fission reactors in space

Some Russian (RORSAT) satellites used reactors, and they're not very
popular.

The reason is, they're often leaking their liquid metal coolant; I believe
it's NAK; so picture a nuclear reactor dripping ball bearing-like globules
of radioactive liquid metal, each in their own individual orbits and
travelling at orbital speed and gradually falling down through all the
intervening orbits, slowed by air drag, until finally reentering... and
you'll begin to understand why nuclear reactors are not particularly
popular with current mission planners.

This space debris is not a show stopper per se but most missions
deliberately avoid orbits that would have unusually high chance of
collision with these bullet-like globules.

I can't access this article right now, but I think this is about it:

http://www.newsweek.com/look-sky-leaking-reactors-180538

Incidentally 100kW from 512kg- 200W per kg are not particularly exciting
numbers. Solar panels are usually more like 300W per kg at least near
Earth's orbit.

On 15 September 2014 22:53, Joe Strout joe@... [spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Wow -- somehow I didn't know until today that fission reactors have been
> successfully flown in space a number of times.
>
> Only once in the U.S.; SNAP-10A, launched in 1965, though NASA also has
> a series of experimental 100 kW reactors called SAFE that have not yet
> flown. But then Russia flew a number of fission-powered satellites
> called RORSAT between 1967 and 1988.
>
> I haven't gone through the specs on all of these, but for one data
> point, the SAFE reactor generates 100 kW of power and masses 512 kg.
>
> Why in the world are we considering powering lunar and Mars bases with
> batteries and solar panels, when we have this kind of technology in hand?
>
> - Joe
>
> Posted by: Joe Strout
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>

--
-Ian Woollard

The reason is, they're often leaking their liquid metal coolant; I believe it's NAK; so picture a nuclear reactor dripping ball bearing-like globules of radioactive liquid metal, each in their own individual orbits and travelling at orbital speed and gradually falling down through all the intervening orbits, slowed by air drag, until finally reentering... and you'll begin to understand why nuclear reactors are not particularly popular with current mission planners.
This space debris is not a show stopper per se but most missions deliberately avoid orbits that would have unusually high chance of collision with these bullet-like globules.
I can't access this article right now, but I think this is about it:
http://www.newsweek.com/look-sky-leaking-reactors-180538
Incidentally 100kW from 512kg- 200W per kg are not particularly exciting numbers. Solar panels are usually more like 300W per kg at least near Earth's orbit.
On 15 September 2014 22:53, Joe Strout
joe@...
[spacesettlers]
<
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>
Wow -- somehow I didn't know until today that fission reactors have been
successfully flown in space a number of times.
Only once in the U.S.; SNAP-10A, launched in 1965, though NASA also has
a series of experimental 100 kW reactors called SAFE that have not yet
flown. But then Russia flew a number of fission-powered satellites
called RORSAT between 1967 and 1988.
I haven't gone through the specs on all of these, but for one data
point, the SAFE reactor generates 100 kW of power and masses 512 kg.
Why in the world are we considering powering lunar and Mars bases with
batteries and solar panels, when we have this kind of technology in hand?
- Joe
Posted by: Joe Strout <
joe@...
>
Yahoo Groups Links

<* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
To change settings online go to:

To change settings via email:

spacesettlers-digest@yahoogroups.com

spacesettlers-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:

-Ian Woollard