I’m not sure this is as big a proliferation concern as some say, but I have no idea where they get this “20% of all launches have failures” thing. That’s not true in general, and its far from true for U.S. systems.
30 thoughts on “Space Nuclear Reactors”
Comments are closed.
So terrorists or rogue states will get hold of bomb material by…stealing it from reactors on the Moon and Mars?
U.S. Navy nuclear reactors are all loaded with highly enriched uranium (>93%) to minimize the core size, and allow vessels to operate for 10 to 25 years without refueling. We’ve had a total of 210 nuclear powered vessels in operation (a total of 500 cores deployed), and logged more than 5,000 reactor years of operation without an accident – and, as far as I can recall, not one rogue nuke bomb ever going off anywhere.
They’ll fire themselves out of giant cannons and steal the fissionable material from satellites or something.
“U.S. Navy nuclear reactors are all loaded with highly enriched uranium (>93%) to minimize the core size, and allow vessels to operate for 10 to 25 years without refueling.” Funny how are the “nuclear nonproliferation expert” doesn’t know or doesn’t mention this fact. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s another “expert” who has zero actual experience in the industry he’s talking about.
Yes, but one of the tricks the Navy uses to keep pirates and terrorists from stealing enriched uranium from naval reactors is by cleverly putting atomic weapons on the ships. That lures the pirates away from the engine room because nuclear weapons are simply better booty.
The article author’s knowledge of space matters certainly seems iffy at best. Lunar night lasts 14, not 30, days.
More broadly, this article is essentially part of a nascent campaign by peacenik-y “dogs” to defend their territory and place piss markers on some fresh turf. They’ve managed to keep highly-enriched fissionables out of the civilian power infrastructure. They have not managed to do so anent naval propulsion plants and that is probably why that particular application goes unmentioned. It represents “territory” they were unable to lift a leg on and, if mentioned, might give people the idea – correctly – that lunar and Mars bases would be reasonable analogous exceptions too.
There may come a day when nuclear power reactors on the Moon or Mars represent as significant a weapons proliferation risk as would comparable installations on Earth, but that day is a long way off. In the interim, someone needs to call off the “dogs.”
I don’t think that’s correct. 93% is Little Boy levels of enrichment.
Going from memory, I believe that most power plants run at ~3-4% U-235, whereas ships and subs tended more towards 20% (and the Virginias are rumored to be more like 30%+ in order to last their entire expected time in service without having to be refueled).
As for the article, it’s pure hogwash and garbage.
A. Nonymous, read this paper on naval nuclear components, page 26. It may be surprising, but U.S. naval reactor fuel goes as high as 97.3% U-235.
Little Boy had two different levels of enrichment – most at 89%, but some at 50%. The overall average was 80%.
Thanks for that link. Appendix I was very interesting reading…
The proliferation concerns they present are inane. Plus we are getting to a point where even non-state actors will be able to produce HEU. Also HEU isn’t necessarily weapons grade.
It never pays to underestimate how innumerate most people are. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out the author wrote “1/20th” and some editor decided “20% sounds more accurate.”
See the table under Ed Kyle’s Launch Vehicle By Success Rate:
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/log2018.html
“Solar power, for example, is not helpful at night, which can last nearly 30 Earth days on the lunar surface.”
Lunar night 30 Earth days?
Lunar night, (a) lunar day, whatever, man.
14 days is still long enough to be a major difficulty for battery reserve.
Maybe they count scrubs as launch failures.
Well, the real danger if there’s a launch failure with highly enriched uranium is that the reactor might hit some poor fisherman in the head.
In the early days of US ICBM’s, we knew the launch vehicles would have a high failure rate and that many warheads would smack into some field, perhaps narrowly missing a guy on a John Deere. We didn’t care.
If the ICBMs are flying en masse, the fact that some will fall far short is likely the least of our worries.
Do they mean “20% of launchERs have HAD failures?” That would be a pretty generous interpretation though.
Check out Bridenstine’s twitter, the dude went full-retard today.
Hrm….
Is that the one you’re referring to, by any chance?
Frankly, it is time for NASA to have the same focused enthusiasm of SpaceX on getting their job done after the American taxpayer’s investment over a decade for a new launcher and orbiter. It’s time to deliver.
Yep
When I saw that, I was shocked.
There are quite a few people claiming that Musk unfollowed Bridenstein on Twitter over this. Can’t say I blame him.
This is outrageous; he’s never publicly called out a prime contractor publicly like this before. He’s now refusing to clarify, too.
Gee, it sure is a good thing that projects like the James Webb telescope and SLS aren’t running late and/or over budget, or he’d look like a total hypocrite and a real clown.
My guess; Starship/SH is a direct threat to SLS, so the brass at NASA is non to happy about it.
Right now, I think there is one way, and one way only, that SLS avoids more delays in its first launch; SpaceX needs to change the name of Starship/SH to Starship Launch System (SLS).
Update: having seen Musk’s Starship presentation, I think I know why Bridenstein is upset: Musk thinks he can have Starship in orbit in 6 months. Musk schedules often slip (not that NASA ones don’t…) so let’s double that; a year. Starship/SH will still be in orbit long before SLS. I also think that Starship coming back from orbit and landing from that mission will be a death knell for SLS.
The moon by 2024? If I recall, Trump told NASA something along the lines of of SLS can’t do it, we’d look for commercial options. I think there’s now a very viable one.
I’m thinking we won’t see a crewed Starship until 2023. I usually take EM time, double it and round to the next higher unit. That’s still pretty good for a rocket that didn’t even exist (in its present form) prior to October of last year.
But an uncrewed Starship in orbit possibly in late 2020, yeah I think that is possible, but only if everything goes perfectly with Super Heavy. Mid-2021 seems like a more reasonable time frame. Yes it’s possible to get a Starship to orbit w/o it but not crewed or otherwise capable of doing anything useful. I don’t think SpaceX and EM in particular will go for that. But I suppose it depends upon the political environment at the time.
SLS so far has demonstrated the capability of outlasting any lines drawn in the sand for it so far. Mainly by moving of goal posts. Should Starship successfully land on the moon and return, the SLS goal post will move to what I think will be its ultimate keep-alive. A massive expendable rocket used to deflect Earth threatening asteroids! 1) Its non-nuclear; thus avoiding issue with non-proliferation in space treaties. 2) Because of 1, it has to be massive to accomplish its task. 3) No one would waste a reusable rocket for that! 4) A mission that only has to launch maybe once every 500 years. Thus hitting every major SLS millstone!
Heh. I think SpaceX painting a big “SLS 2.0” on the side of Starship would twist a few panties into knots.
Another Leftist toilet nugget dedicated to destroying human opportunity. Curtailing or eliminating space settlement keeps humanity confined to Earth where the drones can be more easily managed.
The author offers no reasonable alternative. Higher enrichment means less dead weight. At current launch prices, a few kilograms of filler would bankrupt most potential launchers. A few hundred feet of electric wire would eliminate the need for any shielding of a reactor on the moon or mars. Until a more practical system shows up, HEU is our best way to power our space ambitions.
HEU in the context of reactors is generally considered to be 20% U235. To convert that into bomb grade still requires a substantial centrifuge plant which can’t be easily hidden.
Completely aside from that detail, stealing a modest amount of 20% HEU _after_ launch into orbit requires some rather sophisticated space launch capabilities and a blatant act of war. The scenario is simply stupid.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
-H. L. Mencken
In addition to innumeracy, it’s impossible to overestimate the lack of scientific understanding among the elites and their handmaidens in this country. They don’t know what radiation is, or what radioactive means. To these people, “highly-enriched uranium” is no more meaningful than phlogiston or the luminiferous aether. It’s just a way for them to wiggle their fingers and shout “booga-booga!” Nuclear weapons are just things that go bump in the night, and can be blamed on witchcraft when you need somebody to burn.