>From the link posted by Robert Bradbury:
<< In medieval times, alchemists dreamed of "transmuting" lead into gold. They never achieved that dream, but it may _SOMEDAY_ be possible to change the high-level nuclear waste produced by nuclear power plants into much more manageable wastes. Under the U.S. Accelerator Transmutation of Waste Program, Los Alamos and other Department of Energy laboratories are studying and developing accelerator-driven technologies that can transmute such waste into more benign, stable waste forms. >> < http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/science21/ATW.html > This is a line of research, as I see it. First thing to mention, we don't have that technology yet. (costs? any prototype? cost of $/kWh for a combined fussion reactor/ATW? access to this technology to the rest of the world?) If we are going to talk of the wide range of technological breakthroughs that mankind it is to make in the comming years, the list would be very big. I could mention, use of nuclear fussion (which would reduce nuclear waste in a more significant rate than the ATW you mention, since the contamination is much smaller) and development of more efficient renewable energy generators. According to the later, for example, solar energy is archiving rates of eficiency VS cost that grow up exponentially and will soon enter the rates of fosil-fuel based power production, with a relatively small support in ressearch (only magnified by space necesities). Me must take on account that solar arrays are the simplest (and most realible if connected to the power grid -- distributed power genertion) way of producting energy, here on Earth and in space. > Let us not forget that the sun is a nuclear reactor and also > unsustainable in the long run. Precisely. That's the idea, the sun is the most powerful thermonuclear reactor, and at a safe distance. It beams its generated energy, and we can _easily_ and in an unrisky way capture it. -> Solar energy. I'm sure one day we will be able to safely reproduce its nuclear _fusion_ process, but that day has not arrived yet, and we are running unnecessary risks in the terms we are producing energy in these days. > Here I think we agree. Where we may differ is with respect to perspectives > regarding the rate of development of the various technologies. As a > Europa mission is probably a 10-20 year mission using current technologies > it is reasonable to discuss developments that might occur within that > time frame that could allow the completion of the mission sooner than > it would be completed using our best "current" technologies. Obviously. I cannot agree more with you. But nevertheless, I think we should focus more, as you say, on the materials used to build the spacecraft, the robotics, the electronics, the mechanics... the sort of things that have made previous space projects fail. We can always have a science fiction talk or make predictions about the future but since that can't be accurate, we have to think on the actual possibilities of performing such mission in the worst case: no __significant__ advance in our propulsion technology. Lets remember how old nuclear fission reactors are and that although there have been advances in the industry, none has been so radical to transform the way NASA or ESA plans it's interplanetary missions. -- Hibai Unzueta == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
