Are Nuclear Powered Mars Rovers a Good Idea?

meatybeans writes "NASA officials are meeting today, with concerned residents around Cape Canaveral, regarding the power system for the upcoming Mars Science Lab mission. MSL is going to be like our current rovers on steroids. The plans call for a larger, heavier rover with a lot more juice for gadgets. This meeting however brings to light the issue of the power system for the MSL. The Mars Science Lab originally called for a nuclear power source, much like the Cassini and New Horizon missions use. Some vocal opposition to this has been voiced in the past. As a result, NASA has backup plans to employ solar power and small amounts of RTG's ^? if arguments against straight nuclear for MSL win out. As with most, things 'NIMBY' ^? seems to be in full effect when it comes RTG's. Does the recent success of the rovers show us that RTG's are not needed for Mars exploration? Are 1:420 odds of an accident that bad? Finally, are the hearings that are taking place between NASA and the public really just a formality in the name of public relations?"

Check the RTG packaging.

[WindBourne]

Even if the launch system fails, the question should be, what happens to the fissile material? And the answer? Absolutely nothing. It is in a container that is meant to withstand that. All in all, it would still be in one piece. The advantage of nukes is that a great deal more science can go on for a LONG time (and at a lighter weight). Considering that there is no real risk, we really should use them.

Russian Mars Train

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a great idea. The Russian space agency had plans for a nuclear power "Mars Train" in the 60s. It was manned as well. Mars train [russianspaceweb.com].

Make sense but the strategy could be wrong

[99luftballon]

In a cost/benefit analysis the nuke option makes sense. If you can get a larger rover that can move faster it opens up many new vista. I mean, I love the current Rovers for lasting so long but they move slowly and are too small to get past many geological barriers. A larger rover could carry more equipment and move farther and faster.

No-one likes the idea of the power source rupturing but on a planetwide basis it's not a major issue. Mars has probably received more radioactive material from comets et al than would be found in the battery and as we're not going to get there for another twenty years at best harm to humans isn't an issue. The worst result for us would be the plethora of B-movies about the radioactivity causing hyper-evolution that turns algae into ravening Martian monsters that look suspiciously CGIed.

But maybe the whole strategy is wrong. Instead of a few big rovers make lots of little ones. You get a better sampling of a variety of areas on the planet for your budget and it matters less if a few don't survive the trip.

Result of accident?

[Bl4d3]

Would it result in more radiation than an "open air" nuclear explosion test? What does it compare to?

New meme?

[bcmm]

We need more articles like this, e.g.:

Are nuclear powered [iPods|laptops|hackers|furbies] a good idea?

Seriously though, the answer is nearly always obvious: probably not, because it's not really very safe.

Re:Well, look at our current rovers

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the reasons other parts break down is due to thermal cycling. RTG's give off plenty of heat and help reduce the temperature range hence stress on the parts.

Re:They'll be perfectly fine

[NekoXP]

At least the amount of Pu-238 they use isn't big enough to support a self-sustaining chain reaction.

Basic effects;

* if the rocket explodes on launch, everyone within a 100 mile radius (mostly downwind) will get their recommended maximum radiation dose for the week.. on one day. But people living in houses with lots of Radon (which is something insane like 5% of the USA) get more than this anyway. It's not a disaster.

* if the probe his Mars like Beagle 2 did, the radioactive material hits Mars. Oh. Well, if you were searching for life (microbes), and it was out for a walk on the surface, you just pretty much killed it. However the solar radiation that hits Mars every damn day is much higher. If it was out on the surface it would no doubt be hardier than you could kill with a fine dusting of Pu-238.

So basically who gives a fuck? Only the BAN NUKLUAR POWAR idiots. Cheapest, cleanest, safest (in combination) form of energy and they want to ban it.

Not in my back yard!

[LWATCDR]

I would like to point out that the "outcry" over Cassini really wasn't a case of NIMBY. I live in south Florida not too far from the Cape. I have no problem with RTGs and frankly I know of only a single person that was worried about. She also bought a lot of wheat for and heirloom seeds back in 1999 for the end of the world. I spent a long time calming her down and explaining RTGs to her. Even she now doesn't have a problem with them.
Frankly it is a few nut jobs that make good news stories. There are several hundred thousand people that live around the cape. The protests where a few dozen and many of them traveled a long way for their 20 minutes of Warhol.
Build them an launch them I will be be glad to watch the launch from by backyard with a cool drink in my hand, smile on my face, and hope in my heart.
Mindless fear? NOT IN MY BACK YARD.