Mars and nuclear power

[gunsandrockets]

NASA has identified nuclear thermal propulsion and nuclear surface power as key technologies for manned exploration of Mars.<br /><br />This is what Robert Zubrin had to say in his 1996 book "The Case for Mars", on page 205...<br /><br />"That leaves nuclear power as the only option for the initial source of large-scale power. A nuclear reactor producing 100kWe and 2,000 kilowatts of thermal process heat twenty-four hours a day for ten years would weigh about 4,000 kilograms--just four tonnes--making it light enough to import from Earth. In contrast, a solar array that could produce the same round-the-clock electrical output (but only one twentieth the thermal output) for about the same lifetime would weigh about 27,000 kilograms and would cover an area of 6,600 square meters (about two-thirds of a football field)."<br /><br />Page 5 of Zubrin's book describes his Mars Direct mission plan using a 100 kWe nuclear power plant placed "a few hundred meters away from the landing site" to power the ISRU needed for fueling the Earth Return Vehicle.

 

[gunsandrockets]

NASA has identified nuclear thermal propulsion and nuclear surface power as key technologies for manned exploration of Mars. <br /><br />Of course technology doesn't stand still. One NASA study of employing advanced thin film solar technology for Mars surface power came to some interesting conclusions. A solar power system able to produce a daily average of 50 kWe would mass about 8 tonnes.<br /><br />http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1999/6000/6920kerslake2.html<br /><br />Compare that to the SAFE-400 nuclear power reactor that was going to power the JIMO mission unmanned spacecraft. The SAFE-400 reactor masses only 512 kg and produces 100 kWe.<br /><br />http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0228/p14s01-stss.htm<br /><br />http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2002AIPC..608..578P&amp;db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format=<br /><br />http://www.uic.com.au/nip82.htm<br /><br />When it comes to Mars surface power, where the sunlight is only 44% as strong as that reaching the Earth, solar power can not compete with the mass efficiency of nuclear power. <br /><br />

 

[ehs40]

nuclear power is the next step we must take in space exploration. we are more aware of the dangers and how to prevent a nuclear disaster we are on our way with the new horizons mission to pluto but i think nuclear power needs to be put to use its a reliable power source and one that we can easily put to use

 

[scottb50]

I have a number of reservations regarding Nuclear power. First I really question the weight according to Zubrin, I also question the reliability of a reactor and the maintenance requirements. Then there's the backup capability. How many reactors are we talking about here? Don't forget the heavy weight of the fuel that has to be put into orbit, through the atmosphere. The man-power to maintain the equipment alone adds a lot of problems.<br /><br />With solar you start with enough to run the intial operation and add to it as you grow. Sort of a B.Y.O.P sort of thing. Add capacity, and usage, to a main grid and expand as needed. <br /><br />I also think, with enough storage capability, solar would work just fine on Mars, not as easily as in orbit or Space, but not too difficult. <br /><br />I don't doubt the capability of Nuclear all I doubt is the viability in the proposed environment, ridding a reactor of excess heat, not involved with developing power is a major problem in our atmosphere. How do you control it in Space or the minimal atmosphere of Mars? If it was my project I would want at least three independant systems feeding dedicated and joined busses, this kind of skews the weight numbers. With solar you use a plug and play system, additional capacity gets added as it is needed. <br /><br />Current solar technology is also well above the figures given in an earlier post and would be even more advanced before it is put into place. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

There is something else that needs to be brought up here. While we are space enthusiasts who believe that such a use of nuclear power would be quite safe, it would do us some good to realize that this is not the opinion of the average American taxpayer!!<br /><br />Just think of all the hullaballo that occures when NASA has to use one of the little heating units for deep space probes!! You would think that one of these things was going to run amuck and kill all life on this planet!!<br /><br />If this fear of all things nuclear by the ordinary citizen of this country is not overcome, then this entire discussion is as moot as one of GT's threads!!<br /><br />Remember you are probably speaking to the choir here, a vastly affective educational program is going to be needed (and this in the face of the more extreme ecological types). And this is going to add to the overall cost of such systems. <br /><br />Now, I am not saying that doing this is impossible, but it WILL be very, very difficult! We might even be able to find such materials elsewhere in the solar system, and then manufacture such power sources in space itself before the powers that be (who are elected powers) allow the necessary fuel and other components of such systems to be placed on rockets!!<br /><br />I have, and have read Dr. Robert Zubrin's excellent books, and on many points I agree with him. However, like most good visionary engineers he really dosen't have much of a grasp of politics! Also, he is so far off on his cost estimates for a manned Mars mission as to be laughable!! <br /><br />I would be quite conservative to state that such a mission, in order to guaratee the kind of redundantcy needed for a reasonable chance of such a mission not ending in disaster is going to cost along the same levels as the ISS or the entire CEV program (in the area of a minimum of some $100 billion (which is still a lot less expensived than NASA's original estimates)!<br /><br />The only thing that enables even this lo

 

[mattblack]

There is a need to figure out the bare minimum needed for ISRU fuel production (40, 50 or 100kw?) and move toward this design. For the reasons in the top post's extract from Zubrin, solar just isn't going to cut it. The weight and complexity of a large, articulated set of arrays to follow the sun, then fully retract for an approaching dust storm (which could rage for WEEKS) makes the concept of a 27-tonne, 6500 sq. ft of arrays just pure B.S. not even worth considering.<br /><br />After decades of leftist propoganda, acceptance of nuclear power has had a terrible hammering. If you can't use nuclear power millions of miles away in space; then where the hell else can you use it?! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

I agree matt. I think if it were required for a manned presence, humanity could be remarkably flexible on the nuclear question. If they could get it launched safely, I suspect most would feel "who cares ... it's way the heck over there on Mars." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Heck, if the reactor design is made as inert as possible, prior to activation and encased in a removeable armoured, ablative shell with parachutes, just in case of accident during ascent: Would that satisfy anti-nuke critics? I'd hope so, but I'd doubt it even then. After all, a reactor would contain uranium, not plutonium which seems to be what the 'Chicken Littles' are most worried about. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Just think of all the hullaballo that occures when NASA has to use one of the little heating units for deep space probes!! "<br /><br />What hullaballo? Times change. Even during the heyday of anti-nuclear hysteria the anti-nuke protestors were unable to stop the Cassini mission (now giving us marvelous information from Saturn and Titan). Nowadays the founder of Greenpeace favors nuclear power.<br /><br />Recently not one peep of objection came from the U.S. Congress about funding NASA's project Prometheus, which is developing nuclear reactors for space flight applications such as the JIMO mission. The recent cutbacks of Prometheus and JIMO have come from NASA administrator Griffin who is focusing NASA's resources on project Constellation like a laser beam.<br /><br />I think the fear of public backlash over nuclear power is more imagined than based on reality.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I have a number of reservations regarding Nuclear power. First I really question the weight according to Zubrin, ... Current solar technology is also well above the figures given in an earlier post and would be even more advanced before it is put into place."<br /><br />If you have competing data sets to share, please do. And with links if you can.<br /><br />" I also question the reliability of a reactor and the maintenance requirements. ... The man-power to maintain the equipment alone adds a lot of problems. ... I don't doubt the capability of Nuclear all I doubt is the viability in the proposed environment, ridding a reactor of excess heat, not involved with developing power is a major problem in our atmosphere. How do you control it in Space or the minimal atmosphere of Mars?"<br /><br />If the Soviets can manage to make the extremly hot TOPAZ nuclear reactors function while untended in the vacuum of space back in the 1980's, I think the U.S can manage Mars surface nuclear power in the 2020's. The Soviets had a string of nuclear reactor powered RORSATS (radar-ocean-surveillance-satellites) they used to track enemy naval ships in the 1970's and 1980's. They were quite successful. Only the end of the cold war ended the RORSAT program.<br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/project/rorsat.htm<br /><br />link corrected<br /><br />

 

[najab]

Your link is busted!

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

http://www.astronautix.com/project/rorsat.htm<br /><br />Looks like the URL is case sensitive. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I think that it is simply a matter of political maneuvering to make it palatable to the general public.<br /><br />Enviros will scream 'reactor' and immediately ramble on about the dangers out radiation, et al.<br /><br />However, with some creative use of language we should be okay. First, we do not even call it a nuclear reactor until we take it critical. Come up with a acronym like RFTS (Radio Isotope Fission Thermal Source). We drive home the point that the core is perfectly benign until turned on, and we launch the core and the required parts to take it critical in two separate launches. <br /><br />The core of Uranium should be shown in public, 'see this is what we want to launch, go ahead touch it, its perfectly safe....' <br /><br />Lastly, if a report starts to ask hard questions or protesters get involved, just remember, more reports and protesters were liberal arts majors and are quickly and easily baffled with the use of technical terms...in other words baffle them with BS.

 

[kdavis007]

Nukes are they way to go...

 

[mlorrey]

There is something to be said for a president who is not dependent on the tree huggers for reelection... it is refreshing to see such objective talk out in the open by NASA and the administration in favor of nuclear reactors in space.

 

[mikejz]

Slightly O/T but a good article, I wish it comes true<br />http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/feature_earth.asp?p=1

 

[trailrider]

"I have a number of reservations regarding Nuclear power. "<br /><br />(This will sound flippant, and I only half mean for it to be...)<br /><br />[Cynicism mode on!]<br /><br />I didn't know they were taking reservations for Nuk-u-lar power yet! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />We WILL need reactors as well as nuclear-thermal rocket engines to make Mars reachable with any kind of human program beyond a FAFP mission.<br /><br />So far as the "tree huggers" are concerned, I doubt there will be a full-up NT rocket test on Earth, even underground, although I understand there is some work being done in case that should be required. (Source was one of the speakers at the 2005 Mars Convention...nothing classified or "back-channel". )<br /><br />But if we can't test them here, I've got a good spot in mind... someplace close enough to the Lunar South Pole Research Station to be accessible, but on the backside of the Moon! Call it Area 510! We can static test anything we need to! As to the funding: we can hide the appropriations in any number of "black projects." It'll give the conspiracy theorists something to speculate and chew on.<br /><br />Happy New Year!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!

 

[frodo1008]

All of you people!! I AM ALL FOR USING NUCLEAR POWER IN SPACE, AND EVEN HERE ON EARTH!!<br />So you don't have to fight with my posts here!<br /><br />However, if we are going to have a realistic discussion this IS an issue that has to be addressed. And NOT in some kind of denial mode!<br /><br />The people who believe that the oil companies may have some kind of influence here have a point! At least someone with a great deal of money and political power is opposing the use of anything dealing with nuclear power in space! And I don't think it is the relatively under funded ecological movement (although they might be used by whoever has monetary interests in such opposition).<br /><br />Back in the early 1970's while working on the B1A bomber project I had access to National Information Technology Service (NTIS) information. One of the unclassified reports that I saw was a NASA report on the feasibility of having the STS system take the long half life nuclear materials generated by nuclear reactors into space to be disposed of by launching it into the sun.<br /><br />This material is only a small part of the nuclear waste material generated by nuclear reators, but it is the biggest part of the problem because of the millions of years such material has to be stored to become safe to handle. Of course this was when a single shuttle flight was only going to cost some $20 million per flight! And at this price the cost to nuclear power was only going to be a few percent. Well, with hindsight we now know this wasn't going to happen!<br /><br />However, the point that I really wish to make is that the report also (with photographs at that) pointed up the somewhat expensive research that NASA went into to prove that even with a very great disaster there was a method to keep even this highly radiactive material perfectly safe! They encased (I would think it would have been low grade radioactive material so they could minitor whether there was leakage) some material in stainles

 

[john_316]

Hey All!!!!<br /><br />Merry Belated Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!<br /><br /><br />Anyways since I have been gone i see that things have heated up a lil bit here and there.<br /><br />I want to ask the people here that are anti-nuke when the last time a US Nuclear Submarine had a Reactor Meltdown or major problem? Hmmmmmm Well? I am listening??? Zzzzzzzz....<br /><br />Three Mile Island and Chernobyl put fear into alot of people. So did the sinking of several nuclear submarines in the past 45years. However the US has only lost 2 Nuclear submarines since the USS Nautilus went into service. The Russians triple that. <br /><br />Anyways My point.<br /><br /><br />Nuclear Reactors or RTG's which, ever you use produce the power you need to run a small base etc etc with a lot less weight than even the most advanced Solar Arrays.<br /><br />The Solar Power idea for a Mars mission isnt worth the money nor the time. And to say if a problem does occur and radiates the planet of mars is mute. There is no life there to kill.<br /><br />The idea of being anti-nuke is what other's say it is. Anti-advancement in technology and is all just a POLITICAL sham from the crazies on the far left. Matt had that right on the money.<br /><br />Mr Griffin said in his address to Congress we will need nuclear power to goto Mars and I believe thats what will power us there to do it.<br /><br />Nuclear Core Reactor and RTG's are reliable and safer than some "FEW" suggest. The FEW in this case need to be ignored in this situation with space, space travel and space power generation.<br /><br />When Solar Arrays get to 75% effeciency then hey use them. But until then use Nuclear Power for space travel and power generation.<br /><br />**This post does not advocate the use of Project Orion or its benefactors but does advocate the use of Gas Core Nuclear Rockets for space travel.***<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

Just the facts, Jack!! Great handy link for nuke stats:<br /><br />http://www.fortliberty.org/american-politics/nuclear-power.shtml<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[john_316]

Thanks Matt....<br /><br />Of course they could also place more Nuclear plans in the black projects.... Not like we havent done that before either...<br /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

Frodo, I've seen similar burying of truth. When I was in the energy conservation business in the early 1990's, I had access to lots of energy department documents, one of which was a report on the amount of radioactivity emitted into the atmosphere, the ground water, and the construction materials industry by coal plants. Fly ash, it turns out, has such a high level of radioactive heavy metals, that if it were released by a nuke plant, it would be high level nuclear waste, however since it comes from coal plants, it is merely ash which can be legally emitted from coal plant smoke stacks, and collected by stack scrubbers and sold on the open market to be used in landfills, or as filler in concrete. Much of the radon that collects in modern homes comes from radioactive decay of their own foundations, NOT from the ground.<br /><br />In the late 90's, this information disappeared and many deny it exists. I have found that the anti-nuke movement has gotten significant funding from law firms that represent the coal and oil industries, while conversely, the 'global warming' and 'peak oil' mythologies get support from the nuclear, wind, and solar power industries.... it is all a big mindfrack.

 

[skyone]

"The idea of being anti-nuke is what other's say it is. Anti-advancement in technology and is all just a POLITICAL sham from the crazies on the far left. Matt had that right on the money."<br /><br />Don't forget the bible thumping anti-evolution, anti-science, anti-advancement, anti-technology, nati-nuke sham from the crazies on the far right.<br />And somewhere in the middle, you'll find quite a few rather pleasant folks who strongly supports efforts to save the environment AND promote nuclear power at the same time; they are NOT exclusive! By the way, a few of them are against gay marriage, or for the Iraq war, or against the war against terror, or for abortion, or for the death penalty, or against the patriot act.<br />Finding support for space exploration is a difficult enough task, dividing us along partisan lines with categorical, Gaeto-like quips really does not help.<br />

 

[scottb50]

I am all for Nuclear power, here on Earth. <br /><br />Call me a tree hugger, if you want to but I have a problem with launching the fuels into orbit, from a safety point of view, for life on this planet. You can't ignore statistics, there is a number for everything, if it can happen there is a number, 10-1, 2,000,000,000 to 1, that number is still there and when it comes up..... <br /><br />Hopefully most of the waste goes into the Oceans, but is it worth the predictable consequences if it doesn't, or you eat fish.<br /><br />I see it much easier to use water, which we need anyway, in large quantities, if we intend on taking people into Space. <br /><br />Solar power is free for the taking. Basically the Sun replaces the reactor, so that weight is eliminated entirely, the systems to make the energy available, heat exchangers, generators, radiators for excess heat, eliminated. A solar farm on Mars would weigh less than a generator.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Okay, Scottb50, riddle me this: please name one western space use of radioactive material that has resulted in any release of radioactivity on earth. Our RTGs have reentered, sunk to the bottom of the ocean, been brought up unbroken, and REUSED. We are plenty careful.