Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aseaheru]

We are fine with useing it for power. Just cant power weapons with it.

[BigD145]

We are fine with useing it for power.

Unless you're Iran. "We" is conditional.

[Aseaheru]

In space we are fine.
Afterall, easier to target it.

[ank]

Still, I don't see us ever allowing several nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, just to launch a spacecraft.

But aren't they actually working on a fusion drive, using lithium? Not throwing bombs behind it, but an actual engine.

[mainiac]

We are fine with useing it for power. Just cant power weapons with it.

Good rockets have failure rates between 1%-5%.  You sure you want to put radioactive material in there?

[Aseaheru]

Tell that to the US and russia. Both have done it, its what powered the Voyagers.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Plus, y'know, all those high-energy, high-efficiency plasma thrusters. VASIMR, MPDT, etc. They draw so much electricity that the only way to adequately power them is with a compact nuclear reactor. Micro-scale reactors for such purposes have been confirmed to be in development here in Russia, I think.

[LoSboccacc]

Tell that to the US and russia. Both have done it, its what powered the Voyagers.

quite a difference between alpha radiation of a rtg and an engine continuously fissing stuff with all kind of bad things being emitted.

[Aseaheru]

True.

As for small things, there have been fridge sized reactors made in the US. Apparently by Kodak. Perhaps its was for spy sats...

[Sean Mirrsen]

"An engine continuously fissing stuff" is a phrase worthy of an award in Kerbal nuclear physics.

[LoSboccacc]

True.

As for small things, there have been fridge sized reactors made in the US. Apparently by Kodak. Perhaps its was for spy sats...

fridge sized must be a standard

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Aseaheru]

Not RTG, just straight up reactor.
Like the sorta thing you see in nuke subs.

[10ebbor10]

We are fine with useing it for power. Just cant power weapons with it.

Good rockets have failure rates between 1%-5%.  You sure you want to put radioactive material in there?

Not all failures result in deorbit/ destruction of the craft. Most failures don't, but just dump the craft in the wrong orbit. Complete failures are rather rare.

Additionally, pretty much every outer system mission carries nuclear material (though recently, they ran out of Plutonium 86, the most useful isotope). And even if the mission failed terribly, the results wouldn't be that disastrous. I mean, the amount of nuclear material inside a pocket nuclear reactor is limited, most of the time it has it's own, separate protection, and even if it doesn't, the nuclear material will be spread out to much for people to notice. ((Also, at launch the reactor isn't active yet, meaning that it doesn't contain any high level radioactive products.))

Besides, nuclear material in sattelites has been dumped back on earth on several occasions, the most famous being Apollo 13. (The LM was equipped with an RTG to provide power to a series of long running experiments.)

Tell that to the US and russia. Both have done it, its what powered the Voyagers.

quite a difference between alpha radiation of a rtg and an engine continuously fissing stuff with all kind of bad things being emitted.

Spatial background radiation is several times stronger than that emitted by a modern, properly functioning reactor.

True.
As for small things, there have been fridge sized reactors made in the US. Apparently by Kodak. Perhaps its was for spy sats...

Doubt it. After all, I'd be worried if your spy sat draws that much power, and a nuclear generator is a thermal generator. It needs to dump a lot of waste heat. For submarines, this is quite easy, but a nuclear satellite needs to carry huge radiators.

Not the kind of thing you want on your stealth sattelites.

Infodump

[TheBronzePickle]

Polonium 86, you mean. Plutonium has more protons than that. And it's artificial, so if they actually ran out they could just make more.

Even an unshielded reactor wouldn't be much danger, honestly. Unless it actually melted down, it would still be emitting mostly fast particle and electromagnetic radiation, both of which aren't really that deadly and tend to go away quickly anyway.

[Aseaheru]

Doubt it. After all, I'd be worried if your spy sat draws that much power, and a nuclear generator is a thermal generator. It needs to dump a lot of waste heat. For submarines, this is quite easy, but a nuclear satellite needs to carry huge radiators.

Still happened. As for stealth things they dident really need to be all that stealthy.