XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: invalid@invalid.com   
      
   On 10/13/2016 8:40 PM, Vaughn Simon wrote:   
   > On 10/13/2016 8:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
   >> To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you   
   >> would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work   
   >> during the day.   
      
   > We are a long way from being able to put a 50 MW nuke plant on Mars.   
   > Making 50 MW of heat isn't the hard part.  The hard part is turning   
   > megawatts of heat into megawatts of electricity.  Anything beyond a very   
   > few kilowatts requires some sort of heat engine, which means moving   
   > parts.  In a compact nuke plant, those moving parts will likely be   
   > radioactive, and therefore not repairable.  Would you want your life   
   > depending on something like that?   
      
   > Note that a Mars plant would need to produce heat to make electricity   
   > and also heat for other purposes, such as heating dwellings.   
   >   
   > To give you some idea of the present state of the art, NASA has done   
   > development work on a 40 KW unit.  Here is an excellent rundown of the   
   > present state-of-the-art in space nukes.   
   > http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuc   
   ear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   nice update   
      
   it seems like the greenies will have a hissyfit if Earth launches a lot   
   of nuclear material up, as the rocket could fail spewing radioactive   
   contents on earth.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)