Rattle wrote:
] ] President Bush is set to endorse using nuclear power to
] ] explore Mars and open up the outer Solar System.

The fact is that we simply can't get deeper into space without moving this direction, and NASA has been planning this for quite some time. By putting his name on it, Bush takes credit for something was in the works long before he showed up, for better or for worse...

I expect this issue to be really annoying. People will jump to protest it without understanding what the risks actually are. Even the analysis will be biased. You can bet the left wing organizations will have data showing that its dangerous. You can bet NASA will have data showing that its not. You can bet no one on either side will really be interested in listening to anything they don't want to hear.

Cloning issue, round two, fight!

Decius wrote:
] Rattle wrote:
] ] ] President Bush is set to endorse using nuclear power to
] ] ] explore Mars and open up the outer Solar System.
]
] The fact is that we simply can't get deeper into space without
] moving this direction, and NASA has been planning this for
] quite some time. By putting his name on it, Bush takes credit
] for something was in the works long before he showed up, for
] better or for worse...
]
] I expect this issue to be really annoying. People will jump to
] protest it without understanding what the risks actually are.
] Even the analysis will be biased. You can bet the left wing
] organizations will have data showing that its dangerous. You
] can bet NASA will have data showing that its not. You can bet
] no one on either side will really be interested in listening
] to anything they don't want to hear.
]
] Cloning issue, round two, fight!

The way I understand it, booster rockets blow up on takeoff sometimes, with on the order of 1 in a hundred frequency (how many shuttle flights preceeded Challenger?). Plutonium is their fuel of choice, tens of kilograms per vehicle. Plutonium dust is fatal in very small doses, micrograms. So that's conservatively a billion lethal doses per vehicle. Atmospheric dynamics have been shown to efficiently distribute small particles globally.
I don't want to catch a lungfull of that stuff when somebody forgets to convert their units, or asks "what's that button do?".

Moon Pie wrote:
] The way I understand it, booster rockets blow up on takeoff
] sometimes, with on the order of 1 in a hundred frequency (how
] many shuttle flights preceeded Challenger?). Plutonium is
] their fuel of choice, tens of kilograms per vehicle.
] Plutonium dust is fatal in very small doses, micrograms. So
] that's conservatively a billion lethal doses per vehicle.
] Atmospheric dynamics have been shown to efficiently distribute
] small particles globally.
] I don't want to catch a lungfull of that stuff when somebody
] forgets to convert their units, or asks "what's that button
] do?".

The risk with using radioactive fuel almost entirely pertains to getting it up into space safely, and making sure it dosen't come crashing down. All of the plans I've seen tossed around for application of nuclear propulsion entail construction of the craft in space, launch from space, etc.

Hence, there are a number of possible approaches you can take to minimise risk. Its not like you are going to be using a nuclear engine to launch a space vehicle from earth, thats kinda dumb for a number of obvious reaons. Its more likely that this vehicle would be constructed in space, its radio active fuel brought up in a container that can withstand the explosion of its launch vehicle, and its nuclear engine wouldn't be activated untill it reached a safe distance from earth. etc, etc, etc..

Don't go nuts over this untill we hear what they are planning to do. There _are_ safe ways to do this. Finding them, and subjecting them to peer review will be (the most fun) part of the process.