Space: Nuclear propulsion in the offing? Humans on Mars within a decade? (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

I bet some of you remember NASA's long-cancelled NERVA program ("nuclear engine for rocket-vehicle applications," deep-sixed in 1969). Though nuclear power on spacecraft is nothing new, nuclear-driven propulsion is. For decades at the top of NASA's wish list, nuclear propulsion has been on nearly permanent backburner status due to budgetary and political realities.
The below-linked story is itself excerpted from a much longer Los Angeles Times piece that ran in this morning's edition. So, if this exciting and hopeful [*knocks on wood*] news truly leads somewhere, then maybe the manned space effort will get back on the track from which it has been derailed ever since Project Apollo was allowed to expire prematurely.
Let's hope a majority of the tax-paying public will favor Project Prometheus:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/4967388.htm

 

[MickeS]

Last October, I read in a Swedish paper an interview with a chef (yes, a Swedish chef! ) who works for NASA> They asked him various questions about what kind of food they prepared for the astronauts and so on.
In the interview, the chef said that he was also working on food for a manned mission to Mars (rough translation):
"We are also working on the journey to Mars in 2018. It will take 3 years. That means that the astronauts will grow their own crops, which is incredibly complex."
Now, remember that while this is Sweden's biggest daily newspaper, it's also somewhat of a tabloid. But that quote intrigued me, and I searched at the time for other information about this.
I've wondered since if he was talking out of his ass, if the journalist misinterpreted it, or if there's some truth to it. Anyone know?

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

What are the dangers with using nuclear power in a spacecraft? Once in space, I can't see a problem, but how about takeoff from Earth. What would be the result of a Challenger like disaster? Are there no other technologies that could achieve the same propulsion gains, without the posibility of a nuclear accident?

 

[Julie K]

I saw that this morning and was going to post a link, but then decided that two news stories were enough for me this morning.

I was sure excited after reading the story. Now if only it gets funded. Come on guys, why isn't everyone excited by the prospect of going to Mars?

Are there no other technologies that could achieve the same propulsion gains,

Not if you want to get to Mars within a couple of months. That takes a lot of energy.

This technology would not only open up manned missions to Mars, but also robotic missions to the outer solar system. Not only are long flight times a problem there, but the power requirements are difficult to meet with solar arrays when you're tooling around far, far from the Sun. This would be excellent technology for exploring the Kuiper Belt. And I hope no forgets Europa which may be one of the best places in the solar system to find life.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Jeff: What the excerpted version of the story omits are various scenarios discussed regarding mission logistics. The powerplant would itself be a payload aboard a conventional chemical rocket, to be assembled into a complete spacecraft once in orbit. Perhaps Julie has a link to the complete story? Please advise, Ms. K. JB

 

[Julie K]

I don't have any other links than the LA Times one (which you have to register for ). I'm sure a final design is nowhere near completion but it would seem reasonable for the nuclear powerplant to be mated to the rest of the spacecraft in orbit.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

The reason why they scream every time a nuclear powered item goes up is because if the rocket/shuttle explodes, they're worried the plutonium can vaporize and cause all sorts of bad things

The fuel is usually inside an amazingly strong casing that will survive catastrophic explosion

 

[RobertR]

The fuel is usually inside an amazingly strong casing that will survive catastrophic explosion

Problem is, no amount of engineering assurances can ever convince some people that the risk is acceptably low. They would always demand absolutely zero risk (which, of course, can't be achieved). The words nuclear power mean that they will have an a priori objection to it. Period.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

because if the rocket/shuttle explodes, they're worried the plutonium can vaporize and cause all sorts of bad things

This would be my concern, especially given the high visibility a program like this would have, and the potential of terrorist activity, however remote.

The only thing stopping a program like this is budgeting. no amount of public concern will stop the development of anything if the administration wants to go ahead with it. My only concern is the relative safety of the nuclear components being transporting off the planet. If there is any danger of fallout should a catastrophe occur, then this approach isn't one I could support.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I don't know. If it would jump start manned space flight, I would be willing to hand carry it myself in a brown grocery bag. Anything to get us out of the rut and into genetic dispersion out into the universe.

All it takes are a few trigger-happy people on the Chem/Bio/Nuclear buttons to wipe out our species right now.

 

[CharlesD]

The fuel is usually inside an amazingly strong casing that will survive catastrophic explosion

IIRC this had already happened. Some deep-space probes use Radioisotope Thermal Generators (RTGs). One such probe's launch vehicle exploded during launch and the RTG was later recoverd from the sea bed and was not only intact but in good enough shape to be re-used on a later mission.

They could assemble a nuclear powered craft in orbit and bring up the reactor fuel encased in packaging similar to that used by the RTGs. IF a launch accident did occur the nuclear fuel would be protected.

OF course none of that would stop massive opposition to the project.

 

[Daren Welsh]

I'll just poke my nose in and throw a link your way. A few years back, some classmates and I put together a Mars mission using an alternative propulsion device. One thing to consider is what you think is more dangerous to the crew -- a long period of zero-G space travel with high amounts of radiation exposure or a long period of time on the surface of Mars, where we have much less control over the elements and unknown?
Our project can be found via the second University of Washington link, near the bottom.

 

[Ryan Wright]

I don't know. If it would jump start manned space flight, I would be willing to hand carry it myself in a brown grocery bag. Anything to get us out of the rut and into genetic dispersion out into the universe.

No kidding. I'm right there with you, Alex. I've lived next door to a nuclear power plant most of my life; these anti-nuke zealots need to calm down. The whole "nuclear is bad" attitude is based on fear and misunderstanding, and we will never proceed as a species if we continue down that path.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Thanks for the link Jack. I knew that you posted this when I read the title.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

The whole "nuclear is bad" attitude is based on fear and misunderstanding,

No, it's based on understanding the consequences when the technology is not used properly, or there is an accident. Just because the reactor you live near hasn't caused a problem (that you know about) is no reason to assume that the technology is safe. We have two good examples of the dangers of nuclear technology from the last century, neither of which the world wants to see repeated.

I also suggest that there are undoubtably viable alternatives which could be developed that may require more work than nuclear propulsion, but given the required funding would be a better long term solution. I see no need for mankind to be in a hurry to polute outer space with its presence until we have settled the issues that could lead us to extermination on the planet we are currently destroying.

 

[RobertR]

until we have settled the issues that could lead us to extermination on the planet we are currently destroying.

I think the approach you suggest would result in us never going to space, since we can never settle all issues.

 

[Julie K]

There is no technology ever developed or that will ever be developed that will be 100% safe. The same is true of any human endeavor. You simply cannot have a fool-proof world. You can, however, minimize risks. Unfortunately most people have little knowledge or practice of properly assessing risks.

Robert is exactly right in what waiting for all the 'issues' to be settled before the solar system is explored would mean. Issues, problems of one sort or another, will always be with us. Space exploration could easily solve some of most pressing concerns (like overpopulation pressures) right now. You will never get into space (and I don't believe we can 'pollute' space any more than any other life form can) if you wait until all humanity's problems are solved.

 

[Ryan Wright]

There is no technology ever developed or that will ever be developed that will be 100% safe.

Exactly. The anti-nuclear tribes love to trot out Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, but forget the thousands of other plants worldwide running without a problem. Yes, the consequences of a nuclear screw-up are huge. So are the consequences of automobiles: Thousands die every day, but nobody would suggest we go back to the horse and buggy. Nuclear accidents have killed very, very few people compared to other technologies.

There is risk. There always will be. Take reasonable steps to minimize that risk and I'm a happy camper.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Space exploration could easily solve some of most pressing concerns (like overpopulation pressures) right now.

So could the use of birth control here on Earth. Space is not a magic solution to our problems, approaching the conditions we face in a logical, globally beneficial and positive fashion is. While I am not a complete pessimist and do hold hope for humanity, the world as it exists today is simply not sustainable. The conflict and tension that exists between nations and religions (which we obviously aren't going to get into a discussion about here) need to be resolved, as does the economic disparity that exists. There are fundamental problems that need to be solved before we should be moving onto other worlds. That doesn't preclude research or space exploration, to the contrary, but setting up shop on Mars without understanding the full impact of that move would be foolhardy.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

Please explain what a manned mission to Mars in 2018 can accomplish that robotic probes can't accomplish?

The use of nuclear propulsion to reach the outer planets and Kuiper belt makes the most sense. We will some day set up a base on the moon to mine rocks to sent off into a space station in geosyncronius orbit. The rocks will be be used in mass drivers powered by nuclear energy to propell space ships to the outer planets.

These robotic probes will be used to bring back the first samples for Mars and further planets. Maybe by 2201 we should consider sending manned explorers.