Nuuuuukes Innnn Spaaaaaaace!

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-12-09 12:00pm

CNN Linky

Looks like we can expect to see a probe with a uranium reactor heading out in the future(Expect protests out the wossname). I'm quite surprised.. I'll be more surprised if they pull it off.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-12-09 12:38pm

* waits for Ed Begley Jr or Ted Turner to come out of the woodwork demanding the probe be powered by wind.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-12-09 12:44pm

ROFLMAO

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-12-09 01:56pm

Old news, but still good news.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-12-09 02:54pm

I thought they launched a nuclear-powered probe some years ago??

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-09 03:12pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:I thought they launched a nuclear-powered probe some years ago??

You may mean ones containing RTGs, in a way, yes, nuclear powered. But they aren't sporting a hulking fission reactor like planned here, just a small radioctive source working a Sterling engine.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-12-09 03:33pm

No big deal. The Soviets orbited countless reactors to power their ocean radar reconnaissance satellites. One even crashed into Northern Canada after a booster malfunction at the end of its mission; normally they got pushed into very high orbits.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-12-09 03:34pm

The only question is, is HAL onboard?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-12-09 07:38pm

Considering the launch date is in 2011, I am skeptical that this thing will survive eight years of politics, budget cuts, etc. But it does seem cool nonetheless.

Speaking of probes, does anyone here know off hand when Cassini is scheduled to arrive at Saturn?

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2003-12-10 07:11pm

WP: About 8 months I think

As far as the uranium reactor ... if a uranium reactor blows up on the way up, by the time the toxic stuff comes down it will be dilute enough for me not to give a damn. If it comes down in one peice, I'm still not going to give a damn because I have a better chance of being run over than being in the effected touchdown site.

Of course I'm of the opinion that NASA should stop using chemical rockets and switch to nuclear powered propulsion whenever feasible.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-12-10 09:02pm

How will it work? How does it generate power w/o water to boil and turn a tubrine?

AdmiralTDM · Post by **AdmiralTDM** » 2003-12-11 08:01am

Now if Bush can redirect all the wasted funds and send us to the moon agian, that would be great. Well nah, who needs the moon. I just wanna a really big space station were the first ship to Mars will be assembled and such, then maybe build a moon base.

If only dreams like such could ever come true...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-12-11 08:24am

AdmiralTDM wrote:Now if Bush can redirect all the wasted funds and send us to the moon agian, that would be great. Well nah, who needs the moon. I just wanna a really big space station were the first ship to Mars will be assembled and such, then maybe build a moon base.

If only dreams like such could ever come true...

A space station is complexly unnecessary for assembling a ship to ahead for Mars, and none of NASA’s manned Mars mission proposals call for using one.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-11 10:36am

darthdavid wrote:How will it work? How does it generate power w/o water to boil and turn a tubrine?

Likely through MHD methods meaning little to no moving parts near the reactor and increased efficiency.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-12-11 11:45am

Sea Skimmer wrote:No big deal. The Soviets orbited countless reactors to power their ocean radar reconnaissance satellites.

But needless to say, Soviet citizens were very reluctant to protest.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2003-12-14 10:42pm

AdmiralTDM wrote:Now if Bush can redirect all the wasted funds and send us to the moon agian, that would be great. Well nah, who needs the moon. I just wanna a really big space station were the first ship to Mars will be assembled and such, then maybe build a moon base.

If only dreams like such could ever come true...

Hey, do you want to live your whole life one the bottom of a gravity well?

Anyways, nice avatar.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-12-14 10:46pm

Would there be any difference as to how a reactor might operate in space?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-12-14 10:53pm

Gandalf wrote:Would there be any difference as to how a reactor might operate in space?

The only difference I can think of is that the secondary cooling loop (though it may not have one, not all earth reactors have had two for that matter) would be a closed cycle rather then dumping back out into a river or ocean.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2003-12-15 02:52am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Would there be any difference as to how a reactor might operate in space?
The only difference I can think of is that the secondary cooling loop (though it may not have one, not all earth reactors have had two for that matter) would be a closed cycle rather then dumping back out into a river or ocean.

How do they have loops at all when there isn't any gravity to take the steam up and away from the reactor? Centripetal force?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-12-15 11:45am

Symmetry wrote:How do they have loops at all when there isn't any gravity to take the steam up and away from the reactor? Centripetal force?

Gravity does not make steam go up and away in a conventional reactor design.

I suspect that this probe may make use of a liquid sodium reactor, though.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2003-12-15 01:35pm

phongn wrote:
Symmetry wrote:How do they have loops at all when there isn't any gravity to take the steam up and away from the reactor? Centripetal force?
Gravity does not make steam go up and away in a conventional reactor design.

I suspect that this probe may make use of a liquid sodium reactor, though.

What does then? All the diagrams of nuclear reactors I've seen show water/steam going up through the reactor, which makes sense if its becoming less densae by being heated. I guess you could just pump it along the loop, and do some other wierd sort of heat -> electricity thing later...

lazerus · Post by **lazerus** » 2003-12-15 01:41pm

............you really have no idea how a turbine works do you?

It's the PRESSURE of the steam.

lazerus · Post by **lazerus** » 2003-12-15 01:41pm

I guess you could just pump it along the loop

Repeat after me.......

"The laws of thermodynamics are your friends."

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2003-12-15 05:35pm

lazerus wrote:............you really have no idea how a turbine works do you?

It's the PRESSURE of the steam.

True, but you can't have a closed loop system unless it has directionality. I mean, you want to have water or low temperature steam coming in from one pipe and the hot steam going out through another pipe that powers the turbine. The only problem is that, without gravity, I see no reason for the steam not to escape through the input valvue instead of the output valve. You can make the input one way, but that just means that no new water gets into the reactor until enough steam escapes for the pressures to equalize. But that becomes the equilibrium (with maybe some natural occilation around it), and the pressure on one side of the turbine is the same as the pressure on the other side, resulting in no energy gain. And I have no idea how a condensation chamber would work in 0-G either.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2003-12-15 05:38pm

lazerus wrote:
I guess you could just pump it along the loop
Repeat after me.......

"The laws of thermodynamics are your friends."

In the reactor I'm imagineing the energy isn't extracted by passing the steam through a turbine, but through direct heat-gradient to electricity conversion. I admit that this is less efficient than a turbine system, but I don't know how you'd get a turbine loop running in outer space.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Nuuuuukes Innnn Spaaaaaaace!

Nuuuuukes Innnn Spaaaaaaace!

yay..

Re: yay..

Re: yay..