Russia plans Mars nuclear station: BBC

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
19,781
6,187
I read the article and didn't detect even a HINT of sarcasm. I'll look harder.
 
  • #3
479
0
Scientists say that the station is now almost ready to be built - all they have to do is to find a way to protect staff and environment from radiation.
:wink:
 
  • #4
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,738
785
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
I read the article and thought it was straight.
The projected date to have the station on-line was 2030---but construction delays are always a possibility.

Seriously, what other kind of power plant should people build
on Mars? I'll take my answer off the air.
 
  • #5
russ_watters
Mentor
19,781
6,187
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
BiologyForums
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.
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 alot more focus on it.

Russia could most certainly fund this, there methods stem far beyond the reach of the U.S.

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.

We have just about the same contenders for our second space race as we do for the first one - this time it's "First person to Mars!"
 
  • #7
479
0
And, all they have left to do is to find a way to protect .. environment from radiation.
things blow up, y'know.. subtle irony.

Space race is over. It costs too much to waste money twice, without any real point.

But indeed, energy is big constraint in explorations that far. Having good reliable source of energy would open up whole new era. Someone will eventually do it anyway. If they can pack nukes into subs, they have some experience and to bridge to space conditions is easier. If that plant can produce rocket fuel for back journey, it would pay back quite fast.
 
  • #8
russ_watters
Mentor
19,781
6,187
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 alot more focus on it.

Russia could most certainly fund this, there methods stem far beyond the reach of the U.S.
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.

Russia is REALLY hurting economically.
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.
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.
 

Related Threads on Russia plans Mars nuclear station: BBC

  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
942
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Top