Power for manned mission to Mars: Nuclear or wind and solar

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crossover_Maniac

Guest
Which one do you prefer, nuclear reactor to provide power for life support and activities on Mars or solar on clear days and wind power at night and during dust storms, and why? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Feel the Hope-nosis </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Which one do you prefer, nuclear reactor to provide power for life support and activities on Mars or solar on clear days and wind power at night and during dust storms, and why? <br />Posted by Crossover_Maniac</DIV></p><p>Interesting questions.&nbsp; IMHO,it depends what you want to do.</p><p>An initial Mars mission with 4-6 people, landed near the equator, andd needing only to run the station and provide consumables and propellants for the crew, a pressurised rover or two, and a small spacecraft to ascend to Mars orbit, could run very well on solar power.&nbsp; Given the simplicty and reliability of solar power this would be the preferred option.</p><p>On the other hand, if you wanted to run a large Mars station, or produce enough propellant for a direct return to Earth, then nculear powre would be the way to go, despite the handicaps.</p><p>Wind power is an interesting option, but would require a lot of construction to set up, and might only work&nbsp; in some places.&nbsp; If efficient energy storage were practical (regeneratable fuel cells perhaps) then, in conjunction with solar panels it might work quite well,&nbsp; You would probably still want a reactor for peak power,</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p>Nuclear sounds much more reliable. You really dont want your lifesupport interupted by bad weather :)</p><p>Most of the plans I hear seem to assume nuclear power. I havent heard about wind power at all and I assumed that was because of the thin atmosphere.</p><p>(edit, re typo removed) </p><p>Anyway I guess he would know a lot better than most here.</p><p>One thing I didnt think of is that perhaps if the solar power was set up long before the crew arrived it could store energy in some form of fuel, giving a large known safety margin?</p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nuclear sounds much more reliable. You really dont want your lifesupport interupted by bad weather :)</DIV></p><p>Solar is moe reliable.&nbsp; Not only is is much better developed tecnology for these applications, it has almost no moving parts, has massive built in redundancy, fails safe, degrades slowly&nbsp;and can be easily repaired</p><p>Nuclear is none of these things.&nbsp; A small reaction would need to be either placed 2-3 km from your station, or need substantial earth moving to bury it.&nbsp; Plus you would need either several to ensure power supply, or have a solar backup anyway.</p><p>You can get by weather issues by ensuring you have large enough arrays to provide a power margin.&nbsp; We have more than 9 years experience operating solar panels on Mars and power available stayed above 40% of array capacity 90% of the time.&nbsp; It was down to 10% during storm peaks, but this was for less than 5% of the time.</p><p>During such times you would have to cut back to basic life support.&nbsp; But this does not need much power,perhpas 1 kW&nbsp; per person.</p><p>You can't assume that nuclear will not be effected by dust storms either.&nbsp; Some 90% of a reactor's power is waste heat.&nbsp; You would need large radiators to dump this, ideal dust collection surfaces.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Most of the plans I hear seem to assume nuclear power. </DIV></p><p>Most do, but it becomes a self perpetuating assumption.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I havent heard about wind power at all and I assumed that was because of the thin atmosphere.(edit) Im guessing you mean 4-6 people, Jon.Anyway I guess he would know a lot better than most here.One thing I didnt think of is that perhaps if the solar power was set up long before the crew arrived it could store energy in some form of fuel, giving a large known safety margin? </p><p>Thanks for picking that up.&nbsp; You were right, I have fixed it.</p><p>There has some exploration of wibnd power, mostly in connection with permanant stations.&nbsp; It is probably more marginal, and certainly less predictable than solar.&nbsp; But some locations might be especially favourable, where winds are focussed and accelerated..&nbsp; Whether these loations are favourable for other reasons, remains to be seen.</p><p>regardless of whether you use solar or nculear you would build up a reserve of stored energy for vehicles etc., before then.&nbsp; Certainly you could use store genergy for power supply more generally too, especially if you are relying on regeneratable fuel fells. </p><p>Geothermal power might be another option, long term, but we now less about the potential of that.</p><p>Posted by kelvinzero</DIV></p><p>Cheers</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Air pressure on Mars is so low the energy density of the breeze passing through a windmill small enough to make the voyage there will be negligible.&nbsp; There might be enough wind power to twirl an anemometer, but maintaining a research team is going to take a huge machine to yield practical power levels.&nbsp; I am happy to note not much interest in Mars wind power in thread so far. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Air pressure on Mars is so low the energy density of the breeze passing through a windmill small enough to make the voyage there will be negligible.&nbsp; There might be enough wind power to twirl an anemometer, but maintaining a research team is going to take a huge machine to yield practical power levels.&nbsp; I am happy to note not much interest in Mars wind power in thread so far. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by vogon13</DIV></p><p>You might be surprised!</p><p>http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=6251</p><p>https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20498WP%20Wind%20Power%20Systems/Wind%20Power%20for%20a%20Mars%20Mission.pdf</p><p>http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/1998-ResourceUtilizationAndSiteSelectionForASelf-SufficientMartianOutpost.pdf&nbsp;(6 MB file) - specifically pages 33-34</p><p>http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-979/houston.pdf</p><p>James etal also wrote an interesting paper in 1998 called "urviving on Mars without nuclear energy" at the first Mars Society Convention.</p><p>Jon</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Solar is moe reliable.&nbsp; Not only is is much better developed tecnology for these applications, it has almost no moving parts, has massive built in redundancy, fails safe, degrades slowly&nbsp;and can be easily repairedNuclear is none of these things.&nbsp; A small reaction would need to be either placed 2-3 km from your station, or need substantial earth moving to bury it.&nbsp; Plus you would need either several to ensure power supply, or have a solar backup anyway.You can get by weather issues by ensuring you have large enough arrays to provide a power margin.&nbsp; We have more than 9 years experience operating solar panels on Mars and power available stayed above 40% of array capacity 90% of the time.&nbsp; It was down to 10% during storm peaks, but this was for less than 5% of the time.During such times you would have to cut back to basic life support.&nbsp; But this does not need much power,perhpas 1 kW&nbsp; per person.You can't assume that nuclear will not be effected by dust storms either.&nbsp; Some 90% of a reactor's power is waste heat.&nbsp; You would need large radiators to dump this, ideal dust collection surfaces.Most do, but it becomes a self perpetuating assumption.&nbsp; CheersJon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>I would agree solar makes a lot more sense then Nuclear, not only on Mars but in LEO, on the moon and enroute between either. I have long been advocating a water and solar approach as a way of meeting the three most important needs away from Earth. First would be providing protection for travelers from harmful particles, water offers the simplest and most benign way to do it. Combine the protection with the need for water to sustain life anyway reduces the mass needed to be placed in LEO and that taken elsewhere.</p><p>Add a solar powered hydrolysis/fuel cell system, using the same water and you further lower the mass needed. Additionally the system would also provide waste management and recycling capabilities in a semi-self sustaining environment.</p><p>Compared to Nuclear it would be much simpler, safer, reliable and more redundant as well as easier to maintain.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You might be surprised!&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Back when we were still UpLink, somebody ran the numbers for the size of a wind turbine on Mars. The numbers just weren't good enough to provide sufficient energy to power a base.</font></p><p><font size="2">Over on NASA SpaceFlight forum they are doing a thread on using Falcon 9 Heavies to get to mars. Somebody did the calculations for how much mass you can get to the surface of Mars using a heat shield limited&nbsp;to the size that could be launched on an F9H, & that is only 3000lb including the&nbsp;mass of the EDL. That&nbsp;doesn't leave enough room to bring&nbsp;any kind of pre assembled nuclear reactor&nbsp;to run your base (or any kind of pre assembled base either).</font></p><p><font size="2">Barring an in orbit assembled heat shield (not a good idea according to the NASA guys), an inflatable heat shield&nbsp;or an&nbsp;HLV,&nbsp;Solar is the only real option at this time.<br /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Back when we were still UpLink, somebody ran the numbers for the size of a wind turbine on Mars. The numbers just weren't good enough to provide sufficient energy to power a base.</DIV></p><p>Perhaps, but other studies have disagreed.&nbsp; I have not crunched the numbers myself, soI can't really comment.&nbsp; But what is not attarctive for a Mars mission may well be attractive for a Mars station.&nbsp; A lot depends on the unerlying assumptions used</p><p>Over on NASA SpaceFlight forum they are doing a thread on using Falcon 9 Heavies to get to mars. Somebody did the calculations for how much mass you can get to the surface of Mars using a heat shield limited&nbsp;to the size that could be launched on an F9H, & that is only 3000lb including the&nbsp;mass of the EDL. That&nbsp;doesn't leave enough room to bring&nbsp;any kind of pre assembled nuclear reactor&nbsp;to run your base (or any kind of pre assembled base either).Barring an in orbit assembled heat shield (not a good idea according to the NASA guys), an inflatable heat shield&nbsp;or an&nbsp;HLV,&nbsp;Solar is the only real option at this time. <br />Posted by boris1961 </DIV></p><p>I presume you mean this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14537.0?&nbsp; Actually the figure mentioned was 3000 kg, not 3000 lb. A lot depends on the underlying assumptions in the study.&nbsp; For example the 3 tonne figure assumes using Viking type entry technology.&nbsp;But there are other ways to do it that are much better for heavy payloads.&nbsp; Using a medium lift entry vehicle and things change dramatically.&nbsp; So 60 tonne entry vehicles are possible on a 5 m diameter spacecraft, for example.</p><p>Jon</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p>Well if solar can do it, thats&nbsp;very good news.&nbsp;</p><p>It is more interesting to me long term since as anyone could have guessed Im firmly in the space colonization camp. Insitu manufacture of mirrors or solar cells will&nbsp;surely come long&nbsp;before the manufacture of nuclear power plants.</p><p>Am I allowed to change my vote? :)</p>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps, but other studies have disagreed.&nbsp; I have not crunched the numbers myself, soI can't really comment.&nbsp; But what is not attarctive for a Mars mission may well be attractive for a Mars station.&nbsp; A lot depends on the unerlying assumptions usedOver on NASA SpaceFlight forum they are doing a thread on using Falcon 9 Heavies to get to mars. Somebody did the calculations for how much mass you can get to the surface of Mars using a heat shield limited&nbsp;to the size that could be launched on an F9H, & that is only 3000lb including the&nbsp;mass of the EDL. That&nbsp;doesn't leave enough room to bring&nbsp;any kind of pre assembled nuclear reactor&nbsp;to run your base (or any kind of pre assembled base either).Barring an in orbit assembled heat shield (not a good idea according to the NASA guys), an inflatable heat shield&nbsp;or an&nbsp;HLV,&nbsp;Solar is the only real option at this time. Posted by boris1961 </DIV>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I presume you mean this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14537.0?&nbsp; Actually the figure mentioned was 3000 kg, not 3000 lb. A lot depends on the underlying assumptions in the study.&nbsp; For example the 3 tonne figure assumes using Viking type entry technology.&nbsp;But there are other ways to do it that are much better for heavy payloads.&nbsp; Using a medium lift entry vehicle and things change dramatically.&nbsp; So 60 tonne entry vehicles are possible on a 5 m diameter spacecraft, for example.Jon&nbsp; <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p><font size="2">I was wrong on the weight?&nbsp;Me!!!</font> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif" border="0" alt="Surprised" title="Surprised" />&nbsp;<font size="2">I hate it when that happens (with monotonous regularity<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-embarassed.gif" border="0" alt="Embarassed" title="Embarassed" />). </font></p><p><font size="2">In that&nbsp;case, if we have some 6600lb (& possibly what we can fit into a much larger&nbsp;EDL)&nbsp;to work with, how about one of these;</font></p><p><font size="2"><font size="2">&nbsp;Hyperion Power Generation</font>&nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="2">I think we might be able to get one of these to the surface without too much difficulty & it'll have enough juice to power all the experiments & ISRU equipment we'd need with a very comfortable margin.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was wrong on the weight?&nbsp;Me!!! &nbsp;I hate it when that happens (with monotonous regularity). </DIV></p><p>You and me both!&nbsp; With me it's typos...&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In that&nbsp;case, if we have some 6600lb (& possibly what we can fit into a much larger&nbsp;EDL)&nbsp;to work with, how about one of these;&nbsp;Hyperion Power Generation&nbsp;I think we might be able to get one of these to the surface without too much difficulty & it'll have enough juice to power all the experiments & ISRU equipment we'd need with a very comfortable margin. <br />Posted by boris1961 </DIV></p><p>Very interesting!&nbsp; It's too large for a Mars mission or even a Mars station,but would be ideal for a settlement.</p><p>Some questions:&nbsp; How is it cooled (they say thet don't use water)?&nbsp; Have they actually built such a reactor, or is it a paper project?</p><p>It sounds similar to the Toshiba 4S design.</p><p>Jon</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
V

vulture4

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You and me both!&nbsp; With me it's typos...&nbsp;Very interesting!&nbsp; It's too large for a Mars mission or even a Mars station,but would be ideal for a settlement.Some questions:&nbsp; How is it cooled (they say thet don't use water)?&nbsp; Have they actually built such a reactor, or is it a paper project?It sounds similar to the Toshiba 4S design.Jon&nbsp; <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>I agree. For a small, isolated facility that requires significant power continuously (people can't shut down over the winter) nuclear is really the only viable choice. However we need to get to the first step and actually launch a small reactor into space. This was planned for the JIMO mission but now that's apparently gone. Even the MSL with its RTG is in difficulty.&nbsp; </p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree. For a small, isolated facility that requires significant power continuously (people can't shut down over the winter) nuclear is really the only viable choice. However we need to get to the first step and actually launch a small reactor into space. This was planned for the JIMO mission but now that's apparently gone. Even the MSL with its RTG is in difficulty.&nbsp; <br />Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>Quite a few&nbsp; power reactors have flown in space, 33 on Soviet spacecraft and one on US.&nbsp; These reactors were much smaller than would be needed for a mission to Mars. </p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Which one do you prefer, nuclear reactor to provide power for life support and activities on Mars or solar on clear days and wind power at night and during dust storms, and why? <br />Posted by Crossover_Maniac</DIV><br /><br />I would look at it from the perspective of reliability.&nbsp; Since Mars is such a long way from any help you will want the most reliable system available.&nbsp; I am guessing that solar arrays will win for that reason. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
V

vulture4

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would look at it from the perspective of reliability.&nbsp; Since Mars is such a long way from any help you will want the most reliable system available.&nbsp; I am guessing that solar arrays will win for that reason. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>The Mars Rover solar panels generate significant power for only about 4 hours a day. The batteries are relatively heavy and degrade with time. Consequently the rovers are essentially dormant at night. Even for the Mars Science Lab a nuclear source was considered important to allow continuous operation. You can see the scope of solar panels the ISS requires, and at Mars these would have to be doubled due to the redce solar intensity, and then tripled due to effective sunligt being only 1/6 of the day, vs over half the time in Earth orbit. Batteries would likewise be three times as massive as on ISS, and dust storms could leave the station with much less power for days at a time.</p><p>Possible, yes. But I question whether it would be optimal.&nbsp; </p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Mars Rover solar panels generate significant power for only about 4 hours a day. The batteries are relatively heavy and degrade with time. Consequently the rovers are essentially dormant at night. Even for the Mars Science Lab a nuclear source was considered important to allow continuous operation. You can see the scope of solar panels the ISS requires, and at Mars these would have to be doubled due to the redce solar intensity, and then tripled due to effective sunligt being only 1/6 of the day, vs over half the time in Earth orbit. Batteries would likewise be three times as massive as on ISS, and dust storms could leave the station with much less power for days at a time.Possible, yes. But I question whether it would be optimal.&nbsp; <br />Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>Conversely solar arrays on Mars would be a lot lighter than in Earth orbit.&nbsp; They would not need the extensive support and orienting structure.</p><p>I don't know where you get the idea that they would only be effective for a 6th of the day.</p><p>Both solar cells and batteries are readily decreasing in weight and increasing in efficiency (cells have doubled in efficiency over the past 15 years).&nbsp; Other energy storage systems are also possible, like fuel cells.&nbsp; Conversely small power reactors in the 10's-100's of kW range have not advanced at all for 20 years.&nbsp; As there is no commercial or militry market for such systems they are no likely too either.</p><p>Note that while reatcor cores are compact and light, the ancillary systems are very heavy - cooling, power generation, support structures and shielding.</p><p>What is optimal will depend on issues like what technology is available at the time, reliability and servicing issues, how much power is required, and what you want to do with it.&nbsp; Who does it is important too.&nbsp; No private company or organisation is ever likely to be allowed to use the weapons grade fuel a very small reactor needs.</p><p>Longer term, remember that Mars almost certainly has no indigeous U or Th resources.&nbsp; Indigeous energy resources are sunlight, wind, and proably geothermal.&nbsp; Dueterium too, if we can ever get fusion to work.</p><p>Jon</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
F

franontanaya

Guest
<p>If local resources can be used to manufacture mirrors, Solar Thermal Energy is even simpler than photovoltaic solar panels, and a backup RTG heat source, or any chemical fuel (algae biofuel, i.e.), could use the same turbines.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vulture4

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would look at it from the perspective of reliability.&nbsp; Since Mars is such a long way from any help you will want the most reliable system available.&nbsp; I am guessing that solar arrays will win for that reason. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>I admit I was limiting mythoughts to an initial outpost. If we had an extensive infrstructure on Mars, with factories, mines, etc.&nbsp; then other operions would certainly be feasible, such as indigenously produced solar cells and batteries. However it could be some time before this is the case.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If local resources can be used to manufacture mirrors, Solar Thermal Energy is even simpler than photovoltaic solar panels, and a backup RTG heat source, or any chemical fuel (algae biofuel, i.e.), could use the same turbines.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by franontanaya</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I think a composite system would be the best solution. The main system would be solar cells powering hydrolizers which produce Oxygen and Hydrogen for fuel cells. Waste material, filtered from the water, before it reaches the hydrolyzers, would be used as biofuels to suppliment the fuel cells by charging backup batteries. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

js117

Guest
<font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Here is a link to a mini<span>&nbsp; </span></font></font><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">nuclear reactor that could be used on Mars or the </span><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">Moon.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><font size="3"><font face="Calibri"><span>Cost<span>&nbsp; </span>$ 25 million dollars, <span>&nbsp;</span>200KW,<span>&nbsp; </span>The reactors, only a few meters <span>&nbsp;</span>in diameter.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"></span></font></font><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span>&nbsp;</span><font color="#800080">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1504564.stm</font></span> <p><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif'"><font color="#800080">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos</font></span></p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is a link to a mini&nbsp; nuclear reactor that could be used on Mars or the Moon.&nbsp;&nbsp; Cost&nbsp; $ 25 million dollars, &nbsp;200KW,&nbsp; The reactors, only a few meters &nbsp;in diameter.&nbsp;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1504564.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos <br />Posted by js117</DIV></p><p>If you follow the links it is the same 25 MW Hyperion system Boris1961 mentioned earlier.&nbsp; It's a great idea, but I would like to see more specifics, which are thin on the ground.</p><p>I am not sure where the 200 KW comes from, it is not on the Hyperion site.&nbsp; Maybe this is another project they are working on?&nbsp; It is not an obvious typo.</p><p>200 KW more or less COTS units would be very attractive, especially if they were as hands free as is claimed.</p><p>But I am sceptical, nuclear has been over sold before (and I am definietly pro nuke for many power applications)</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
R

rubicondsrv

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you follow the links it is the same 25 MW Hyperion system Boris1961 mentioned earlier.&nbsp; It's a great idea, but I would like to see more specifics, which are thin on the ground.I am not sure where the 200 KW comes from, it is not on the Hyperion site.&nbsp; Maybe this is another project they are working on?&nbsp; It is not an obvious typo.200 KW more or less COTS units would be very attractive, especially if they were as hands free as is claimed.But I am sceptical, nuclear has been over sold before (and I am definietly pro nuke for many power applications)Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />the 200kw is a toshiba unit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts