- #1
- 8,142
- 1,760
"Russian scientists have announced plans to build a nuclear power station on Mars."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3162129.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3162129.stm
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
"Russian scientists have announced plans to build a nuclear power station on Mars."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3162129.stm
Originally posted by russ_watters
So the tiny issue of cost isn't striking anyone as important? It would probably take a sizeable portion of the Russian GDP for the next 30 years. Tens of trillions of dollars. Money they don't have. They can't even put much of their tiny portion of the ISS in space (we paid for most of their parts).
Beyond that, "almost ready to be built" is crap. You can get a rough outline in a couple of months, but the actual design of the pieces of such an enormous undertaking takes a decade and tens of billions of dollars.
The ISS for example has been under development in one form or another for the past 20 years. I walked around in a mockup of it in Huntsville Alabama in 1991.
It took a decade and a couple of trillion dollars to put a man on the moon. This project would be orders of magnitude larger.
Heh - and I don't think you are applying enough US concepts to Russia. Russia isn't communist anymore. They can no longer spend money they don't have. They really truly do not have the money for this. If they did, they would not need us to pay for their parts of the ISS. Hell, if they did, they'd be able to pay their army or put a ship out to sea every now and then. A year and a half ago, I spent three months at the mouth of the Baltic Sea on a ship and saw precisely TWO Russian ships. Incredible.Originally posted by BiologyForums
I think you're applying to many U.S. concepts onto Russia.
Russia can easily have the funds required for this, the Russian government has a high income from taxes, and remember that they are not presured to spend it on anything in particular beyond the essentials.
The U.S. spends an incredibly low amount of money on space research, but Russia has a lot more focus on it.
Russia could most certainly fund this, there methods stem far beyond the reach of the U.S.
Heh. Cearly you are not an engineer. Before you build something you have to design it. And that takes about as long (or longer, depending on the project) than building it. And when you are building new technology, its even worse - you have to TEST prototypes before you can build the real thing.I think it's far to say it's "almost ready to be built".
But that's utterly meaningless; preparing to build something takes nearly no time or money - building it is 99% of the task.
Russia's Mars nuclear station is designed to provide energy for a future Russian base on Mars, as well as for potential scientific and exploration missions to the planet.
The nuclear station would use a small, lightweight nuclear reactor to generate electricity. This reactor would be fueled by uranium-235 and would convert the heat generated by nuclear reactions into electricity through a process called thermoelectric conversion.
Some potential risks include the possibility of accidents or malfunctions, which could release radioactive material into the environment. There is also the risk of contamination during the launch and deployment of the nuclear station. However, Russia claims to have taken precautions to minimize these risks.
No, this is not the first time a nuclear station is being used in space exploration. The United States has previously launched several space probes powered by nuclear generators, such as the Cassini and Galileo missions to Saturn and Jupiter, respectively.
Russia plans to launch the Mars nuclear station in 2028, with the goal of having it operational by 2030. However, this timeline is subject to change and could be delayed due to various factors, including technical challenges and funding issues.