Orbiting nuclear reactor
Discussion
An interesting article about the first experimental nuclear reactor in orbit, launched 50 years ago
http://www.drewexmachina.com/2015/04/03/50-years-a...
This could be a prime driver to develop a new spacecraft capable of returning sizeable payloads safely to Earth ( it's orbit is too high for the Shuttle to have retrieved it ). It would probably require a manned mission, as it would be necessary to detach the reactor payload from the spent upper stage of the launch vehicle.
http://www.drewexmachina.com/2015/04/03/50-years-a...
This could be a prime driver to develop a new spacecraft capable of returning sizeable payloads safely to Earth ( it's orbit is too high for the Shuttle to have retrieved it ). It would probably require a manned mission, as it would be necessary to detach the reactor payload from the spent upper stage of the launch vehicle.
Simpo Two said:
Why do we want it back?
It's normally the getting it up there that's hard; Newton does the down bit quite well.
If we go and retrieve it, we can control it's descent instead of leaving it to chance when and where it will come down. Also preferable to grab it while it's mostly still in one piece rather than broken up into little radioactive bits all over the sky It's normally the getting it up there that's hard; Newton does the down bit quite well.
MartG said:
If we go and retrieve it, we can control it's descent instead of leaving it to chance when and where it will come down. Also preferable to grab it while it's mostly still in one piece rather than broken up into little radioactive bits all over the sky
It would be better to send a little robotic satellite up to it to push it out into a much higher orbit, if it's going to be a problem. That is what happens with a lot of satellites these days - they keep a bit of fuel left over to park it when they're finished with it. davepoth said:
MartG said:
If we go and retrieve it, we can control it's descent instead of leaving it to chance when and where it will come down. Also preferable to grab it while it's mostly still in one piece rather than broken up into little radioactive bits all over the sky
It would be better to send a little robotic satellite up to it to push it out into a much higher orbit, if it's going to be a problem. That is what happens with a lot of satellites these days - they keep a bit of fuel left over to park it when they're finished with it. MartG said:
the current orbit won't decay for 4000 years - but even in a higher orbit it could still be hit by debris and disintegrate - and do we really want to leave nuclear reactors floating around and expect our descendants to sort them out ?
why not .........we generally do this with everthing else.....MartG said:
the current orbit won't decay for 4000 years - but even in a higher orbit it could still be hit by debris and disintegrate - and do we really want to leave nuclear reactors floating around and expect our descendants to sort them out ?
I think Planet Earth probably has more pressing things to attend to.By the way, what would happen to uranium on re-entry? Can it 'burn up' like other metals? If so, are the products of that radioactive too?
You do.
In other words, you need to use as much energy to slow down as you did originally to speed up. However, the "slowing down" does not have to be provided by on board rocket motors. Atmospheric drag is the main factor in slowing an orbiting spacecraft or satellite down so that it eventually re-enters. Gravitational perturbations by by other bodies, such as the moon or sun, could slow an object down and even things like the solar wind or the earth's magnetic field can affect the orbital speed of an object.
The earth's atmosphere actually wobbles in and out like a jelly so sometimes at (say) 400 miles distance there is little atmospheric drag and at other times there might be a lot more. It was the unexpected "wobbliness" of the earth's atmopshere that doomed Skylab in 1979.
In other words, you need to use as much energy to slow down as you did originally to speed up. However, the "slowing down" does not have to be provided by on board rocket motors. Atmospheric drag is the main factor in slowing an orbiting spacecraft or satellite down so that it eventually re-enters. Gravitational perturbations by by other bodies, such as the moon or sun, could slow an object down and even things like the solar wind or the earth's magnetic field can affect the orbital speed of an object.
The earth's atmosphere actually wobbles in and out like a jelly so sometimes at (say) 400 miles distance there is little atmospheric drag and at other times there might be a lot more. It was the unexpected "wobbliness" of the earth's atmopshere that doomed Skylab in 1979.
Simpo Two said:
I think Planet Earth probably has more pressing things to attend to.
By the way, what would happen to uranium on re-entry? Can it 'burn up' like other metals? If so, are the products of that radioactive too?
Burning up means reacting with oxygen, so you'll get uranium oxides (most likely triuranium octoxide), which as they are largely uranium are indeed radioactive. Effectively you turn it into radioactive ash, aka fallout. By the way, what would happen to uranium on re-entry? Can it 'burn up' like other metals? If so, are the products of that radioactive too?
You can't remove radioactivity by chemical reactions (such as burning) in general; you have to use a nuclear reaction of some sort.
Simpo Two said:
I think Planet Earth probably has more pressing things to attend to.
By the way, what would happen to uranium on re-entry? Can it 'burn up' like other metals? If so, are the products of that radioactive too?
Google the Russian Kosmos 954 satellite - it broke up on re-entry and spread radioactive material over Canada.By the way, what would happen to uranium on re-entry? Can it 'burn up' like other metals? If so, are the products of that radioactive too?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff