Author Topic: Mars Natural Nuclear Reactor Site  (Read 4949 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Marco2001

  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 353
Mars Natural Nuclear Reactor Site
« on: July 06, 2012, 11:12:29 AM »
EVIDENCE FOR A LARGE, NATURAL, PALEO-NUCLEAR REACTOR ON MARS (J. E. Brandenburg): http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1097.pdf

Poland here. My time: GMT + 1h
Writing a book about Mars. Any ideas? Type to me.
I'am an Astrobiology/Biology student.

thedubman

  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
Re: Mars Natural Nuclear Reactor Site
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2012, 05:10:01 PM »
HHhhmmmm :-X *rubs chin in scientific way*  Nice find..

Hyper

  • Administrator
  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1233
Re: Mars Natural Nuclear Reactor Site
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2012, 08:21:21 AM »
I have always believed that Thorium would be a good fuel for a reactor. It is too bad we dont work as hard on that technology as we should. In situ utilization of radioactive materials that can be harnesed and used safely would be the Mars power future.

DieAngel

  • Specialist
  • ***
  • Posts: 16
Re: Mars Natural Nuclear Reactor Site
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2013, 12:46:44 AM »
Fissible materials are not a good long term solution, they create a lot of wastes and, like coal and oil, once it's gone, it's gone.

profit004

  • MCCS Test
  • Mission Commander
  • ******
  • Posts: 418
Re: Mars Natural Nuclear Reactor Site
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2013, 03:49:32 PM »
Fissible materials are not a good long term solution, they create a lot of wastes and, like coal and oil, once it's gone, it's gone.

Technically, the same with fusion materials, at least in the near term where we have to gather it from either oceans or the moon.

Hyper

  • Administrator
  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1233
Re: Mars Natural Nuclear Reactor Site
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2013, 04:49:54 PM »
I still have hopes for Thorium

profit004

  • MCCS Test
  • Mission Commander
  • ******
  • Posts: 418
Re: Mars Natural Nuclear Reactor Site
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2013, 12:08:06 AM »
I still have hopes for Thorium

I do to, although technically, using the method japan uses to gather uranium from the oceans coupled with breeder reactors, even old uranium fueled reactors could power the earth for the next hundred thousand years+ at our current energy usage levels.   Not that it would be the ideal solution due to the neutron activation problems and the long lifespan of the wastes, but it is still workable and preferable to human extinction.

DieAngel

  • Specialist
  • ***
  • Posts: 16
Re: Mars Natural Nuclear Reactor Site
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2013, 06:14:10 AM »
Fissible materials are not a good long term solution, they create a lot of wastes and, like coal and oil, once it's gone, it's gone.

Technically, the same with fusion materials, at least in the near term where we have to gather it from either oceans or the moon.

THat's not the issue, it's hopping from a finite resource to a finite resource that is. We need to harness energy sources that we cannot deplete, but that implies starting to think about how we use energy and how to reduce these usages so the sun, wind, waves and planet temperature can be harvested.

The earth has enough energy surplus to sustain life, no reason we shouldn't be able to use that. And when it comes to mars, there is still the sun.

profit004

  • MCCS Test
  • Mission Commander
  • ******
  • Posts: 418
Re: Mars Natural Nuclear Reactor Site
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2013, 04:20:47 AM »
Fissible materials are not a good long term solution, they create a lot of wastes and, like coal and oil, once it's gone, it's gone.

Technically, the same with fusion materials, at least in the near term where we have to gather it from either oceans or the moon.

THat's not the issue, it's hopping from a finite resource to a finite resource that is. We need to harness energy sources that we cannot deplete, but that implies starting to think about how we use energy and how to reduce these usages so the sun, wind, waves and planet temperature can be harvested.

The earth has enough energy surplus to sustain life, no reason we shouldn't be able to use that. And when it comes to mars, there is still the sun.

100,000 years is enough of a time to hop from a finite resource to a near infinite one if we use our time semi-wisely.

   We can deplete geothermal in a few millennia.

 The sun on the earth has a significant but diffuse energy that we would deplete our stores of other resources to make enough solar panels to harvest enough of.   Maybe if they were space based...

  Wind could only be harvested in sufficient amounts to sustain the world if we accept a massive swath of terrible environmental damage to mine the rare earths required for the magnets, and the wind turbines and blade systems have to be rebuilt every 20-45 years depending on size (Larger ones are showing to have significantly less usable life).

Tidal power is hard to near impossible to harness in most cases, and when it is it has massive environmental impact.

Hydroelectric power has probably the most ecological impact of all of these, and it's future is in doubt due to climate change.

 Fusion would require a technological leap and will have neutron activation problems creating significant amounts of radioactive waste until we use He3.

  Fission will always have waste problems, and if breeder or thorium reactors are not used the fuel supply would be significantly less.

    However, out of all of these only fission and fusion can really be realistically looked at for the long term due to their energy densities and their significant reduction in raw materials to make a meaningful amount of power.

Ultra-long term. Orbital solar power collectors or fusion are the only real options for humanity at this stage in our near term development.