Project Prometheus Too Dangerous!?

[lycan359]

You could be right, although the energy for the electrolosis probably comes from natural gas so I'm still partially right <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[lycan359]

Ok, I'm looking for information about this and I can't really find anything specific but I'm being lead to believe that the shuttle uses steam reformed hydrogen. The reason I think this is because the articles I have been finding talk about looking at better way to make hydrogen for the space shuttle and complain about the CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions of the current system which could only mean steam reformation using natural gas.

 

[ve7rkt]

<font color="yellow">You're forgetting the difference between a 'hot' and a 'cold' reactor. If the reactor is lauched cold, then there is little to worry about.</font><br /><br />I don't understand how a cold reactor is any safer. Could you please expand on this? I really am interested. I WANT TO BE WRONG ON THIS, it'd be more fun to be able to dream of nuclear powered spacecraft than to fear them. But by my way of thinking, 200kg of fuel rods in a cold reactor spreads 200kg of enriched uranium over the countryside (IF the launcher fails AND the containment vessel fails); the same fuel rods in a hot reactor spreads 199.99kg of enriched uranium and 10g of waste plutonium produced in the short period between startup and launch. Either one becomes a less than nutritious part of my balanced breakfast.<br /><br />Like I say, I want to be wrong here, so please hack it apart.

 

[henryhallam]

Uranium, enriched or otherwise, is barely radioactive at all. Certainly nothing to be concerned about. It is considerably less radioactive than the ore from which it is refined, because that ore contains other hotter isotopes such as radium (yes they are products of the uranium decay chain but that happens very slowly over hundreds of millions of years).<br /><br />Until the reactor is started up, the fuel remains as uranium and does not pose a significant threat. Once it is started up by adding moderator and pulling out the control rods, then all the fission products start to build up and it's hot as hell within a short space of time.<br /><br />There is a relatively low level of toxicity assosciated with uranium (like any other heavy metal). The environmental impacts in the event of a launch catastrophe can be kept very low indeed by not starting the reactor until the spacecraft is on orbit, and by choosing the uranium compound to be one which is insoluble, so any pieces that did fall to earth would not end up in the food chain. I believe but am not certain that uranium dioxide fits this requirement. Being a ceramic it would make sense to use UO2 anyway in a NERVA engine.<br /><br />You could go the extra mile and store the fuel rods in an indestructable container like that used for RTGs, but getting them into the reactor might be a bit tricky then, might require an EVA or something. I would say not necessary, but perhaps an acceptable compromise to appease the hippies.

 

[jurgens]

also, correct me if im wrong, but the dangerous highly radioactive parts of a nuclear reactor are the biproducts created when the Uranium Fisses, such as Cesium and Strontium.

 

[kdavis007]

It was Shiela Jackson Lee that said there was flags on Mars...

 

[danwoodard]

Several writers have politicized this issue. I hope we can rise above this. Senators Harrison Schmidt and john Glenn were Democrats. Kennedy, who put men on the Moon, was a Democrat. Reagan and Bush, who allowed the Space Station to flouder for a decade, were Republicans. Clinton, who got it through Congress and into space, was a Democrat. George H. Bush, who cancelled the X-33, X-34, and X-37, not to mention the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, the only mission which would actually use the Prometheus reactor, is a Republican. Without JIMO, NASA will let Prometheus die a slow and useless death at DOE. see:<br /><br />http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000402.html .<br /><br />So please, let's recognize that both parties have people who support space and people who oppose it.

 

[crix]

Regarding Prometheus dying (you're wrong, btw) see this article: <br />http://www.space.com/news/050512_nasa_prometheus.html<br /><br />Specifically, "NASA also plans to refocus Project Prometheus on the development of “space-qualified nuclear systems to support human and robotic missions” especially those needed to support NASA’s near term exploration goals. ..... The operating plan sent to Congress would cut $171 million from the Prometheus budget, leaving the program with $260 million for the time being." <br /><br />260million bucks ain't pocket change. This is an appropriate budget at this time considering everything else that needs to get done IMO.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"I wonder if we're going to get any hardware for that 260 million?"</font><br /><br />Tee shirts and pocket protectors. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[racer7]

I would also like to point out that the space budget cuts are in the 100's of millions range. There was just an approval for another 76 billion for the war in Iraq. Just think if that money could be devoted to space.

 

[ehs40]

no way is it too dangerous nasa wouldnt try it if it was unsafe

 

[gunsandrockets]

<<<<In a “Dear Colleague” letter dated May 5 to other members of Congress, Representative McKinney is seeking the support of Members of Congress “for shifting Federal funding from the development of nuclear propulsion systems to research and development for solar and other alternative energy systems that can support our space program.” >>>><br /><br />In a related development Representative McKinney is also seeking to shift Federal funding from nuclear propulsion systems to solar and other alternative energy systems for the submarines of the U.S. Navy. <br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Solar powered subs???

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Solar powered subs???"<br /><br />Sure! I heard she was inspired after seeing Captain Nemo's solar powered submarine in the movie 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen'! (It's a joke son)

 

[nacnud]

Well it is (was) early morning here........ DOH <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Several writers have politicized this issue. I hope we can rise above this. Senators Harrison Schmidt and john Glenn were Democrats. Kennedy, who put men on the Moon, was a Democrat. Reagan and Bush, who allowed the Space Station to flouder for a decade, were Republicans. Clinton, who got it through Congress and into space, was a Democrat. George H. Bush, who cancelled the X-33, X-34, and X-37, not to mention the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter,..."<br /><br />Your recitation is incomplete and also contains errors. More importantly it's not on point. The simple fact is the politics of nuclear technology are partisan. And in America the vast majority of those who are against nuclear power technology are self-described Liberals, Progressives, or members of the Democratic Party.<br /><br />I have expected for some time that an attack on space nuclear power would become the focus of efforts against manned space exploration. I'm only surprised it has taken this long for that attack to begin developing. And the simple fact is nuclear power is vital to the success of manned space exploration.

 

[starfhury]

One of the biggest complaints I hear about using nuclear energy for space exploration is the problem of getting up the first 200 miles or so. The problem is not so much the nuclear power as it is the launch vehicle to get it to orbit. All the launch vehicles we have today have a serious potential of exploding and thus spreading waste from a damaged nuclear container wide and far. This is why I think we should just have a ground launch instead. Sure run the nuke from the start, but instead of putting explosive fuel in the mix, we can use something else perhaps liquid nitrogen. It's less efficient than hydrogen, but if the tank is punctured there's less chance of a catastropic explosion. Now the other problem with the nuke is thrust to weight ratio, this is where we should take advantage of aerodynamic surfaces to help loft it before accelerating it all the way to orbital speeds. With the risk of an explosion reduced, and the exhaust scrubbed of any radiocative material there would be less objections to using nuclear power at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

This sounds like a good opportunity for international cooperation. Have ESA launch the nuclear power plant (they can even design it if required) as part of their contribution to manned missions to the Moon. The French won't let a bunch of environmentalists interfere with launches from Kourou.

 

[vogon13]

As you all have already probably figured out, I would be strongly in favor of using Prometheous as an upper stage on an Orion vehicle.....<br /><br /><br />(just thought I should be on the record with this)<br /><br /> <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>

 

[john_316]

i think the idea of launching a nuclear rocket is that it will be actually cargo on a SDHLV and configured in orbit with a command system and other systems for actual flight to mars.<br /><br />not to harp on cuddly but to hell with the french... i fart in there general direction... <br /><br />no frenchys in our projects... just aussies, brits, japanese, isrealis, and maybe indians <br /><br />as for some lunitics wanting to divert fund from nuclear to solar they might as well take a walk out the ISS airlock...<br /><br />nuke power is the only way to get to mars in a reasonable amount of time so the crew can have either extended stays or less time in low gravity...<br /><br />nuke power rocks... ppl need to start reading about its potential not just percieved threats to the enviroment...<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[ehs40]

i agree people here the word nuclear and they think bad things nasa has a low fail rate at launch i am so confident in a safe launch i would be there to watch the launch and nuke power has great benifits as a way of moving through space

 

[ehs40]

we have to get a damn mission to the moon first

 

[JonClarke]

Uranium deposits on the moon are extremely unlikely. The geology is wrong. <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>