Mission to Mars, may use atomic propulsion

Nuclear Fusion would be a good option.
 
There has been so much advancement in nuclear fusion (hot nuclear fusion I add, not the cold nuclear fusion we heard about in 1989) that given another ten to twenty years I expect all spacecraft carrying people to Mars will be using it. It also has the added benefit that plasma can help to produce a shield against solar radiation, one of the big problems that need to be solved if we want to go to that dust bowl of a planet.
 
Serendipity said:
There has been so much advancement in nuclear fusion (hot nuclear fusion I add, not the cold nuclear fusion we heard about in 1989) that given another ten to twenty years I expect all spacecraft carrying people to Mars will be using it. It also has the added benefit that plasma can help to produce a shield against solar radiation, one of the big problems that need to be solved if we want to go to that dust bowl of a planet.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that the solar radiation problem is overstated - at least, once they are there. Plain old dirt is a fairly effective shield against it; so covering the habitat in a metre or two of dirt would probably solve the problem. For the trip? Well, water is actually the best shield against the major component of the solar wind - protons. Put the water and fuel tanks on the outside.
 
Mirannan said:
Personally, I think that the solar radiation problem is overstated - at least, once they are there. Plain old dirt is a fairly effective shield against it; so covering the habitat in a metre or two of dirt would probably solve the problem. For the trip? Well, water is actually the best shield against the major component of the solar wind - protons. Put the water and fuel tanks on the outside.
Click to expand...

Yes the water would act as a barrier to some radiation... the problem will be where does that water come from and how does it get onto the spacecraft. If it comes from Earth, it will all have to be lifted out of the gravity well. If it comes from the Moon it will have to be defrosted and then lifted out of that gravity well. If it comes from the asteroids, we will have to go and get it.

That still leaves the deadly gamma radiation to deal with... (as opposed to the proton and alpha particle radiation).
 
Serendipity said:
Yes the water would act as a barrier to some radiation... the problem will be where does that water come from and how does it get onto the spacecraft. If it comes from Earth, it will all have to be lifted out of the gravity well. If it comes from the Moon it will have to be defrosted and then lifted out of that gravity well. If it comes from the asteroids, we will have to go and get it.

That still leaves the deadly gamma radiation to deal with... (as opposed to the proton and alpha particle radiation).
Click to expand...

The point is that the water (propellant, maybe, coolant, and also required by the crew) and other hydrogen-containing liquids have to be carried anyway. That being so, one might as well get more than one use out of them. As for gamma radiation, the amount of that is actually rather low. X-radiation from solar flares might be a problem, but AFAIK such radiation is rather soft X-rays and a metre or so of just about anything will stop it.
 
Mirannan said:
The point is that the water (propellant, maybe, coolant, and also required by the crew) and other hydrogen-containing liquids have to be carried anyway. That being so, one might as well get more than one use out of them. As for gamma radiation, the amount of that is actually rather low. X-radiation from solar flares might be a problem, but AFAIK such radiation is rather soft X-rays and a metre or so of just about anything will stop it.
Click to expand...
The only problem I see there is that using a consumable resource such as water means that the amount of protection will decrease as the mission progresses. Yes the internal water use will be as close to a closed loop as possible but, for example, the ISS currently consumes water for production of oxygen for the crew, with the hydrogen being vented. Of course in the case of a vessel under way that hydrogen would probably be used for propulsion. That water will therefore be consumed throughout the mission and its usefulness as a radiation shield would progressively diminish.
 
Interesting stuff!

My point was that regardless of what method is used to move the nuclear fuel from Earth to space, it seems that there would be protesters fearing what might happen if the thing explodes or some other mishap occurs. Entire nations would likely be against it (governments, that is).
 
Voyagers 1 & 2 both carried nuclear material as a power source.

I seem to remember there was a bit of a 'discussion' but it was largely ignored.
 
Wasn't there a bit of a ruckus over skylab when it was coming down as people seemed to think it might generate a nuclear explosion or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Europe And Russia Delay ExoMars Mission to 2022 Science & Nature 2
LordOfWizards Site Chosen for 2020 Mars rover mission Science & Nature 0
M Nasa Mission to Map Mars Interior will Launch this Weekend Science & Nature 1
Alexa Human mission to Mars by 2024 ? Science & Nature 65
Brian G Turner Boeing suggests Deep Space Gateway for Mars missions Science & Nature 45

Similar threads


Back
Top