This news is from early this month. I was hoping to see some follow-on articles with more detail but no luck yet. If this is true, China will dominate space exploration (and militarization) for the next 25 years. Methinks they would have taken this path because they wouldn't worry about wherever a reactor might crash and spread radioactive waste, whereas NASA would. With that aside, the benefits seem worth the risk to me.
I'm just curious... what "benefits" would you and I and every other PFF member actually reap? It would have to be something pretty spectacular to justify this amount of risk IMO.
quote
What if the launch vehicle explodes? You need to ensure nuclear fuel isn’t spread across a large area. What if the reactor seizes in space? You need to ensure it doesn’t melt down and kill the crew. What if a lander equipped with one crashes? You need to ensure you don’t contaminate the world on which it has landed.
I'm just curious... what "benefits" would you and I and every other PFF member actually reap? It would have to be something pretty spectacular to justify this amount of risk IMO.
This is a philosophical question, because there's a lot more to space travel than innovations like Tang, duct tape, and 3M's Velcro.
The Voyager satellites are both nuclear powered... and they've returned, and continue to return better images with 1960s technology, than anything else we've ever been able to reproduce this far.
Let's hear 'em. Name me some tangible "benefits" for Joe Average that are worth risking radioactive contamination of this and/or of any other planet.
The main advantages seem to be accelerating instead of drifting to Mission Targets (i.e. much shorter times), having sufficient power to run much larger/more intense zero-gravity or planetary experiments than are possible today, and keeping the lights on when not close enough to the Sun for solar panels to be of use. Now how these advantages trickle down to us everyday folks is an open question. Obviously, this is a classic Risk-Benefit scenario where the Risks are more apparent than the Benefits. My own view of US-science and business is that it has been steadily becoming much more risk averse over time, so it will never be attempted by US or other Western players. (Maybe if we had less lawyers, things would be different.)
What about this risk of accidents, such as exploding rockets that spread nuclear material over a large area?? There could be some innovative ways to mitigate (but not eliminate) the risk, such as launching nuclear fuel and vehicles separately, with the fuel going in the lowest-risk platform available and encased in a re-entry proof / explosion proof container. Once the mission vehicle was in orbit alongside a Space Station or a Moon Base, the reactor could be loaded and the long-term mission started.
What about the benefits to Average Joe? I'd say getting to watch our Solar System get explored in the next 20 years would be worth it all by itself.
What about the benefits to Average Joe? I'd say getting to watch our Solar System get explored in the next 20 years would be worth it all by itself.
It might not be as enjoyable to experience if you're also suffering from radiation sickness.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
It's not as if there haven't already been over 500 intentional atmospheric nuclear explosions.......
I suspect most of us are aware that there have been multiple tests (and a couple of, ummm... non-tests) that have taken place over the last 77 years... but I don't know how the radioactive contamination compares between a "controlled" explosion and a nuclear "accident". Whether it's worse or not, it's probably not desirable.
I suspect most of us are aware that there have been multiple tests (and a couple of, ummm... non-tests) that have taken place over the last 77 years... but I don't know how the radioactive contamination compares between a "controlled" explosion and a nuclear "accident". Whether it's worse or not, it's probably not desirable.
Patrick, not trying to be a jerk, but I think a lot of your trepidation comes from years of propaganda. Europe also suffers from a similar issue right now, with an irrational fear of nuclear power.
For decades... literally several decades, foreign governments, specifically those that provide oil and natural gas, have funded anti-Nuke campaigns all around the world. I don't want to be trite here, but I realize you'll just read what I say and completely cast it aside, but I need to make the attempt never the less.
A much smaller example was something that I saw years ago here in South Florida. I saw this huge campaign to eliminate dog track racing... which was big money in South Florida years ago. I remember leaving the stadium (edit: Dolphin stadium, not a dog track stadium) one day and every car had a flyer from some organization, talking about all the horrors of dog track racing. Understandably, there is a dark side to dog track racing, just as there is for horse racing, but you don't see anything like that for the horse racing. Never the less, these pamphlets were telling everyone to sign an online petition to eliminate dog track racing immediately.
The dog track (I forget the name), also allowed gambling, and had slots on site. They even had free $5 dollar concerts. I saw America, Rare Earth, and several other bands there, it was fantastic. I looked into it a little bit and quickly discovered as I worked my way through the maze of organizations, that ultimately, the entire campaign was funded by the Miccosukee Indian Village. You see, it wasn't about the dogs at all... it was about protecting the casino profits on native American lands down the street.
Your fear and concerns about nuclear power are certainly founded, but these are things that are easily solved. NASA managed to solve this problem in the 60s, and they do it even better, with better technology, in the 2020s. The benefits of nuclear power are astounding for long-range and long-term storage of power. We use it on air craft carriers and other large vessels, and it makes sense for long-range space.
The only question I have is, do we trust CHINA to properly mitigate risks like we would in North America or Europe?
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
Let's hear 'em. Name me some tangible "benefits" for Joe Average that are worth risking radioactive contamination of this and/or of any other planet.
As for this... I look at things through a different lens. I don't really look at government programs on what I can "personally get" from them. That aside... I mention duct tape and velcro, because both of those came from the space program. They're the two most talked about, but there are 1000s of tangible benefits that the public has seen from NASA. Just do a little search, there are plenty of websites.
But back on the point, for me, I see NASA (and space exploration in general) as something that needs to be done to move society forward. There are things "I want" ... and MY life that I lead, and then I see us as a race of humans, and things that we need to do collectively. My support of NASA and space travel has to do with my desire for the human race to explore space, and advance all of humanity into a new age of technology that would only come with space-travel.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 09-15-2022).]
I'm not looking to jump into that debate with Todd and Patrick.
I believe you are naïve if you think we have any clue what China or the USA are actually working on. This is just something they want known for whatever reason that may be.
Sounds neat.
We are going to destroy the planet regardless. I don't encourage the destruction; I have made peace with it all though.
[This message has been edited by ls3mach (edited 09-15-2022).]
This Chinese space systems nuclear reactor project is being described as having an electrical power output of 1.0 or 1.5 megawatts.
The nuclear electrical generators that NASA has been using, which are not technically known as "reactors" but as Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators or RTGs, aren't even up to 1.0 kilowatt. The project that NASA (maybe) currently has in the planning stage for a nuclear reactor on Mars is about 40 kilowatts.
So if the descriptions of what the Chinese are up to are accurate, they are in a nuclear regime that is 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more powerful than anything that NASA has ever launched, or even seriously contemplated.
Looks like we are still some years away from China revealing more exactly what it's up to with these space nukes.
Edited to add: "With great beer power comes great responsibility."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-15-2022).]
Patrick, not trying to be a jerk, but I think a lot of your trepidation comes from years of propaganda.
Todd, we're all susceptible to propaganda. I've seen it for years in your political rants!
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Your fear and concerns about nuclear power are certainly founded, but these are things that are easily solved. NASA managed to solve this problem in the 60s, and they do it even better, with better technology, in the 2020s.
The only question I have is, do we trust CHINA to properly mitigate risks like we would in North America or Europe?
Again, I repeat...
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
I'd be very surprised if what the Voyagers are using is anything like what the Chinese wish to implement.
[EDIT] Thank-you to Rinse for posting some clarification on this matter!
To be clear, I'm definitely not against space exploration. I can still remember my parents and I staring at the TV in disbelief and wonder back on July 20th of 1969, watching Neil Armstrong take that "one small step for a man..." (that's what Neil meant to say) on the Moon. I'm not even against the safe implementation of nuclear power.
However, what I definitely am against is the general public needing to take any unnecessary health (and/or life and death) risks... so that powerful multinationals can further line their pockets by turning space into just another resource grab.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 09-15-2022).]
This Chinese space systems nuclear reactor project is being described as having an electrical power output of 1.0 or 1.5 megawatts.
The nuclear electrical generators that NASA has been using, which are not technically known as "reactors" but as Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators or RTGs, aren't even up to 1.0 kilowatt. The project that NASA (maybe) currently has in the planning stage for a nuclear reactor on Mars is about 40 kilowatts.
So if the descriptions of what the Chinese are up to are accurate, they are in a nuclear regime that is 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more powerful than anything that NASA has ever launched, or even seriously contemplated.
Rinse, thanks for clarifying that. I knew I had read somewhere that there was a HUGE difference between what NASA has done and what the Chinese have proposed to do in regards to utilizing nuclear energy.
Rinse, thanks for clarifying that. I knew I had read somewhere that there was a HUGE difference between what NASA has done and what the Chinese have proposed to do in regards to utilizing nuclear energy.
Indeed, yes, thanks for the clarification. But have I misread the article? It looked to me they had proven the technology (without disclosing any evidence), and that the 'proposal' is just where to apply it.
Edited to add this quote from the article ...
quote
The reactor itself is known as HELSINKI. It was conceived in 2019 and recently passed a comprehensive performance evaluation. This effectively means that it works as predicted and meets China’s specifications. With a whopping 1 MW output, it will be one of the most potent power sources in the space industry, and this has many at NASA worried.
p.s. I recall that when I originally saw this I choked on the 3-year time from Conception to Comprehensive Performance Eval -- that would be impressive if true.
[This message has been edited by Notorio (edited 09-15-2022).]
Rinse, thanks for clarifying that. I knew I had read somewhere that there was a HUGE difference between what NASA has done and what the Chinese have proposed to do in regards to utilizing nuclear energy.
I like you man, but I feel like this is a win/lose argument for you. This was emphasized for me apparently, but I fail to really care what type of reactor that China is using, versus what the Voyagers are using.
The question you asked me was what the "average Joe" would get from the advancement in space technology. For me, I want the human race to explore space. When I'm gone, a few people will care, but another 7.9999 billion will not. But when we land on Mars... all 8 billion will care.
Without space.. what exactly is the point? Is it for me to buy as many Fieros as possible? Or to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior? I've already done both... but neither of those helps the human race. Advancement in space does, however.
This news is from early this month. I was hoping to see some follow-on articles with more detail but no luck yet. If this is true, China will dominate space exploration (and militarization) for the next 25 years. Methinks they would have taken this path because they wouldn't worry about wherever a reactor might crash and spread radioactive waste, whereas NASA would. With that aside, the benefits seem worth the risk to me.
It would have to be something pretty spectacular to justify this amount of risk IMO.
) that have taken place over the last 77 years... but I don't know how the radioactive contamination compares between a "controlled" explosion and a nuclear "accident". 
