anyone hear anyting regarding the russian nuclear power-plant project on mars, due in around 2030?

what do you people think?
________
Weed (http://wwweed.com/)

I haven't heard anything about the Russians trying this but from what I've read about their other attempts to get something to Mars, I think the shouldn't try it.

I forget how many failed surveying satillites they've lost, but it is alot.

lol

its perfectly possible that the link i followed was a fake, ill look for one to post
________
Motorcycle tires (http://www.motorcycle-tech.com/tires/motorcycle-tires)

check some of these links out

missions to mars, nuclear rockets (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/nuclearmars_000521.html)

heres the power station thing (http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2003/08/20/49403.html)
________
HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS (HPV) ADVICE (http://www.health-forums.org/human-papillomavirus-hpv/)

It depends on the type of failure. I think in most cases the probes got there okay, but lost contact. We shouldn't be too critical of the Russians. It's not like we didn't lose a couple of probes ourselves.

Russians can probably pull it off technologically, but will have problems economically. Russia has some of the most brilliant scientist in the world, but most of them are unemployed.


Magic8

POOman; cool article.

Check out this article on the history of trying to send unmanned missions to Mars.

http://www.astronomy.com/content/dynamic/articles/000/000/001/362soqxn.asp

...I was just stating that the Russians had not been successful with what there missions were to accomplish.

Magic8 quoted:
It's not like we didn't lose a couple of probes ourselves.

...a I didn't even count the number of failures they had, but I'm guessing from the article that they've had less than a 25% success rate, when it comes to Mars....pretty bad.

.....On the discussion over using nuclear fuel...very interesting. Most people don't realize that when nuclear reactors are "refueled", the typical "uranium" type reactor gives off no radiation since the fuel is not "spent"; it's safe. The only way it gets dangerous is by having critical mass (enough uranium cocentrated by itself to start heating itself up via neutrino emmision, causing the fission to take place). Controlling the heated reaction is what our energy producing reactors do in the country right now.

If I'm correct, you could take the purified uranium and stand on it and it wouldn't hurt you....just as long as you didn't have "critical mass" - (the amount of uranium needed to start a change reaction where all atoms would "split" - a fission reaction). If your feet are getting warm - RUN!!!!

Maybe make the spacecraft have the ability to jettison half of the uranium away from the other half, if something is going "wrong" with the spacecraft; that way, if it crashes, there's no nuclear reaction happening upon hitting the earth.

I guess as I write this, I start thinking to myself the "failsafe" ideas as to how you could do it and how easy it would be to convince others of the safety issues.

The whole point of the article was that: Once your in space and headed away from Earth - bring it on baby! Thermonuclear engines would rock!! Way more efficient than chemical. I never knew of the nuclear engine before.

I think it's good discussion since the general public doesn't know a nuclear reactor works, and that the beginning and ending products of fuel are completely different.
:p :D :p

not that i'm a nuclear physicist, but i think you're gonna have to throw down proof or some kind of information about the majic uranium. Are you talking about the enrichment pocess where uranium 235 is taken from uranium 238? Both of these are radioactive and unshielded exposure to either in their pure form is not benign. Although the actual enriched (natural) uranium has more chemical downfalls than radiological, all fuel leaving a reactor used in power production has been used in a fission process, and thus quite radioactive. What nuclear reactors are you talking about that don't use a fission process? Maybe i am thinking all reactors involve the fission process. If the uranium is in it's natural state, generally U3O8, then yes its radioactive properties are low, but then again, didn't mary currie die of long term uranium exposure?

I think nuclear powered space craft have already been used. In fact i beleive on was launched from the cape about 3 years ago and sturred up alot of debate, not over the reactor itself but of the uranium that powered it in case the rocket was forced to self destruct it would aresol and rain uraniuum all over the east coast. But it launched without a hitch.

she died due to long term radium exposure, IIRC, which i usually do ;)


yeah i remember that, but was it a nuclear engine or did it just contain uranium/plutonium payload to jetison into space? cant quite remember, and as its 243 am, im a LITTLE to lazy and tired to go look it up lol
________
LovelyWendie (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)