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
Author
Topic: Kerbal Space Program: Now Hiring Optimistic Astronauts for Dangerous Munission (Read 1505728 times)