• Shayeta@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    It is perfectly fair in the context of “fuel”, a resource used to produce energy. Whether energy is generated via chemical or nuclear reaction is irrelavent in this case.

    • exasperation@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yup. If, for example, you’re designing a deep space mission, where every gram counts, there’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s cost effective (and appropriate risk) to send nuclear reactors and fuel aboard those spacecraft.

      Or using modern engineering, whether an aircraft carrier should be powered by nuclear fission or internal combustion of hydrocarbons.

      • Schadrach
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Usually space craft have relatively light power needs so why bother with a whole-ass nuclear reactor when an RTG is smaller, lighter, and has no moving parts? They’re a pretty common choice for space probes, for example.

        https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/plutonium.png

        • chaogomu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          We’re actually running into shortages of Plutonium 238. Which is seriously compromising deep space missions.