XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   jmfbahciv  wrote:   
      
   >Fred J. McCall wrote:   
   >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>Yes, I know, and there also have been lots of tiny research reactors   
   >>>built in the last 70 years or so.   
   >>>   
   >>>The point is not whether of not a reactor of any given size can be built,   
   >>>but that doing useful things takes lots of power when the only power   
   >>>you have is electricity.   
   >>>   
   >>>So what's the plan for this colony on Mars, ship some number of large   
   >>>reactors in pieces and assemble on Mars or ship lots of prebuilt small   
   >>>reactors?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> You only need large reactors if you're providing power to millions of   
   >> people.  Oddly, you're the only one who thinks we're going to START   
   >> colonizing by dropping the equivalent of Pennsylvania on Mars.   
   >   
   >To build a reactor takes a lot of energy, e.g., welding and a cement   
   >manufacturing plant.  I suppose the first site could be next to a   
   >volcano but that's quite risky since there isn't any way to evacuate.   
   >   
      
   Not really.  You don't need cement if you just put the thing in a hole   
   a kilometer or so away from the people.  The hole is even optional.   
   Concrete on Mars is pretty easy.  You don't even need water.   
      
   And that's all irrelevant for quite some time.  Early reactors (150 kW   
   or so) will just be shipped intact from Earth.  There are even 50 kW   
   'suitcase reactors'.  Just think about how many of those could be   
   shipped in a 100 ton cargo....   
      
      
   --   
   "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar   
    territory."   
                                         --G. Behn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)