Conclusions During all our candidate space mission studies we found that nuclear generators, always appearing initially to be the best choice, were finally rejected for secondary reasons having nothing to do with safety, performance and radiation. Nuclear generators were not completely rejected, but only rejected for the foreseeable future. Finally, it appears that space nuclear generators have too much performance compared to the facilities that we are actually able to employ in order to use their full capacity. We are limited in the size of radiators that it is necessary to deploy for the use of large amount of kilowatts in space; we are limited in the electromagnetic spectrum, in the speed of computers, etc. But it is increasingly clear that this advanced technology is the entry to a new era in space applications, providing the possibility for surpassing many of our actual limits. We have to learn how to share the information flow of nuclear-powered space-based radars before building them; we have to learn how to enlarge the space horizon, including all nations and not only our own. At this time there will be applications for nuclear generators in space. Fortunately, safe nuclear space power systems will take a long time to develop. REFERENCES Carre et al. (1985) Liquid metal version gas cooled reactor concepts, 2nd Albuquerque Symposium on Space Nuclear Power Systems. Alleau (1986) Heat pipe cooled radiator for a Brayton cycle space power system, 3rd Albuquerque Symposium. Tilliette (1985) Utilisation of a Brayton cycle energy conversion system, 2nd Albuquerque Symposium. Poher (1985) French activity on space nuclear power systems, 2nd Albuquerque Symposium. CNES (1984) CEA Report DP84125, Projet ERATO. CNES (1983) CST Report 83/PRT, Etude ERATO. CNES (1982) Report DP8219, Remorqueur spatial electronucleaire pour Ariane 5.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==