Author Topic: Power options for a Mars settlement  (Read 681429 times)

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2181
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2443
  • Likes Given: 11942
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #60 on: 08/18/2016 07:30 am »
The only problem with nuclear power is the disposal of waste and old reactors. These things are contaminated with radiation producing isotopes and chemically very poisonous elements. Both things make a safe disposal almost impossible. A disposal site would have to last millions of years without interference or releasing any of the contaminated material into the environment.

When factoring in disposal, I think solar is the vastly simpler power source, even on Mars. Especially when talking about terraforming Mars in the long term.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6362
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4235
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #61 on: 08/18/2016 08:25 am »
The only problem with nuclear power is the disposal of waste and old reactors. These things are contaminated with radiation producing isotopes and chemically very poisonous elements.

Much less a problem with molten salt reactors, especially those which burn thorium.
DM

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2079
  • Liked: 2356
  • Likes Given: 2335
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #62 on: 08/18/2016 08:40 am »
It seems Lockheed Martin's portable 100MW High beta fusion reactor is still alive.

If it really fits at the back of a truck, it would be portable to Mars.

Another Link: Lockheed Still Supporting Portable Nuclear Generator
« Last Edit: 08/18/2016 08:43 am by jpo234 »
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 967
  • Atherton, Australia.
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 735
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #63 on: 08/19/2016 08:53 am »
And don't forget the Gen4 power module.  70mw thermal and 25mw electrical.  10 years before replacement or refuel.  Worth looking at.

Mick

Offline geza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Budapest
    • Géza Meszéna's web page
  • Liked: 449
  • Likes Given: 83
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #64 on: 08/21/2016 07:23 am »
Don't forget that Elon plans to send the first cargo MCT to Mars in 2022 to produce the return fuel for the fist crew launched NET in 2024. As fuel production is quite energy-intensive, the '22 flight must carry a significant source of energy. It must be robotically depoyable. I do not think that any of the nuclear options can be developed to be flight ready in time.

Offline BobHk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
  • Texas
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #65 on: 08/21/2016 05:11 pm »
Possibility of a submarine based nuclear power system being adapted to a ship sent to Mars?  Just putting this out there, how many years to integrate?

Offline BobHk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
  • Texas
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #66 on: 08/21/2016 05:20 pm »
The only problem with nuclear power is the disposal of waste and old reactors. These things are contaminated with radiation producing isotopes and chemically very poisonous elements. Both things make a safe disposal almost impossible. A disposal site would have to last millions of years without interference or releasing any of the contaminated material into the environment.

When factoring in disposal, I think solar is the vastly simpler power source, even on Mars. Especially when talking about terraforming Mars in the long term.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Naval_Reactor_Compartment_Packages_in_Trench_94_at_Hanford%2C_WA.png/725px-Naval_Reactor_Compartment_Packages_in_Trench_94_at_Hanford%2C_WA.png

This is earth and these are old sub reactor compartments - this is how we dispose of them on Earth.  Mars can do the same.  Fuel is pulled and the compartment cut out and, well, dumped.
« Last Edit: 08/21/2016 05:29 pm by BobHk »

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2181
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2443
  • Likes Given: 11942
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #67 on: 08/21/2016 07:42 pm »
To be clear, I didnt meant to say that disposal is impossible or even prohibitive for nuclear. Its just very hard. And if you factor in disposal, solar power becomes more favourable in my opinion. Even the disposal containers posted above do not last millions of years. They need to be taken care of. You cant dump them anywhere easily either because no geological site is stable for millions of years. If you want to terraform Mars, water is going to get everywhere, you cant put them in some crater either.

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3009
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2194
  • Likes Given: 4618
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #68 on: 08/21/2016 08:17 pm »
To be clear, I didnt meant to say that disposal is impossible or even prohibitive for nuclear. Its just very hard. And if you factor in disposal, solar power becomes more favourable in my opinion. Even the disposal containers posted above do not last millions of years. They need to be taken care of. You cant dump them anywhere easily either because no geological site is stable for millions of years. If you want to terraform Mars, water is going to get everywhere, you cant put them in some crater either.

I though the longest half-lives of most of the current spent fuel rods is in the tens of thousands of years, not millions.  And last I read, there aren't any terraforming concepts that would take less than tens of thousands of years.  So, I'm not certain I understand the concern.

Let's not get ourselves into knee-jerk, bypass-rational-thought patterns of decision-making just because the word "nuclear" is uttered, eh?  ;)
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline zodiacchris

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Port Macquarie, Australia
  • Liked: 1499
  • Likes Given: 1377
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #69 on: 08/21/2016 08:45 pm »
Well, the term half-life defines the time in which the radioactivity of the material drops by half. So if it is a few thousand times more radioactive than the lethal dose for humans (depending on time of exposure or uptake of radionuclide elements), which Plutonium is, it takes way more than 10,000 years before you can put it in your pocket or expose it to the environment. The Navy is only storing those reactors, that is not long term disposal.
IMO you'd want to get the colony radioactive waste off planet, dump it in a stable solar orbit or something like that, a million years out there amounts to very little.
2 cents...
Cheers,
Chris

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #70 on: 08/21/2016 08:57 pm »
Possibility of a submarine based nuclear power system being adapted to a ship sent to Mars?  Just putting this out there, how many years to integrate?

Although the US Navy has long experience with very reliable reactors, the are all water-cooled.

My guess is, Musk also controlling a solar power and battery company, he will go with that to start.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15705
  • N. California
  • Liked: 15860
  • Likes Given: 1443
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #71 on: 08/22/2016 01:43 am »
Don't forget that Elon plans to send the first cargo MCT to Mars in 2022 to produce the return fuel for the fist crew launched NET in 2024. As fuel production is quite energy-intensive, the '22 flight must carry a significant source of energy. It must be robotically depoyable. I do not think that any of the nuclear options can be developed to be flight ready in time.

Except they're not starting now, right?  They've been serious about Mars from the get go, and clearly power generation is a major enabling technology with long development times, so I am sure they were seriously studying options even 6 years ago, and you have no way of knowing what private project they may have going with any of the nuclear vendors.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25593
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #72 on: 08/22/2016 02:11 am »
Indeed. If they're considering nuclear, you can be certain that they're not starting just now.

We also know that SpaceX has been considering designs for deployable surface solar arrays. Inflatable deployment arrays, in particular, is one option they've looked at.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13506
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11894
  • Likes Given: 11169
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #73 on: 08/22/2016 03:19 pm »
We have two power for mars threads, someone pm me why not to merge them...

See

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34836.0 (it's in a different section)
« Last Edit: 08/22/2016 04:58 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #74 on: 08/22/2016 07:06 pm »
Perhaps the thing to do is a separate section for Mars habitability, landing locations, power gen, etc discussions that is independent of talking about whose launcher / organization/ business plan is used to get there.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7447
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2341
  • Likes Given: 2942
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #75 on: 08/22/2016 07:31 pm »
Perhaps the thing to do is a separate section for Mars habitability, landing locations, power gen, etc discussions that is independent of talking about whose launcher / organization/ business plan is used to get there.

We have done extensive discussion on this in the general Mars section. Not so much on landing locations, as far as I remember. But that section is the place to discuss this independent of SpaceX. Though SpaceX MCT has the additional requirement of much water at the landing site. More than another architecture would need.

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #76 on: 08/22/2016 09:29 pm »
Do you mean the one under the "HLV / SLS / Orion / Constellation" main section?   I took that to be about specifically NASA-based plans, launchers, and equipment.  The top level is heavily organized by launcher technology, except for the "General" section.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7447
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2341
  • Likes Given: 2942
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #77 on: 08/23/2016 04:35 am »
I mean this section.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=21.0

Missions to Mars (HSF)

Offline jfallen

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Virginia
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #78 on: 08/23/2016 11:18 am »
I think all of this will become a lot clearer at the end of next month, but having followed Elon and his companies for about 14 years, my bet is on solar.  His other companies involve batteries and solar power generation, it just makes sense.  And it is excellent PR don't forget, sales fund all his pet projects.  It is going to take some cash to colonize Mars and this would be some amazing PR for solar power.

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1837
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1843
  • Likes Given: 1009
Re: Power options for a Mars settlement
« Reply #79 on: 08/23/2016 05:00 pm »
I think all of this will become a lot clearer at the end of next month, but having followed Elon and his companies for about 14 years, my bet is on solar.  His other companies involve batteries and solar power generation, it just makes sense.  And it is excellent PR don't forget, sales fund all his pet projects.  It is going to take some cash to colonize Mars and this would be some amazing PR for solar power.

I like nukes for Mars surface power but were SX to go that way Elon would be placing the fate of his endeavor in someone else's hands, something he tends to avoid. 
(1) Somebody, not SX would design & build & price the nuke.
(2) Others in the political domain would be able to veto use of a nuke.  Heck, not even veto as it's prohibited so he would need an exemption.  Musk has done well interacting with governments, so this is not completely out of the question.

I agree that solar is aligned with his other companies, especially after the megamerger.  It would also alienate some current solar fanatic Tesla/Solar fans were he to opt for nuclear.

1st blush will be solar with nuclear the long pole being worked behind the scenes for eventual base expansion.

« Last Edit: 08/23/2016 05:00 pm by philw1776 »
FULL SEND!!!!

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0