Martion containment

Gibbon · 2002-07-20 07:29:23

It is my belief that colonies and camps should be built in low areas and over an area with a diameter of approximately 30 kilometres. This allows more than enough expansion should there be a nuclear power plant etc. Once the technology becomes available, the camps should be moved into tented canyons and craters. Roads should be built (or paths cleared as the case may be) and should be followed unless off exploring which would probably do negligible damage to the environment.

Well, that's my $0.02 on the topic

Nirgal82 · 2002-07-20 12:29:11

Well thanks to odyssey's findings we can now say with some degree of certainty where the first settlements will be located. Either low on the Amazonis plains or along the inside of the southern rim of the Hellas Basin.
Reasons for which are that they are indeed low lying areas with more atmosphere above them to help absorb or reflect harmful particles and radiation from space and sun, and the fact that right underneath Amazonis is a great concentration of water. As for Hellas, the basin itself is very dry, however it is also near great underground resevoirs of water 'round and 'neath the South pole.
Hellas will have to have some sort of road or transponder network between the settlement and the pole for water gathering purposes. (Although I'm sure a trek through the wild and unpredictable terrain of the southern highlands will be in order for the settlers considering the monotony of the basin floor)
Amazonis settlements however need only drill straight down.
As for containment, I feel, especially in the early years, that our settlements be as closed as possible. I think the only "waste" we should produce should be heat (if there's any to spare)
A nuclear reactor ought to produce more than we need.
Other contaminants should be recycled to the best of our abilities, I'm sure by the time we get there someone will figure out what to do with those darn radioactive spent uranium rods...

Your friendly neighborhood Martian
-Marr

Gibbon · 2002-07-20 19:07:00

about the spent uranium rods, why not just launch them into the sun. I'm sure the people on mars wouldn't mind and I can't see it doing damage to the sun

Auqakah · 2002-07-27 15:27:00

Launching nuclear waste into the sun was discussed about twenty years ago, I think. And they decided it was a bad idea - I think the reason was something like this. If you were to launch uranium rods into the sun, you would be saying "the sun is the place to put spent uranium rods", and so pretty soon it would be the norm. Problem is, over the course of many years, with the loads on the rockets that would take the spent rods to the sun increasing every year, you're going to shorten the life-span of the sun. Alright, only slightly - but that wouldnt be the only effect. The reason for this is that a suns lifespan is determined by the amount of heavy-metal material that is in its core. If you fire uranium rods (uranium being a rather dense element) into the sun, then you are increasing the heavy-metal content, and thus bringing the suns development along more rapidly. Now, people wont search for an alternate fuel to nuclear fission, simply because there would no longer be a need - and so nuclear reactors would become more commonplace, and probably generally safer. But that would mean that we would eventually have not one planetary body slinging its radioactive waste into the sun, but maybe three, or even more. And theres no telling just how much waste we could produce. So setting a precedent could be a very, very, very bad idea. On the surface of it, it seems a good idea, but it could have an effect on the intensity or the frequency of solar flares, for example - and I doubt anyone living anywhere would be thankful for that, especially on Mars or our moon. I think the Russians considered it - and decided it wasnt smart. That should tell you something.

Nirgal82 · 2002-07-28 11:16:09

Besides, why not figure out something useful to put them towards. Maybe with better understanding in physics, we may eventually be able to recycle rods. (maybe by somwhow making them virtually rad. free)
Anyone know of any means or efforts to make spent nuclear rods recyclable?

Your friendly neighborhood Martian
-Matt

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-28 19:37:17

Quote from Auqakah:-

"The reason for this is that a suns lifespan is determined by the amount of heavy-metal material that is in its core."

I've read a little bit about stellar evolution over the years but I've never come across any reference to heavy metals having any effect on the longevity of a star.
A main sequence star eventually runs out of hydrogen and may then start fusing helium into carbon. In some cases, a star can go on fusing heavier and heavier elements until its core has become mostly iron nuclei. Fusion beyond this point requires more energy than it liberates, so the star's core collapses. Iron and metals heavier than iron play no part in the energy producing life of a star.
A star's tenure as a main sequence (i.e hydrogen-fusing) star is determined by its initial mass. A star like our Sun remains on the main sequence for about 10 billion years. A star 10 times as massive is about 40,000 times as bright and stays on the main sequence for only about 2.5 million years. A star with about 1/3 the mass of Sol will be only 1/100 as bright but will stay on the main sequence for maybe 300 billion years.
I have never seen any reference to small quantities of metals in a main sequence star having any life-shortening consequences. And when I say small quantities, I mean SMALL quantities!
Sol, our star, has a mass of about 10-to-the-power-of-27 tonnes. That's 1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
Of this mass, about 0.1% is known to be made up of metals. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes of metals in the Sun, right now, as we speak!
The amount of nuclear waste produced in all of Earth's reactors since 1942 is, at most, on the order of 1000,000 tonnes. If we dropped ALL of it into the Sun tomorrow morning, it would increase the mass of metals there by 0.0000000000000001%!! To put this into some kind of perspective, in order to double the percentage of metal in the Sun's mass from 0.1% to 0.2%, we would have to dump 1000,000 tonnes of nuclear waste into it EVERY YEAR for 1 million trillion years!!
I feel confident that we could launch our nuclear waste into the Sun without fear of shortening our star's lifespan in any measurable way. But I tend to agree with Nirgal82 that we might some day find a use for depleted uranium and plutonium. For reasons we cannot imagine today, such heavy metals may become extremely valuable in the future. Let's not potentially throw the baby out with the bath water by putting our spent fuel where we can never hope to gain access to it again.

P.S. What about the cost of launching so much mass into
space?!

clark · 2002-07-29 14:53:09

The simple reason we do not launch spent fuel rods into the sun is that it would involve LAUNCHING spent fuel rods into the sun.

Rockets are great when they work, but what happens on those oh so rare occasions where one explodes?

One rocket filled with spent rods explodes in the upper atmosphere, and leukima rates soar worldwide...

Why do you think the environmentalists get up in arms everytime there is talk about putting a probe up with nuclear rods as fuel?

Just remember, what goes up, generally, it comes down.

Phobos · 2002-07-30 20:31:59

Why do you think the environmentalists get up in arms everytime there is talk about putting a probe up with nuclear rods as fuel?

RTG's that power spacecraft are well encapsulated and built to survive an explosion so the likelihood of them posing a significant threat to the environment is slim.

Phobos · 2002-07-30 20:32:05

Why do you think the environmentalists get up in arms everytime there is talk about putting a probe up with nuclear rods as fuel?

RTG's that power spacecraft are well encapsulated and built to survive an explosion so the likelihood of them posing a significant threat to the environment is slim. I agree though that launching tons of nuclear waste into space is another matter completely. If we ever succeed in generating power via fusion our nuclear waste problems will be pretty much a moot point anyway. So I say we spend a lot of money on fusion research!

Auqakah · 2002-08-01 13:43:42

My mistake, was referring to a different model for stellar mechanics. Its not popular, and I'm afraid I don't have a reference for you. But I'll get ahold of it.

Oh, and Nirgal82, I believe BNFL are working on a way to reuse spent nuclear fuel. Try there website at www.bnfl.co.uk (I think that address is right, though it might be a tad out of date).

Gibbon · 2002-08-17 02:15:28

well, just remember that a landing on Mars is at least 20 years off. I'm sure there will be better or safer nuclear power by then.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-20 07:29:23

Re: Martion containment

#2 2002-07-20 12:29:11

Re: Martion containment

#3 2002-07-20 19:07:00

Re: Martion containment

#4 2002-07-27 15:27:00

Re: Martion containment

#5 2002-07-28 11:16:09

Re: Martion containment

#6 2002-07-28 19:37:17

Re: Martion containment

#7 2002-07-29 14:53:09

Re: Martion containment

#8 2002-07-30 20:31:59

Re: Martion containment

#9 2002-07-30 20:32:05

Re: Martion containment

#10 2002-08-01 13:43:42

Re: Martion containment

#11 2002-08-17 02:15:28

Re: Martion containment

Board footer