decision...
Hopefully (Score:3, Insightful)
don't you mean meteors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't you mean meteoroids meteorites? (Score:5, Informative)
Incidentally "meteor" can refer either to the incandescence of a meteoroid burning up in the atmosphere or it can refer to the object itself (in which case it is a perfect synonym for "meteoroid").
Just how much material are we talking about here? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a pretty freaking big planet. If we're talking about 5kg of fissionables, that seems pretty small to me compared to the daily dosage the planet gets from the sun - although I do understand there's one hell of a difference between solar radiation and vaporous uranium - the latter's toxic as well as radioactive, iirc.
Re:Just how much material are we talking about her (Score:3, Interesting)
However.. the earths magnetic field, stratosphere and all of that other junk up there in the sky protects us from most of the most harmful damage of the sun, whereas 5KG of fissionables wouldnt be Dilluted by the earth's atmosphere!
Re:Just how much material are we talking about her (Score:5, Informative)
You can stand on a floor of strontium 90 every day and not really be affected (well, I think there are parts of your skin thin enough that the radiation will cause problems), breath a few particles of it and some Bad Things will happen.
I think the stuff talked about here make strontium 90 look good. Some of that stuff takes VERY little though yellow and magenta chains grant immunity to radiation (Ok, inside joke, govt labs use yellow and magenta plastic chains to rope off radioactive areas with no other explaination leaving you wondering what the actual contamination is from. Nothing like a 2 foot square hole in the hall in front of your office with one of those chains around the very edge of the hole).
You could lift it if you were stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Reference: http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/russia/military/sigi
Some numbers on the issue (Score:5, Informative)
According to "Der rote Orbit" by Harro Zimmer, a book on the Soviet space program based on data released in the 1990s: There is about 940 kg of highly enriched uranium and more than 15 tons of radioactive material. The sattelites will stay about 600 years in orbit before coming down. Argon-39, mentioned in the article, will still be around then.
One exception is Kosmos 1900. On this RORSAT mission the core ejection was done later than usual due to a technical problem. Since the orbit was already very low then, the core was shot to an altitude of about 750 km, where it will only last about 100 years.
Will this be a major event to the earth, or will the upper atmosphere just shrug and eat it up?
This is unclear. There were two incidents in the RORSAT history where the reactor core re-entered Earth's atmosphere. Kosmos 1402 did not leave a radioactive trace while the infamous Kosmos 954 spacecraft certainly did [free-online.co.uk].
Re:Just how much material are we talking about her (Score:5, Informative)
However, argon is a noble gas that does not combine chemically with anything, so long-term exposure from absorption into the human body is not exactly a big issue. It also forms a small but detectable proportion (about 1%) of the Earth's atmosphere, so it will be diluted by a factor of billions or trillions to one.
Sodium of course is highly reactive. I assume that it's the K (potassium?) that decays into the sodium as Na = sodium already... nuclear science is not my strong suit unfortunately. Upon hitting the high atmosphere, sodium will combine rapidly, probably with hydrogen (NaH) or Oxygen (NaO2/Na2O/Na2O2) none of which are used by the human body... may be a problem if it recombines, but again we're talking minute quantities relatively speaking.
The coolant is all in the form of liquid droplets which will be showering down over the earth over a period of hundreds of years. To be honest I can't see what the big deal is here. Yes, there's radiation showering down, but these are *droplets*, they're not going to smack you in the eye - they will break up probably before they hit the stratosphere, let alone the troposphere.
The net effect will be an increase in background radiation levels too small to measure.
The original article focuses on the hazards of the droplets as space junk... which to me seems sensible. As an earthbound radiation source these don't figure. As space junk they present not only a collision hazard but a radioactive one.
Whine, whine. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again, the media makes a big deal out of a little thing.
(Note that this doesn't excuse the Soviets' lack of foresight on the reactor. Then again, they did manage Chernobyl...)
Re:Whine, whine. (Score:5, Informative)
Going at a large velocity a 3inch diameter sphere of coolant will do some damage (possibly quite serious), and that's what has people worried. It certainly has the potential to change the orbit of one of the smaller satellites.
Since no one read the damn article... (Score:5, Informative)
Space Spam (Score:4, Informative)
And just as junk emails cause a threat to network connectivity, space junk can potentially damage future space missions. NASA constantly keeps its eye on the movements of these bits of space trash.
space.com [space.com] has a comprehensive list of space junk items, and who put them there.
Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic [mithuro.com] Flamebait [mithuro.com] Troll [mithuro.com] Redundant [mithuro.com]
Positive: Insightful [mithuro.com] Interesting [mithuro.com] Informative [mithuro.com] Funny [mithuro.com]
A Bigger Problem: Critical Density. (Score:4, Interesting)
All our plans for regular space travel, not to mention all kinds of other space uses, will be in jeopardy. Paint chips, bolts, pieces of wire, etc. We need some really smart people thinking about a solution to this.
Alaska Village invited to test cheap, clean nuclear power [alaska-freegold.com]
Re:A Bigger Problem: Critical Density. (Score:3, Insightful)
All currently orbiting, or indeed travelling on interplanetary/interstellar (see: Voyager N) vehicles are shieled against naturally occuring micrometeors. An extra piece of junk thrown out by man is nothing compared to what is already out there --especially as concerns radiation. We could detonate every single nuclear weapon on the planet in relatively low orbit and barely register a blip compared to the naturally occuring radiation.
Seriously, the dinosaurs weren't wiped out by Sputnik. Yeah,
Two conclusions: (Score:5, Interesting)
The above blatantly stolen from Einstein
More Asteroid Hemorrhoids (Score:5, Insightful)
Well here's a clue for the terminally short-sighted: Do you think maybe- just maybe -we'll have a better way to deal with it in several hundred years??? I mean for cryin' out loud, the damn things safe in parking orbit. It's not going anywhere for the next few centuries! Could the submitter be anymore of an alarmist if he tried? Heads up, Chicken Little, the sky is falling!
Sigh.
We don't inherit the earth - we borrow it.. (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe not that much of a problem.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those things use isotopes with a half life in a low 2 digit year range, because they NEED a HIGH decay rate to create heat. So in a few hundered years there wont be too much left to make our great - great children 3 eyed...
It's a Romanshka class reactor (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe not that much of a problem.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, though, their plan wasn't all that bad. When the satellite was taken offline, the reactor package would be boosted to a high orbit. In the 60's they would never have guessed that their space program (or the americans') would be so emaciated in the decades to come. They would certainly have expected some sort of orbital tug to be available in the 80s-90s.
And let's not forget how much worse things could have been... The Soviets very seriously considered leaving nuclear warheads permanently in orbit, rather than launching them all from the ground. When the time came, the orbiting warheads would be directed to re-enter en masse, which would severely reduce the available reaction time for the west. These systems were actually tested. A number of Kosmos satellites were dummy warheads that were launched, left in orbit for a time, and then directed to re-enter at a target zone. Imagine if a constellation of THESE had been left to decay over the past 4 decades.
Re:Maybe not that much of a problem.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that would certainly have provided some incentive to develop a workable space-tug technology by now wouldn't it? (assuming there was anyone left alive to do so)
Insignificant (Score:5, Insightful)
The hazard is to spacecraft, not us (Score:5, Interesting)
In no way will I excuse the extreme sloppiness of the Russians in all things nuclear, but the radiation hazard from these things has been greatly exaggerated to sell newspapers, books and TV spots. Several of these orbiting Soviet reactors failed to go into their disposal orbits and have already fallen back to earth -- and we're still here. Yes, you could say we were lucky that they fell in relatively remote areas. But most of the earth's surface is still sparsely populated (such as the 70% that's covered by water).
Another thing to remember about spent reactor fuel is that its radioactivity falls rapidly with time. While a reactor operates, a significant fraction of the generated power comes from the decay of short-lived fission products. This radioactive decay heat continues even after the chain reaction has been shut down; that's why emergency core cooling is so important in terrestrial reactors. Depending on the reactor design and the fuel, a few hundred years may be enough for its radioactivity to decay to that of the uranium ore from which it was originally made. This point is often lost in the shrill criticism of permanent high-level waste disposal sites.
I do have one question about the physical properties of the NaK coolant: what is its vapor pressure? This particular alloy was chosen partly because it's a liquid at or just above room temperature, so it must have some vapor pressure that would cause it to slowly sublime in the vacuum of space. That sublimation would occur much more quickly for small droplets than large. Anybody have numbers?
Re:The hazard is to spacecraft, not us (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty low. To get a vapor pressure of 1 mm of mercury, you have to heat it to 355 C.
Re:The hazard is to spacecraft, not us (Score:4, Informative)
Many of These Satellites (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest short term problem seems to be the loss of NaK coolant, with the number of these drops "estimated to be 110,000 to over 115,000." Wih the possibility for more of them to leak if other space junk punctures the radiators of the satellites. In the most immediate future these droplets are mostly just navigation hazards, but the amount of radiation that might remain in them is unknown, and it's not known if they're further contaminated. I'm guessing the radioactive argon in the droplets, of which there is a presently unknown quantity, is a relatively small hazard...but please correct me if this suspicion is wrong.
I'm not sure how radioactive the reactors themselves might be; the article didn't give much information on this side of the problem. If anyone is familiar with Soviet spaceborne reactor design, please speak up! My strong suspicion is, however, that even in the likelihood they are thermoelectric reactors with short-lived isotopes, there would still be enough residual radiation to make them unpleasant devices to have land on you patio. And since there are so many of them, it seems a little too optimistic that they'll all land in the ocean.
Finally, I found it interesting that the article notes "we are on the threshold, if we have not already exceeded it, of reaching a critical density' of objects in low Earth orbit, where collisional fragmentation will cause the debris environment to slowly grow even if all other sources are eliminated." How will we respond if low Earth orbit becomes too dangerous for reliable operation of satellites or manned spaceflight? How dangerous is it right now, or does anyone know how many satellites are believed to have been lost due to space collisions?
Re:Many of These Satellites (Score:4, Insightful)
As I mentioned a few posts above this one, they are not RTGs. They are honest-to-goodness reactors, with all the nasty daughter-products we've grown to love. It's just like a reactor on the ground: you go in pure, you come out perverted. The daughter products are much more of a worry than the remaining pure fuel. You can expect uranium and plutonium to stay in a certain state; preferably in large solid pieces. But the decay products will have much different chemical and structural makeup, more likely to pulverize or turn gaseous within our atmosphere.
At least with an RTG you can be assured that it'll come back in one piece 99.9% of the time. It's small, completely solid, no moving parts. They rely solely on passive cooling. But a reactor produces so much heat that it must use an active heat transfer system, meaning larger size and moving parts (pumps, compressors, lots and lots of thin heat-conducting pipes). Here we're dealing with a design that is inherently more breakable and failure-prone. It's kinda like the old saying "Why don't they just make the planes like they make the Black Box?" The RTG is small and compact, very very hard to break. The reactor's weakness is its size. You can only armour it so much before it becomes prohibitively heavy.
Today's Lesson: if you have to drop either an RTG or a reactor back to the earth's surface, CHOOSE THE RTG.
sweet! (Score:5, Funny)
It's not an accident, it's our interplanetary nuclear defense system.
Many more nuclear satellites (Score:4, Informative)
List of nuclear accidents (Score:3, Insightful)
These types of 'accidents' happen all of the time.
President Bush's fault! (Score:3, Funny)
Radioactive core (Score:3, Informative)
Lockheed just gave this talk at Penn State (Score:4, Informative)
Already happened -- Cosmos 954 (Score:3, Insightful)
There were no direct casualties from the crash, but only a small fraction of the power supply was recovered. One website I found says the Canadian government billed the Soviets for $6 million (Canadian, 1978) dollars.
Google on Cosmos 954 [google.com] for more.
This is relatively insignificant (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Few Hundred Years? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A good example against nuclear powered * (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A good example against nuclear powered * (Score:5, Funny)
"We just collided with a satelite. We're venting oxygen. We have 2 minutes of air left."
"Oh no, it was a nuclear satelite! What about the radiation? Now we have 1 minute, 55 seconds of air left. I knew nuclear power was a bad idea."
Re:A good example against nuclear powered * (Score:5, Informative)
These droplets will quickly burn as soon as they enter in the atmosphere since Na and K are highly reactive. Both the sodium and potassium will absorb CO2/H20 becoming small crystals of inoffensive carbonates. The most dangerous compound coming from this Na/K coolant might be Argon-39 (released from the radioactive Sodium-24).
Now, Argon-39 has a beta-decay mode, with around 300 years half-life. First, beta-decay is one of the least dangerous types of decay. For example, tritium is much more dangerous than Argon-39 since it has a half-life of only 10 years. But tritium is used everywhere today, in exit signs for example, or other "glow in the dark" toys. You can order this stuff on the Internet today...
Re:Do you people make this shit up as you go along (Score:3, Funny)
And, you think that these... what do you call them... "facts"... have any influence on some of these people screaming bloody murder about anything with the word "nuc-u-lar" in it?
Ha! ha! You is so silly!
I wonder what would happen if some of these dolts found out what the sun really is? They'd probably be lobbying that we send the FDNY up there to put it out immediately.
Re:Ah yes... (Score:3, Interesting)
Onnel
Re:Ah yes... (Score:5, Informative)
A missile silo doesn't move around much, and it's hard to keep completely secret. The Soviets knew exactly where every one of them was and had several nukes pinpointed on each one.
In the oceans, however, are ships and submarines which also carry nuclear weapons. Ships do move around, and it's relatively easy to keep the movements of a ship at sea secret. The Soviets needed to know where the US was keeping its seaborne nuclear assets, so that they could be eliminated before they could launch in the event of World War 3. In addition to (IIRC) around half of the American arsenal, _all_ the British nukes and most of the French ones are on submarines.
I'd say the Soviets had a damn good reason to be keeping a close eye on the oceans.
Re:Ah yes... (Score:4, Informative)
This Soviet Union placed a series of radar-equipped ocean reconnaissance satellites, known as RORSATs in the west in low Earth orbit beginning in 1967. Employing powerful radars and working in pairs, they located and targeted U.S. ships for destruction by Soviet naval forces...
Re:Ah yes... (Score:3, Funny)
Day night snooping of earth's oceans is completely believable. After all, be nice to spot those subs wouldn't it.
You are, of course, referring to those nuclear subs carrying nuclear missiles, right?
Pavel: "Can you tell me where the nuclear wessels are?"
Communist Soviet Guy: "Yes."
Re:Simple-minded solution (Score:5, Insightful)
- American Indian Proverb
Re:Simple-minded solution (Score:5, Informative)
You have to remember the enviroment that produced this mess.
The former soviets had a very cavalier attitude towards radioactivity. Part of the problem was the extreme pressure they felt to keep up with western technology.
The soviets have radioactive waste everywhere. Not just Chernobyl, but across the continent. [bbc.co.uk]
It really is a severe [upi.com] problem. There are also over 40,000 barrels of waste in the Barents sea that need to be cleaned up before it kills the fisheries.
This doesn't mention all the nuclear accidents that they had that released radioactivity in the enviroment. Many of which were never published or covered up. The only reason we learned about Chernobyl is because fallout reached Sweden.
BTW, the Chernobyl sarcophagus is crumbling, and threatens to expose the radioactive core once again, unless western nations fund some fix. So that mess is not over yet.
"Radioactive Mess" would be Russia's middle name if it had one.
Re:Simple-minded solution (Score:3, Interesting)
The primary concern is that they are space debris and might hit other spacecraft.
Now you should consider that these droplets are accidentally released (maybe by a badly designed spacecraft, but certainly not on purpose).
Then look at the USA.
They PURPOSELY released a load of needles in space, with th
Re:where to? (Score:3, Insightful)
Getting objects out of our lowly planet's gravity takes more energy than parking in a high orbit. Think going in orbit past the moon then keep going. It's a lot of fuel. On original launch date, they are usualy very concerned with weight. Minimual station keeping fuel is all that usualy remains. They at least had the forsight to take enough fuel to park it in a higher orbit. Most of our stuff doesn't carry the ex