Russia working on space nuclear reactor

[xenomorph555]

This news is a few months old by the way.

Since 2007 the Russians have been talking about remastering nuclear reactors in space with ideas for both engines and power supply. Although we have no idea which one they are going ahead with they said it was fully designed and in construction with completion set for 2018.

The Russian scientists have produced the first fuel pellets for their space nuclear reactor, which I guess proves they are past simple designs.

I am going to assume it is a power supply reactor.

[Tommygun]

Have they said if this is for deep space or for orbital purposes?

If it's for orbit, I hope they have a plan for "end of life" that's better than just aim it at the southern Atlantic.

[Red Iron Crown]

Good. Nuclear power in space is a big stepping stone to interplanetary manned missions (it's not essential but is very useful). I hope they're leading up to a bimodal NTR engine. Or maybe straight power generation for electric thrusters.

It pleases me that the Russians are able to work on nuclear power in space without the fear-mongering the West has to deal with when proposing anything nuclear.

[Godot]

...

It pleases me that the Russians are able to work on nuclear power in space without the fear-mongering the West has to deal with when proposing anything nuclear.

First and foremost lets hop that, if they really send a nuclear reactor into space, it will be much more safe (from maloperation as well as from any other problems that may happen) than the nuclear reactors at Chernobyl)

[xenomorph555]

Have they said if this is for deep space or for orbital purposes?

If it's for orbit, I hope they have a plan for "end of life" that's better than just aim it at the southern Atlantic.

Well they said it's for deep space exploration, but it could be used for anything. As for end of life in orbit don't worry they had many nuclear satellites in the past, when they are finished they are fired into an orbit that will last hundreds or thousands of years.

[xenomorph555]

Good. Nuclear power in space is a big stepping stone to interplanetary manned missions (it's not essential but is very useful). I hope they're leading up to a bimodal NTR engine. Or maybe straight power generation for electric thrusters.

It pleases me that the Russians are able to work on nuclear power in space without the fear-mongering the West has to deal with when proposing anything nuclear.

They haven't said if it's an engines or generator, although most likely the latter.

Also they likely won't get harassed since Russia is quite nuke friendly.

First and foremost lets hop that, if they really send a nuclear reactor into space, it will be much more safe (from maloperation as well as from any other problems that may happen) than the nuclear reactors at Chernobyl)

I can assure that it will be much safer then any RMBK reactor and probably won't even be active during launch, should also be noted that these days the Russians are very skilled when it comes to reactors.

[m4v]

Yeah, Russians are noted for their safety standards.

It pleases me that the Russians are able to work on nuclear power in space without the fear-mongering the West has to deal with when proposing anything nuclear.

It was always been that any country that isn't in the have-nots group are free to do whatever the hell they want.

[Duxwing]

How would failure be managed?

-Duxwing

[xenomorph555]

How would failure be managed?

-Duxwing

Here are some situations I can think of if it were a probe:

If it was on it's way to deep space and it failed then they couldn't do anything but it would pose no threat so they would just say the mission failed and go back to normal routine.

If it was in orbit and failed, they would quickly fire the probe into a graveyard 1000 year orbit. There would probably be a large scare in the media but no one is in danger.

If the rocket exploded on take-off then... not sure what you can do in this situation. Not that there's any danger since the reactor wouldn't have been activated and therefore the fuel would be very low level radioactive. A poor quality terrorist dirty bomb would probably be worst.

There are too many variables of a manned mission for someone like me to predict here what could be done.

[Godot]

...

If the rocket exploded on take-off then... not sure what you can do in this situation. Not that there's any danger since the reactor wouldn't have been activated and therefore the fuel would be very low level radioactive. A poor quality terrorist dirty bomb would probably be worst.

...

I think that would large depend on the altitude at which the rocket exploded.

If it exploded shortly after start .... no problem .... if it exploded in the upper atmosphere ... probably much much worse

[xenomorph555]

I think that would large depend on the altitude at which the rocket exploded.

If it exploded shortly after start .... no problem .... if it exploded in the upper atmosphere ... probably much much worse

Maybe but coal power plants are always pumping uranium and thorium into the atmosphere so whether there would be a dramatic effect is unpredictable.

[-Velocity-]

If the reactor is never turned on until it's safely on its way in space, there is no significant danger, even if the rocket explodes and the reactor vessel disintegrates and spews itself over a wide area. Fission fuel- uranium 235- isn't particularly dangerous. What IS dangerous are the short-lived fission products that are created when a reactor operates. But if the reactor has never operated, these don't exist. In fact, even in the worst-case scenario, the high chemical toxicity of the uranium fuel might end up being more dangerous than its low-level radiological hazard. Anyway, combine the low hazard with a reactor vessel that is designed to survive rocket failure, and the overall danger of launching a reactor into space should be insignificant. You just want to make sure, once the reactor is in space and has been used, it never re-enters Earth's atmosphere...

[xenomorph555]

If the reactor is never turned on until it's safely on its way in space, there is no significant danger, even if the rocket explodes and the reactor vessel disintegrates and spews itself over a wide area. Fission fuel- uranium 235- isn't particularly dangerous. What IS dangerous are the short-lived fission products that are created when a reactor operates. But if the reactor has never operated, these don't exist. In fact, even in the worst-case scenario, the high chemical toxicity of the uranium fuel might end up being more dangerous than its low-level radiological hazard. Anyway, combine the low hazard with a reactor vessel that is designed to survive rocket failure, and the overall danger of launching a reactor into space should be insignificant. You just want to make sure, once the reactor is in space and has been used, it never re-enters Earth's atmosphere...

Exactly, good breakdown!

[magnemoe]

If the reactor is never turned on until it's safely on its way in space, there is no significant danger, even if the rocket explodes and the reactor vessel disintegrates and spews itself over a wide area. Fission fuel- uranium 235- isn't particularly dangerous. What IS dangerous are the short-lived fission products that are created when a reactor operates. But if the reactor has never operated, these don't exist. In fact, even in the worst-case scenario, the high chemical toxicity of the uranium fuel might end up being more dangerous than its low-level radiological hazard. Anyway, combine the low hazard with a reactor vessel that is designed to survive rocket failure, and the overall danger of launching a reactor into space should be insignificant. You just want to make sure, once the reactor is in space and has been used, it never re-enters Earth's atmosphere...

True I can also not see an high atmosphere event who disintegrate the reactor. A rocket who fail low over pad and crashes with all the fuel and oxidizer might shatter it, the ground impact after a fail in high atmosphere might shatter on ground and not spread things far, its after all an pressure container hitting ground in 4-500 km hour.

[TythosEternal]

Good discussion so far, but I would point out one additional item: just because you've gone orbital (or beyond) doesn't mean turning your reactor on is perfectly safe. Many interplanetary missions, particularly those going to Jupiter or beyond, will return past the Earth to repeatedly gain momentum. If you have already turned your reactor on before your final pass, you have to a) be very good about controlling your slingshot trajectories, and be able to justify the additional risk of repeated passes with a live reactor and it's associated by-products. My understanding is that, at least for NASA, there's actually a formal review process for this mission planning decision that's something akin to an EIR.

[Nuke]

with nuclear comes the possibility of reusable deep space vehicles. it would likely be cheaper and safer to top off a nuclear engine's propellant tanks with a robotic mission than it would be to launch a new one. and with a good 10 or so year reactor life, it could likely pull off a number of round trips before its power output starts to falter. of course this means close to earth operation for in orbit refit.

then there might be the possibility of recovering nuclear fuel already orbiting the earth from the handful of soviet and american space reactor test flights. so you might be able to have a space reactor without having to launch any fissile material at all. though that would likely require an ion tug and a nuclear fuel reprocessing module.

[Javster]

Good. Nuclear power in space is a big stepping stone to interplanetary manned missions (it's not essential but is very useful). I hope they're leading up to a bimodal NTR engine. Or maybe straight power generation for electric thrusters.

It pleases me that the Russians are able to work on nuclear power in space without the fear-mongering the West has to deal with when proposing anything nuclear.

To be honest the West is already quite paranoid about Russia...

- - - Updated - - -

Here are some situations I can think of if it were a probe:

If it was on it's way to deep space and it failed then they couldn't do anything but it would pose no threat so they would just say the mission failed and go back to normal routine.

If it was in orbit and failed, they would quickly fire the probe into a graveyard 1000 year orbit. There would probably be a large scare in the media but no one is in danger.

If the rocket exploded on take-off then... not sure what you can do in this situation. Not that there's any danger since the reactor wouldn't have been activated and therefore the fuel would be very low level radioactive. A poor quality terrorist dirty bomb would probably be worst.

There are too many variables of a manned mission for someone like me to predict here what could be done.

If it has the same precautions as a manned launch, including a LAS, it is less likely to explode.

[Duxwing]

Wow! I had thought uranium was always radioactive. Its being usually-harmless better explains why unshielded workers can handle fuel rods and the Los Alamos team survived unless they were reckless.

Of course, our descendants might, in their greater learning and wisdom, consider our orbital ambitions with the bespoke nuclear reactor absolutely Kerbal.

-Duxwing

[magnemoe]

with nuclear comes the possibility of reusable deep space vehicles. it would likely be cheaper and safer to top off a nuclear engine's propellant tanks with a robotic mission than it would be to launch a new one. and with a good 10 or so year reactor life, it could likely pull off a number of round trips before its power output starts to falter. of course this means close to earth operation for in orbit refit.

then there might be the possibility of recovering nuclear fuel already orbiting the earth from the handful of soviet and american space reactor test flights. so you might be able to have a space reactor without having to launch any fissile material at all. though that would likely require an ion tug and a nuclear fuel reprocessing module.

Reactor fuel in this type of reactors will pretty much last for ever. Remember it will only run on full power then doing burns.

But yes refuling it with reaction mass would make lots of sense. Not on interplanetary missions unless they are massive like sample return or manned however to GEO or moon they would be economical, better who better engine is uses.

[xenomorph555]

If it has the same precautions as a manned launch, including a LAS, it is less likely to explode.

Oh yeah forgot about LAS's although you would also need heavy parachute systems and lots of other stuff...

[xenomorph555]

Wow! I had thought uranium was always radioactive. Its being usually-harmless better explains why unshielded workers can handle fuel rods and the Los Alamos team survived unless they were reckless.

Of course, our descendants might, in their greater learning and wisdom, consider our orbital ambitions with the bespoke nuclear reactor absolutely Kerbal.

-Duxwing

Uranium is radioactive but on a tiny unmeasurable scale. Let me state that pretty much EVERYTHING (including you, me and everyone) is radioactive but on a very variable scale, some things are absolutely harmless while others seriously dangerous. Uranium is on the edge of the harmless side giving off small amounts of alpha radiation (a pack of bananas is more radioactive then a handful of uranium ore). Hopefully this explanation gives more insight into the complex world of radiation and why things branded as radioactive can be quite safe.

Fun fact: nuclear power plant workers handling pellets wear gloves not to protect themselves but the fuel from contamination.

Edited September 29, 2014 by xenomorph555

[Kryten]

Uranium is pretty radioactive, as anybody who's had the classic demonstration with a bit of pitchblende (uranium ore) and a Geiger counter in school can testify. It's not face-meltingly dangerous, sure, but it's not something you'd want to handle without gloves or breath the dust of.

What you aren't going to get without a reaction having happened are neutron and hard gamma radiation; highly damaging, though to shield against, and neutron irradiation can cause materials to themselves become radioactive.

[YourEverydayWaffle]

First and foremost lets hop that, if they really send a nuclear reactor into space, it will be much more safe (from maloperation as well as from any other problems that may happen) than the nuclear reactors at Chernobyl)

Chernobyl was built out of propoganda and very few materials to do with safety (you know those Soviets!). The RBMK reactors were inherently unstable (with a void coefficient of 4.7 beta, meaning that when steam bubbles formed near the fuel, the reaction would likely get very much more intense), and those things were freaking huge. The lid at reactor 4 at Chernobyl weighed over 2000 tons. Just rest assured that the Russians probably won't go back to the "less-safety-more-power" philosophy.

[YourEverydayWaffle]

Uranium is pretty radioactive, as anybody who's had the classic demonstration with a bit of pitchblende (uranium ore) and a Geiger counter in school can testify. It's not face-meltingly dangerous, sure, but it's not something you'd want to handle without gloves or breath the dust of.

What you aren't going to get without a reaction having happened are neutron and hard gamma radiation; highly damaging, though to shield against, and neutron irradiation can cause materials to themselves become radioactive.

Neutron radiation? That only really happens during fission, you'd have to get a reaction for that to occur. But I do agree with you about the radiation levels of uranium. I own a geiger counter, and even in granite (3-5 parts per million uranium), I get about 140 uSv/h (micro Sieverts per hour), compared to only 15 uSv/h of normal background radiation. It is definitely something that is fairly radioactive (fuel grade uranium is something like 2000 ppm, not totally sure), especially when refined.

Edited September 30, 2014 by YourEverydayWaffle

[Duxwing]

Ok, I think we can agree uranium should be secured and would not devastate whatever lay downrange should the rocket fail.

The next important questions are:

1) Who should launch uranium into orbit? Whoever does must be competent-enough to launch it correctly and neutral-enough not to weaponize an 'accident'.

2) How should public relations be managed? Funding and acceptance necessitate making the public understand that our operations are safe and benefit them.

3) How many launches should occur? Launching often makes launching usual and increases the number of failure points.

-Duxwing