the easy way to energy / deathly polution in space

Peter the Dane · Dec 30, 2004

I have for some time been looking at the leftovers from the sovjet-union. one of the things a lot of peopol either dont know or have chosen to forget, is that aprox 930kg highly enriched uranium(90% enriched) are circeling earth in low orbits. for those who dont know much about this, the sovjet used to send up radar-sats to spy on us/nato navy´s. for much more info take a look here: http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/RORSAT/RORSAT.html from http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/ianus/npsm2.htm#2_2_1 quote: "A RORSAT consists of three major components: the payload and propulsion section, the nuclear reactor, and the disposal stage, which is used to maneuver the reactor to an orbit of 900 to 1,000 km of altitude at the end of the mission. The satellite is 1.3 m in diameter and 10 m in length. A RORSAT weighs 3,800 kg, of which 1,250 kg are made up by the reactor and the disposal stage. These two components are 5.3 m long. The reactor core consists of 37 cylindrical fuel elements with 31.1 kg of highly enriched (90%) uranium-2357 embedded in a beryllium casing. The cooling liquid for the reactor is liquid sodium-potassium. The thermo-ionic converter uses the dissipated heat to create electrical energy with an efficiency as low as 2 to 4%. For the radar equipment, a RORSAT requires appr. 2 kilowatt electrical power. The technical structure of the system was extremely simple. Shielding was omitted unless absolutely required. Therefore, these satellites were a flying source of radiation which severely impacted the operation e.g. of science satellites equipped with gamma ray detectors. As mentioned before, the active RORSAT lifetime was fairly short. The ‘record’ was 134 days. How should the radioactive payload - which was not limite

Peter the Dane · Dec 30, 2004

another place with a littel information are: http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/ianus/npsm2.htm#2_2_1 Peter Gotthardsen space, the second real challenge to mankind. the first was to stand on 2 leggs.

bobvanx · Dec 30, 2004

Well, the first comment I have is that while the half life of U238 is the age of the Earth, U235 is a "mere" 700million years. When used in a reactor, the decay happens so much more quickly that the radioactivity of the uranium gets back down to the levels we find in its ore in about 500 years, so the projected 600 year orbital decay is actually pretty good, from an engineering perspective. I love the idea of salvaging that material and using it! Boy oh boy, what a resource! Of course, the operation is going to be very difficult in zero-G. We should robotically tug it to the moon, and process it there.

Peter the Dane · Dec 30, 2004

well yes the downgrading goes fast in a reactor, but these reactors were not operated for long and then shut down. the longest living were 134 days..... if I have got it the rigth way, these reactors close totally down to prevent a meltdown after operation. now I am not worried about the polution, some one down the line of time will take care of that. I cant imagine peopol in 100 years want to have that kind of stuff flying around... the key thing for me is that we here have a solution to jump start mankinds present in space, think about it.... would it not be ironi at the very best..... if the legacy of the soviet were to help humankinds future! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> the last few of the reactors they send up, have seperated the core from the rest of the reactor. so actually it should be very easy to pick it a part and insert the fuel rods in a new reactor. depending on how the conditions have been you should actually be abel to take a reactorcore and put it into a new ractor..... if it have not been hit from annything and your wessel have the sufficient outfittings it meigth work..... my surgestion are to send up a small foto-sat. find the very best, inspect and prepare it with robots. then tow it out of range from the cooling debris, use this orbit to assemble the core in a simple reactor and send it to lunar orbit. then after the initial lunar base produced sufficiet LSP(lunar soil propelant). then get the reactor down and get the base attached to it. even a very simple reactor can deliver plenty of energy for tons(litteraly tons!) of LSP. now you can start salvege the rest of the good stuff <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> you can build all the structure you want from moon iron/metal or just melt the regolith to blocks and build a real heavy base. that at the same time protect from radiation.... another thing is that some of the reactors did misfire (3 I belive)

rylo · Dec 31, 2004

"We should robotically tug it to the moon, and process it there. " Makes more sense to process it in space.

bobvanx · Dec 31, 2004

I guess it depends how much "processing" is needed. If the fuel rods are in a ready-to-use condition, then I agree: they can just be inserted into a new reactor. But if they have degraded to a non-fuel condition, and need to processed back into fuel rods/spheres, then even a little gravity is going to be valuable. And an accident would spew harmful debris all through Earth orbit. Yeah, I know, I'm talking about setting up a nuclear processing facility on the moon... but seriously, isn't that where we'd rather have one, anyway?

Peter the Dane · Dec 31, 2004

no the fuel rods are not in a ready to use condition, or rather they are not in at state you would otherwise consider using them. I talked with a guy about it some time ago, he estimated that the reactor you would get would oprate at a far lower temp. but with the rigth design you could get like 10kw effective power. how high will the reactor weigth be? a lot of peopol say we cant risk sending up neuclear materials, as the rocket meigth blow up. that argument dont work here, the stuff are out there and if we dont move it onwards it will eventually drop down on us again. I would prefer a lunar base for the processing as well, the gravety make it easy to locate debris. just pick it up... and with plenty of energy there will be no troubel sending the required goods/reactors back up again. a lunar base would be a preferable storage for dangerus materials. Peter Gotthardsen

bobvanx · Jan 1, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />10kw effective power<hr /></blockquote>Well, then this is much less interesting to me. A 1m^2 solar panel generates 130w. So 10000w of power can be produced with a mere 9mx9m grid, and my buddies over at l'Garde can deliver that power at just 100w/kg. So a 100kg solar array will get you that same 10kw. 100kg is easy to launch to orbit. Perhaps in the coming centuries, someone will be interested in harvesting this U235 and U238 for use out in the Jupiter or Saturn system.

Peter the Dane · Jan 2, 2005

the output will depend much on reffining the fuel, a 10Kw should be from 1 reactor without processing of fuel rods. if you can process all the old fuel rods you can build a reactor with 2000Mw termal output. (this is assuming you will generate 2/3 of the origial termal energy.) the real challenge will be handeling the old fuel rods. I know it would be easyer to send up a new reactor with fuel, but how do you think public reaction will be? Peter Gotthardsen

bobvanx · Jan 2, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />process all the old fuel rods you can build a reactor with 2000Mw t[h]ermal output.<hr /></blockquote> Ah! That is far more interesting! I think the US is unlikely to launch a nuclear reactor without lots of public fervor. More's the pity, since it's pretty clear to anyone with all the facts that space is already so hazardous that a compact power source like a nuclear powerplant is a requirement for off-world colonization. Boy, that much energy would be super useful for a Mars colony. Bypass the Moon. Leave it to solar power. But take all that nuclear material to one of the poles of Mars, and you could support a substantial group of people.

Peter the Dane · Jan 3, 2005

2000Mw can keep the most essential equipment running <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> but you can not just bypass the moon and take the jump to mars. if you have to launch all equipment for a mars expedition you are never going to find financing for it. but if you start settling on the moon, you will be abel to send up mostly all equipment from there. just the fuel. if you not want to spend 2 years in transit, will be a very large weigth. but if you set up a power plant on the moon, using a neuclear reactor for processing regolith and metal. and you build a themoneuclear rocketmotor, with 1000Mw power. I guess you will be on mars in half the time, compared to normal rocketry.... Peter Gotthardsen

mrmorris · Jan 3, 2005

Peter -- your power estimates for the fuel from the RORSATs are all over the map. Starting from the beginning of the thread, we have: "For the radar equipment, a RORSAT requires appr. 2 kilowatt electrical power. ..." OK -- so each RORSAT produces ~2 kw of power. Gotcha. "if collected and the fuel were to be used in a new reactor, each would be abel to deliver 3 - 75 kw. and there are 30+ of em...... " The radar needs 2kw -- but the fuel can be reprocessed to produce 75 kw? Whoa!! The originals must have been *really* inefficient. OK -- thirty of them would then produce a maximum of 2,250 kw or 2.25 mW. Then in a later post, you state: "I talked with a guy about it some time ago, he estimated that the reactor you would get would oprate at a far lower temp. but with the rigth design you could get like 10kw effective power." The potential power has dropped to 10kw? Is this from the fuel of a single RORSAT? Well presume this. Now were down to a maximum power of 30*10kW or .3 MW. When the usefulness of a 10kw reactor was questioned, you then indicated: "the output will depend much on reffining the fuel, a 10Kw should be from 1 reactor without processing of fuel rods. if you can process all the old fuel rods you can build a reactor with 2000Mw termal output. (this is assuming you will generate 2/3 of the origial termal energy.) " The proposed SP-100 reactor of the US was to convert 2.3Mw thermal to 100kW electric. Assuming a similar efficiency for the RORSATs -- this would equate to about 87 Mw of electric. And you indicate this is only about 2/3 of the original potential. So the RORSATs could theoretically have produced about 130 MW of power or about 4.3 MW per satellite. DANG!! We've now

Peter the Dane · Jan 3, 2005

the thermal output of the rorsat. were 100.000KW. the electric convertion were 2-5% there are 33 of them. the radar used aprox 2-3Kw a change in reactor design and a higher efficiency should enabel a faily higher electrical output. the 2000Mw are a typing error on my behalf. I missed the dot. 2,000Mw are the actual figure. sorry for the error. Peter Gotthardsen

mrmorris · Jan 3, 2005

"the 2000Mw are a typing error on my behalf. I missed the dot. 2,000Mw are the actual figure. " You still haven't added a decimal place. A comma simply serves as a placeholder to separate thousands. 2000Mw = 2,000Mw = Two thousand megawatts = 2,000,000kw If you're indicating that you meant to type 2.000 MW, then this is a different story. 2.000MW = 2 MW = 2,000kw However, this would be a really strange typing error to make, as it indicates that not only did you forget the decimal place, but you were also intending to present a figure precise to three significant digits. Given the uncertainties in the scheme, that would be a really strange thing to do. I'd say the much more likely situation is that you meant "Two Thousand Megawatts", but didn't realize just how preposterous that was. This is even more likely given your followup post which read: "2000Mw can keep the most essential equipment running <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />" It's also notable in the followup post that you didn't bother converting from thermal power to electric. However -- I'm easy. Let's work with a 2.000MW thermal figure. The entire combined fuel rods from the 33 RORSAT satellites will produce 2.000MW of thermal energy. This is very close to what the SP-100 was intended to produce (2.3 MW thermal) and it was designed to produce 100kw of electricity (~4.3% efficiency -- circa 1988). We'll use 100kw electric as the RORSAT potential output for simplicity. OK -- so given this set of assumptions -- each of the satellites contains enough fuel to generate 69kw thermal energy or ~3 kW electric. Great. Except that your 2,000MW post was created in defense of your previous post indicating that the fuel loads from *each* satellite could produce 10kw of power. You didn't specifically indicate thermal or electric, but you did

Swampcat · Jan 3, 2005

Uh, is there a problem here with European ways of doing things vs. US ways? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

mrmorris · Jan 3, 2005

"...European ways of doing things vs. US ways..." Nope. I've seen the comma used as a decimal place, although I couldn't state which countries use the convention. This is why I went into the depth that I did to show that the 'typo' explanation falls short. Even if you assume the 'comma as decimal separator' convention, 2MW would not be written as 2,000MW. I could accept 2,0 MW -- but three zeros, no way. Even if you grant that 2000 was supposed to be 2,000 and that was was intended to represent 2, the math doesn't add up to the claims in his posts -- neither the specific numbers nor the indications of an incredible amount of power available to Moon/Mars missions.

bobvanx · Jan 3, 2005

Not so long as everyone agrees on ONE method per system. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> Since this is primarily US board, most of us use a decimal point to indicate valuse less than one. I do appreciate when someone takes the time to post using the metric system, however, since a kilogram is a much better unit than the pound when you're dealing with spacecraft. pound-mass. sheesh. oh, and who remembers the unit "slug?"

Peter the Dane · Jan 3, 2005

first. I and the rest of nordic countries use a , as with most of europe.... actually the error are explained wrongly of me. the , error have I made converting Kw to Mw. and Using copy paste I just did not correct the figure. and in my followup, I just used the numbers again(sadly without thinking further in my numbers <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> ).... (can you say fool without laughing?...) it feels pretty embaresing..... <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> Peter Gotthardsen

bobvanx · Jan 3, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />(can you say fool without laughing?...)<hr /></blockquote>Hey Peter, we're all human. But see if you can explain this to me: with 30 satellites' worth of uranium fuel, each of which will yield about 3kw after processing and installation into a new powerplant, I still see only about 100kw of power. There just doesn't seem to be that much material up there.

Peter the Dane · Jan 3, 2005

well I figured that a more efficient way for convertion would yield far better. with a thermal convertion of 10% the original thermal output would give 10Kw. the reason for the bad preformance in these sats, were weigth. they could not launch a radar and a good reactor. so they send a radar and a reactor that could supply what were needed(no matter the cost..) the best figure I have found were 5.6% thermal convertion. a earthbound reactor have yields way higher. and our assumptions were to use these.... I guess that were an error. well then its just junk.... <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> Peter Gotthardsen

the easy way to energy / deathly polution in space

Peter the Dane

Guest

Peter the Dane

Guest

bobvanx

Guest

Peter the Dane

Guest

rylo

Guest

bobvanx

Guest

Peter the Dane

Guest

bobvanx

Guest

Peter the Dane

Guest

bobvanx

Guest

Peter the Dane

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

Peter the Dane

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

bobvanx

Guest

Peter the Dane

Guest

bobvanx

Guest

Peter the Dane

Guest

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page