NASA Weighs Power-Source Options for Mars Rover

space.com ^ | Monday, October 16, 2006 | Brian Berger

[Paradox]

NASA expects to decide by the end of the year whether to use conventional solar arrays or a nuclear battery to power the 2009 Mars Science Laboratory rover.

NASA clearly would prefer to use a so-called multi-mission radioisotope thermoelectric generator, or MMRTG, a device that converts heat from decaying Plutonium-238 into electricity. But federal environmental regulations require the U.S. agency to give the general public a chance to weigh in before making a final decision on the rover, which will be roughly the size of a compact car and equipped with 10 instruments.

[Paradox]

Envirowhacko's really hate the idea of launching nuclear things. They get all bent out of shape about the potential risks. IMNSHO, Nuclear is the only way to go. The advantages far outweigh the risks.

[ArrogantBustard]

the rover, which will be roughly the size of a compact car and equipped with 10 instruments.

Dang, that's big. Better go with the nuke, guys.

[cripplecreek]

Unfortunately the flat earth luddites will side with envirowhackos on this one.

[gaijin]

Nuke! All the way! Disco ball and lasers for the aliens..!

[Yo-Yo]

I vote for one of these:

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

The big question is "Will it be able to find the flag the Astronauts left?" as per S. Jackso-Lee.

[ArrogantBustard]

I believe Dr. Michio Kaku is still alive, so we can be sure he'll drag out and dust off all his old anti Cassini ranting and raving.

[KarlInOhio]

The North Koreans and Iranians will beat us there. After all, they only want plutonium for peaceful uses. They and Jimmy Carter told me so.

[1rudeboy]

Better go with the nuke, guys.

Yup. It'll power a better stereo system.

[cripplecreek]

There have been something like 2500 above ground nuclear detonations since the 40s and we aren't dead yet but the loons go ballistic over a couple of pounds of radioactive material that isn't even designed to go boom.

[Cincinatus]

IMNSHO, Nuclear is the only way to go. The advantages far outweigh the risks.

It's not really a risk issue -- it's cost. Using an RTG pushes the total mission cost up by at least several tens of millions of dollars. We already know we can operate successfully using solar power on Mars; why not use what works and is cheap?

[Sax]

I had some business with a DoD contractor on Cape Canaveral Air Station back then. It was funny to see the granola/birkenstock crew shuffling around just outside the base stoned and toting signs protesting Cassini. It used to make me chuckle every time.

[cripplecreek]

We know that solar works well in well lighted areas of mars but what about areas that don't catch as much sunlight? I'm thinking of canyons and polar regions. Also this will be a much larger lander requiring a lot more power.

[Yossarian]

Envirowhackos might not be the only ones questioning nuclear power for the probe. I just got done reading a space.com article, and it mentions how the choice of power source can affect the "go/no-go" areas for the probe.

Apparently the mission planners are telling the scientists that a nuke-powered rover will not be allowed to go to any potential water source, like a gulch! It is an issue of (Mars) planetary protection:

1. If there were to be a malfunction with the probe, it would be stuck there for a long, long time;
2. If the power source on the probe is nuclear, it could be a source of warmth for a long, long time;
3. Probes must be assumed to have some non-zero amount of earth microbes that somehow snuck aboard to make it alive to Mars;
4. Water, heat, microbes and time add together to form even more microbes (or Godzilla), and that's a contamination issue. While I think this is more of a "science contamination" issue than a "bad for Mars" contamination issue, that's still the concern.

[east1234]

Aren't we planing on putting man there by mid-century? I suspect we'll be leaving a few microbes bahind then. And beer cans, cigarette butts, twinkee wrappers.......

[Waverunner]

I live near KSC, NASA just had a public coment meeting on it here. Fortunately Brevard county is a high tech friendly area ( go figure) , and everyone understood that for them to launch, there was a .002% chance of plutonium dispersal, if the launch was command detonated and aborted. The community here supports the space program. We love the launches. We want more and bigger rockets going up.
Heck - you can't even put up an eco friendly wind farm in massatwoshits.

[Diamond]

It'll power a better stereo system.

Yeah, but is there sound on Mars?

Cordially,

[Joe Miner]

And beer cans, cigarette butts, twinkee wrappers.......

And a worn out rover up on concrete blocks.

[ArrogantBustard]

Mars has a thin, mostly CO₂ atmosphere ... Yes, there's sound on Mars.

[RightWhale]

environmental regulations require the U.S. agency to give the general public a chance to weigh

That is not necessarily private citizens. Most of the testimony will be from other agencies and corporations including non-profits and NGOs.