Initial tests of NASA's Kilopower nuclear power system have been successful, and full-power testing will be done in March. Each Kilopower unit is expected to provide between 1 kW to 10 kW of electric power:
Months-long testing began in November at the energy department's Nevada National Security Site, with an eye toward providing energy for future astronaut and robotic missions in space and on the surface of Mars, the moon or other solar system destinations.
A key hurdle for any long-term colony on the surface of a planet or moon, as opposed to NASA's six short lunar surface visits from 1969 to 1972, is possessing a power source strong enough to sustain a base but small and light enough to allow for transport through space. "Mars is a very difficult environment for power systems, with less sunlight than Earth or the moon, very cold nighttime temperatures, very interesting dust storms that can last weeks and months that engulf the entire planet," said Steve Jurczyk, associate administrator of NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate. "So Kilopower's compact size and robustness allows us to deliver multiple units on a single lander to the surface that provides tens of kilowatts of power," Jurczyk added.
[...] Lee Mason, NASA's principal technologist for power and energy storage, said Mars has been the project's main focus, noting that a human mission likely would require 40 to 50 kilowatts of power. The technology could power habitats and life-support systems, enable astronauts to mine resources, recharge rovers and run processing equipment to transform resources such as ice on the planet into oxygen, water and fuel. It could also potentially augment electrically powered spacecraft propulsion systems on missions to the outer planets.
NASA's next Mars mission is InSight, a stationary lander scheduled to launch in May. It will use two MegaFlex solar arrays from Orbital ATK. NASA's Mars 2020 rover is scheduled to launch in July 2020. It will use 4.8 kg of plutonium dioxide to provide no more than 110 Watts of power.
The Juno mission is the first mission to Jupiter to use solar panels. Juno uses 72 square meters of solar panels to generate a maximum of just 486 Watts at Jupiter. Mars receives about 12 times more solar radiation per m2 than Jupiter. The New Horizons mission to Pluto and Cassini–Huygens mission to Saturn both used radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs). Cassini used three RTGs originally rated for 300 W each. A spare Cassini RTG was used for New Horizons, which provided 245.7 W at launch (~200 W by the Pluto encounter).
The Fission System Gateway to Abundant Power for Exploration
Also at NASA and Popular Science.
Previously: NASA's Kilopower Project Testing a Nuclear Stirling Engine
Related Stories
A NASA project will test a small nuclear fission power system that could provide kilowatts or megawatts of power for space missions:
In preparing for possible missions to the Red Planet in the near future, NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) has been given the go-ahead to test a small nuclear reactor that could one day run equipment on the Martian surface.
The Kilopower project[PDF] is working to advance a design for a compact, low-cost, and scalable nuclear fission power system for missions that require lots of power, such as a human mission to Mars. The technology uses a fission reactor with a uranium-235 reactor core to generate heat, which is then transferred via passive sodium heat pipes to Stirling engines. Those engines use that heat to create pressure, which moves a piston – much as old coal-powered ships used steam pressure to run their pistons. When coupled to an alternator, the Stirling engine produces electricity.
"What we are striving to do is give space missions an option beyond RTGs [radioisotope thermoelectric generators], which generally provide a couple hundred watts or so," Lee Mason, STMD's principal technologist for Power and Energy Storage at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., said in a NASA news release. "The big difference between all the great things we've done on Mars, and what we would need to do for a human mission to that planet, is power."
Mason said the new technology could provide kilowatts of power and even be upgraded to provide hundreds of kilowatts or even megawatts of power. "We call it the Kilopower project because it gives us a near-term option to provide kilowatts for missions that previously were constrained to use less," Mason said. "But first things first, and our test program is the way to get started."
Also at World Nuclear News.
NASA's Kilopower nuclear reactor with Stirling converters (not an RTG) has passed key tests:
The Kilopower team conducted the experiment in four phases. The first two phases, conducted without power, confirmed that each component of the system behaved as expected. During the third phase, the team increased power to heat the core incrementally before moving on to the final phase. The experiment culminated with a 28-hour, full-power test that simulated a mission, including reactor startup, ramp to full power, steady operation and shutdown.
Throughout the experiment, the team simulated power reduction, failed engines and failed heat pipes, showing that the system could continue to operate and successfully handle multiple failures.
"We put the system through its paces," said Gibson. "We understand the reactor very well, and this test proved that the system works the way we designed it to work. No matter what environment we expose it to, the reactor performs very well."
The Kilopower project is developing mission concepts and performing additional risk reduction activities to prepare for a possible future flight demonstration. The project will remain a part of the STMD's Game Changing Development program with the goal of transitioning to the Technology Demonstration Mission program in Fiscal Year 2020.
The full system will generate 10 kW of power, but the prototype tested from November to March was designed to produce just 1 kW. The solid uranium-235 core is safe to handle.
The Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology (KRUSTY) prototype exceeded almost all performance metrics.
Multiple units could power missions on the Moon, Mars, or other destinations:
"Kilopower's compact size and robustness allows us to deliver multiple units on a single lander to the surface that provides tens of kilowatts of power," NASA Associate Administrator Steve Jurczyk said in January.
Also at Beyond Nerva. 3m8s video.
Previously: NASA's Kilopower Project Testing a Nuclear Stirling Engine
Initial Tests of NASA's Kilopower Nuclear System Successful
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2018, @05:01PM (4 children)
The magical time to watch on the west coast is 3:45AM to 5AM. Believe what you see.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 29 2018, @06:28PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2018, @07:10PM (2 children)
Umm, sooo big question time. Is the Earth flat or spherical?
(Score: 2, Funny) by mmh on Monday January 29 2018, @07:28PM
EARTH IS A CUBE! EARTH HAS 4 CORNER. SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:20PM
The Earth is a flat disk.
The sun is only 100 miles above the surface of the disk and moves in a circular motion about the surface.
The disk is on the back of the first of an infinite stack of tortoises.
The final tortoise of that infinite stack is propelled by a rocket at 9.8 meters / second ^ 2 using a perpetual motion machine.
Hope that helps.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday January 29 2018, @05:31PM (1 child)
> [Mars] a human mission likely would require 40 to 50 kilowatts of power (...)
> A spare Cassini RTG was used for New Horizons, which provided 245.7 W at launch (~200 W by the Pluto encounter).
While the minivan to go to the grocery store has 296 hp, or 220 kW.
Now you know why Elon is starting by sending cars towards Mars !
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 29 2018, @05:40PM
Even Matt Damon figured out that he needed a better heater in his Mars rover.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Monday January 29 2018, @06:05PM (6 children)
This seems like a powerful argument for Clean Coal. I can understand why this might not work on a spacecraft (although SpaceX should be mandated to at least try, and then try harder). But it should work just fine on a planetary body such as the moon or mars. We'll take the coal, clean it all up, and ship it to where our space colonies need it.
On the moon it would be best, because the lunar atmosphere is so clear that you would almost think it is not there. And clean coal would help keep it that way.
On Mars, clean coal would help preserve the breathable atmosphere. Republican VP Dan Quayle said it best: "Mars is essentially in the same orbit. … Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." (yes, that is a REAL quote)
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 29 2018, @06:23PM
And if you're sending carbon to the Moon, better add some hydrogen to it, say like polyethylene. Lowers the density, but hydrogen combined with the prevalent oxygen (in the form of metal oxides and silica) gets you water. Of course, we'd need to start worrying about plastic waste in our Lunar mares (of the ocean kind not the horse kind).
(Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 29 2018, @06:41PM
I was going to propose the Mars pipeline, so we could get a cheap, reliable supply of oil there. We should fund a study right away. Obviously, it's going to be the longest pipeline ever built - so it will need to be the biggest study ever funded.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Monday January 29 2018, @09:48PM (1 child)
I could have sworn that was a GWB quote, but apparently it is indeed Quayle.
Wikiquote claims it's from a 1989 CNN interview.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 29 2018, @10:12PM
Yep. That was the VP of GWB's father. There was a whole book of Quayle Quotables. And were they ever funny and many.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2018, @11:24PM (1 child)
What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:23PM
Not only did I lose my mind, but I LOST MY COMB! OMG, where is my comb! i dropped around here somewhere.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Monday January 29 2018, @06:14PM (38 children)
For a spin off to be useful, it needs to be something that people are allowed to use.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 29 2018, @06:16PM (13 children)
I care more about increasing the power available to outer solar system missions by 1-2 orders of magnitude.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 29 2018, @06:25PM (12 children)
How many missions is that again? Would be nice to have such a project help out more than a few missions.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Monday January 29 2018, @06:45PM (6 children)
New Horizons 2 (or any mission to Kuiper belt objects other than Pluto), a follow-up Pluto mission, Uranus/Neptune missions (recommended by the Decadal Survey and long overdue since the last encounter was by Voyager 2). The Planetary Science Decadal Survey also recommends missions such as:
Of course, as is laid out in the summary, this can be used on Mars, the Moon, or just about anywhere else. Like comets and asteroids.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 29 2018, @06:49PM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 29 2018, @06:56PM (2 children)
The frequency doesn't matter. Obviously they are developing this technology, and it can be used for a variety of different missions, including outer solar system missions. Increasing the power available to outer solar system missions is a good thing. It means spacecraft can carry more instruments, use more powerful transmitters, and increase thrust to ion engines or VASIMR. It could enable a nuclear-powered submarine in the lakes on Titan, or a rover on Triton, Pluto, etc.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2018, @07:17PM
It's always impressive when a new technology promises to enable missions that simply would not be practical or even possible with the existing tech.
I am excited for the future of space exploration.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 30 2018, @02:38AM
The frequency matters a great deal. It is the most important economy of scale out there with any space activity, including missions to the outer planets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2018, @07:13PM (1 child)
You are like a hoover vacuum for all things good.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 30 2018, @02:40AM
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday January 29 2018, @06:55PM (4 children)
Why, all of the asteroid mining missions of course, and also the space manufacturing platforms near those mines, not to mention any mission that mentions gravity wells, Dyson spheres, and maybe throw in Faraday Cages just to check all the boxes.
Its amazing the sheer number of projects that hand waived into existence when the science fiction readers lose track of the boundary line between the real and the wished for.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 29 2018, @06:59PM (3 children)
Those are your words, not mine. You can put a rover on any outer solar system moon with this technology. You could put a nuclear-powered submarine in the lakes of Titan.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2018, @07:19PM (1 child)
And get eaten by Titans? What is this, a rehash of the B ark?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 29 2018, @07:33PM
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/28/16053652/saturn-moon-titan-alma-telescope-vinyl-cyanide-cell-membranes [theverge.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 30 2018, @08:19AM
But NASA isn't going to without a massive overhaul of the system.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 29 2018, @07:19PM (20 children)
Insightful.
These reactors seem intended for use on the surface of a planetary body. How long do they last again? Decades maybe?
Will there be human colonies by then? Imagine colonies of people over long periods of time. Humans will never create a utopia. Given enough time there will be one or more generations of offspring who may not share the ideals of the original colonists. Or they will have their own Boston tea party because they don't like tacks in their tea.
The point: there will be conflict. Humans will take conflict with them to remote locations. Sooner or later someone will want bigger and bigger weapons. You can see where I'm going.
Or the colonists might want to send a 'gift' back home to the red coats.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 29 2018, @07:21PM (3 children)
Define utopia. Is there one of those on Earth?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 29 2018, @07:30PM
I used the expression to be concise. Humans will always have and create conflict.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday January 29 2018, @10:48PM
It is literally nowhere [etymonline.com]
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday January 30 2018, @01:55AM
"The Soviet Union"
-Liberals
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Monday January 29 2018, @11:18PM (15 children)
We are talking about a couple of kg of U-233. Quite frankly not really that much to worry about (you would probably get most bang for the buck out of it by using it as a combined balast and warhead in a camouflet (pretty much only way to get it down fast enough to not turn into global skeet shooting day) - but that is kinda specifically to take down a single building or possibly a block)
But even so, it will only take a few years (less than a decade) to get it down to sub-weapons grade* **, and since there are no (significant) U-238 in it the breed ratio of it will be lousy***. Not to mention that the colonists probably rather would want lifesupport than a bomb.
And you'd get a lot more bang for the buck to simply pick a good chunk of spaceborne rock and aim that.
* = main reason why they _really_ jack up the enrichment in mobile systems is to get a longer lifetime out of it for that core size.
** = if their nuclear scientists aren't schmucks the "omg bbq! it is weapons grade!" doesn't matter (slightly above 90% simply is where bomb-design becomes easy, not where it becomes possible)
*** = which kinda limits them to U-235 bombs, which are crappy compared to Pu-239 bombs (Little Boy (Hiroshima) had 64kg of U-235 and a yield of about 15kt, Fat Man (Nagasaki) had about 6.4kg of Pu-239 and a yield of 21kt) - so if you worry about colonists sending the stuff back as bombs you want to send up as high enrichment as possible.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Tuesday January 30 2018, @12:36AM
Wow, I'm tired.. change that first U-233 to U-235.
And with "get it down to sub-weapons grade", don't know what language I was thinking in. I was thinking about radioactive components and not by element, my bad. Still will be weapons grade but compared to the inital mass it would have dropped to below weapons grade within a decade if assuming the lost U would have been replaced with natural U.
But the comment about it not being an issue unless the nuclear scientist isn't schmucks holds true, just like the lack of U-238 (ie, no "breeding") limits the weapon use quite a bit.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 30 2018, @02:37AM (13 children)
Sounds like more than that for actual space missions. From this report [stanford.edu], they indicated a mission to Chiron (an asteroid between Jupiter and Saturn) that would require 75 kg of 93% enriched uranium.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:59AM (12 children)
So - it is ballparking it in the 20ktrange when fresh if used in a bomb (assuming little boy design, it probably are a lot better today). still less useful than what it would be if it was a low-enriched (19%) reactor.
Considering that we are talking about an area of devastation about 5sq.mi/12sq.km (~2km radius) where concrete buildings are expected to start surviving at about 200m away from the blast and that most buildings today are of reinforced concrete, and the height of the buildings also will make airbursts a lot less efficient (radiation comes before shockwave, concrete is quite decent shielding), it is just a weird choice of weapon (unless one is relying on mass panic and overreacting politicians, in which case it still would be more effecient to just start orbital flechetting of nuclear reactors. if going for actual kills start targeting hydrodams)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @06:26AM (1 child)
For any sort of serious attacks it is both much cheaper and much easier to produce nerve gas or biological weapons.
The amount of infrastructure you need to refine nuclear materials, plus all the secondary materials needed for neutron reflectors, shielding, etc, not including the machine equipment and centrifuges that would be irradiated over the course of processing/working the materials is significant. A state-based adversary would have no problems, but an organization without formal territory would find it difficult to succeed without being discovered and without wasting a significant amount of capital in easily trackable supplies, ignoring the ease with which radiation itself can be tracked.
Biological and chemical weapons on the other hand, once placed in sealed and washed containers, optionally packed in a secondary container, are basically impossible to track outside of obviously baggy luggage or an x-ray scan of the container, and can trade off lab size for production quantity over time for the majority of chemicals/biological agents being released.
Having said that: You must have noticed we have not had a single biological or chemical attack take place in any major country that was not state sponsored (usually domestic sponsorship/research, such as the Tuskagee experiments.)
One might be curious to look into the *WHYS* of that, given all thee 'terrorists' who are so keen to ruin our ways of life (which they have been quite successful at btw, if you look at modern civil rights and 'legal' surveillance methods.)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 30 2018, @08:14AM
If you say so. They also tend to be much less effective. There's something to be said for a man portable weapon that can kill tens of thousands of people instantly. Chemical weapons just don't have that potential, unless you're distributing massive amounts of the poison (say dosing a city's entire subway system at once). Biological weapons have the potential, but obtaining and distributing them is far from easy (even if you have plenty of willing martyrs to spread the disease). And any disease lethal enough to outperform a small fission bomb is likely to be able to wipe out the researchers if even small mistakes are made.
Nerve gas [wikipedia.org] attack in Tokyo and Salmonella attack [wikipedia.org] in Oregon, US. Both were privately instigated. The anthrax attacks [wikipedia.org] in 2001 were probably private despite using a culture that had been preserved by the US government. Bunch of chemical attacks [johnstonsarchive.net] have happened in the Middle East in recent years that were non-state based, but not what I think you'd consider a major country (Iran and Afghanistan).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 30 2018, @07:46AM (9 children)
After you described the devastation it can cause? It's a great terrorist weapon when you just want to kill a lot of people.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Tuesday January 30 2018, @12:58PM (8 children)
If going from an orbital approach it isn't a good choice at all (as stated, you'd either need to sacrifice a lot or turn it into global skeet shooting day).
It is a great terror-weapon in that people fail to understand it and the instant nature of it, but in terms of actually killing people it barely bats average - even if hitting a major city you'd probably not even reach a million dead (quite frankly even going less than 100k dead wouldn't be surprising) (unless the panic really gets out of hand or we include the following war), and then you're out of weapon.
It also isn't really that great for devastation either, you basically just get a few blocks of wasteland and a lot of jobs for structural engineers to do inspections (do not underestimate just how good modern concrete is against blasts and radiation)
However - if going for fear, panic, economic impact and such things there are a lot of better uses for the same material and people's radiophobia.
( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg#/media/File:Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg [wikimedia.org] is a quite illustrative example of the difference between wooden and concrete buildings in how they handle a nuclear strike (and firestorm), and that was WWII era concrete, for a blast about the yield we are talking about (most of the devastation is from fires). The building slightly left of center was ground zero (Shima Hospital if you want to look it up))
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:06PM (5 children)
Doesn't have to get to space in the first place. Someone might steal the stuff before launch.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:53PM (4 children)
If really worried about it well, just mix in a solid neutron absorber and place it so that it can be removed with drilling (keep this pattern secret) as well as radioactive gasses. The gasses is to aid detection of any reworking of the material (if you have enough tech to completly hide the detection of that you have enough tech to enrich U-235 in secret anyway).
Or just make sure that no place until last few minutes prior to launch are allowed to keep more than half a core, that will keep it below the mass needed (unless you have enough knowledge to need nowhere near that enrichment level) for a simple weapon.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 30 2018, @04:37PM (3 children)
And once someone steals it, removes the neutron absorber and radioactive gases, which would be less of a pain than stealing it in the first place, then...? Point is it's not going to be allowed on Earth. Too much costly and high publicity security drama associated with handling the stuff.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Tuesday January 30 2018, @08:20PM (2 children)
How do you plan on removing the radioactive gases without setting off the monitoring systems around the globe? I'm curious since once that is set off normal mobile radiation monitoring equipment will be enough to pinpoint you well enough to send in forces.
I agree on that the poltical circus will make this non-viable for civilian terrestrial use (outside of places already allowed to deal with this level of enrichment - since it basically is a downscaled core of a nuclear sub reactor [they play around in this level of enrichment]), just like _lots_ of other designs.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 30 2018, @11:40PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday January 31 2018, @12:02PM
The point of the gas is that it is very likely to escape if the fuel is being reworked (since I wasn't explicit with it, the gas should be put _inside_ the fuel itself, ie, make the fuel in the radioactive gas mixture instead of in an air-mixture, also pack it when surrounded by the same gas).
If they manage to contain the gas well enough to not set off every detector on the way to release they probably know enough that this would be utterly pointless other than showing off, since just burying the container would be a lot better way of disposing of it.
So I'd guess that the gov't official that going to assume that is someone who spent one hour in a lecture about how radiological monitoring works ;)
(The level of containment needed to hold gas in to the degree needed is about the same as used to hide clandestrine chemical warfare labs (they use the same equipment - those two industries share a lot of safety gear), which would be a better choice of weapon)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 30 2018, @04:53PM (1 child)
You just typed all and still are trying to downplay the effectiveness of even a small atomic bomb? It's more damaging than that. You get complete destruction in that few block area; you probably will get a firestorm that will consume a larger area (and kill most people in that area); you get weeks of radioactive fallout and injury issues (people being evacuated, treated for radiation exposure and heat burns); and you get years of clean up drama. It's a very effective attack from the point of view of a would-be terrorist or someone tasked with trying to do something about said potential attack.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Tuesday January 30 2018, @08:05PM
The effectiveness of a small atomic bomb against a modern city is quite low (compared to what people seem to expect), but I guess the issue is that I'm comparing it to the intial assumption (that is was launched from a spaceborne adversary) in which case it is an odd choice of weapon.
You'd be unlikely to get a firestorm (albeit it is a possibility), but you'd get at least one heck of a conflagration.
Radioactive fallout is a minor issue as long as people stick to bottled water (incl softdrinks) and stay indoors (exactly as you should do with chemical mishaps) until evac-people can get to them.
Radiation exposure is a line of sight issue and given that the radiation is faster than the shockwave this means most stuff will be absorbed in the buildings (and higher buildings really cuts off angles from airbusts) - but I agree on that this is the main mode of killing (unless going for a sports-stadium during a game or similar).
Heatburns (from primary source) is for all intent and purpose a radiation exposure (with it being actual radiation).
The psychological impacts (evacuation and clean up) will be major unless the population have basic training/education for disasters and radiation - this I agree on.
The main isssue with cleanup is that most people balk at doing it the fast way - which is identical with how you do cleanups from chemical mishaps (but for some reason polticians insist on getting in the way instead of letting the experts have free reins).
And no, not trying to downplay it - rather just point out that a 20kt nuke is a much milder beast towards a modern city with modern capabitilies to render aid and response than what people would expect (and - excepting deathtoll due to higher population density - would be less than against either hiroshima and nagasaki due to better structures and hopefully better knowledge about how to react)
(Score: 1) by dwilson on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:56AM
I didn't RTFA, and I'm still not entirely sure what this Kilopower thing actually is. But I have LONG thought that RTG's were on the right track, and fissionable material + modern-materials stirling engines would be the way of the future. I'm glad to see it being developed, if that's what it actually is.
- D
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday January 30 2018, @08:58AM (1 child)
If the Market wanted small portable nuclear reactors for space exploration, the Invisible Hand would have made them all by itself.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 30 2018, @04:14PM
Pretty much true. We are the market and we definitely have the expertise on the private side to make that stuff (the "Invisible Hand"). It's just not worth enough to us to bother. That's why other peoples' money are used to build a few of extremely limited value even for space exploration.