| written by Pomelos on May 25, 2007 09:14 |
 | |  | | ![]() One point for you if you know how to pronounce it in dutch. 
(über-picky, I know) | |  | |  |
|
  | |  | | ![]()  | Zixinus said: | The waste issue is dealth with. And why would it blow up? This is an engine, not a bomb.
Besides, the waste would quickly scatter in orbit and all around of Earth. By the time it arrives, it will burn up and scatter even more. You'll get a few grams of the stuff in several cubic kilometres. Consider that there is uranium and radon in coal (and that you are constantly bombarded by cosmic rays), and that by coal-buring power plants, you get allot more radioactive stuff in the air. |
Perhaps you haven't heard of all the nuclear powered satellites that have already failed to launch correctly, raining down highly radioactive debris in various parts of the world. While a few burned up in the atmosphere, most dropped their radioactive payload either on land or in the ocean, with the vast majority of material never being recovered. A quick list of these can be found here. More details about Cosmos 954 and 1402 can be found in this Space.com article, and there's an in-depth story covering the Cosmos 954 cleanup by someone who took part in it.
My recommendation is for the development of clean, renewable-energy wind powered spacecraft. : ) | |  | |  |
|
 | written by Zixinus on May 25, 2007 19:47 |
 | |  | | ![]()  | Pomelos said: | | You're loving that nuke rocket, you want it to be made. Since it hasn't, you're relying on paranoia and conspiracy to explain why. (Yup, that's paranoia and conspiracy, the green flavoured ones.) |
Consider that Cassini-Hyden was protested againts. This is an avarage run-of-a-mill spaceprobe. NASA released two book-lenght papers discussing the possibility of an accident, and concluded that it was low. The protesters didn't care.
| Pomelos said: | | And, you know, discarding every argument against you by saying "it's completely safe, you're just some nuclear fearing tree-huggers" won't bring you any closer to convince people. There's some nuclear danger, there. Rockets do explode. (oh, hell yeah, they do.) And, appart from civil reactors and military ships, there's hardly anything nuclear powered in this world. That could be because it's not safe. Or because it's too expensive to build safe, Or because it's not efficient, regardless of what theories say. Or whatever. |
Nuclear powered engines are superior to any chemical engine. That is a fact.
Rockets have a tendency to explode because they are very complicated, due to the fact that chemical rockets are that weak. That is why multi-staging is needed. You are also storing very powerfully reactant chemicals. With nuclear thermal, you have a hot engine trough which you push hydrogen.
Of course if you are using dynamite to power your craft, there is no surprise that things blow up. Half-assed work will give half-asses results. The craft displayed here would be handled by NASA, by the best engineers there are.
As for nuclear danger? Oh yeah the "it will bring a megaton explosion by accident" argument is pretty much the only one, and it would need to defile several well-known laws of physics. Are you someone that actually knows how dangerous these things are, by education and profession?
Not nuclear powered world? France is practically fully nuclear-powered. The USA Navy uses nuclear power in its ships, and has a perfect record regarding safety. RTGs is what used for spaceprobes. Radiotherapy is frequently used as health treatment. There was even the "Flying Crowbar" (SLAM), a nuclear-powered bomber.
And lets not forget everyone's favourite: SUN. The sun uses very nasty and powerful thermonuclear fusion.
Furthermore, nothing is truly safe. You can make spacerockets and things more safer by making them more simple. The Space Shuttle is very complicated, hence its high maintenance requirements. It has failed twice, despite of that. The Soyouz has an even better track record.
No spacecraft, not even Soyouz, is completely safe. It cannot be. Would a nuclear powered spacerocket be completely safe? No. Can it be safe at all? Yes, certainly. Can it be safe enough that its advantages outweighs its risks? Yes, they can be.
And notice that I didn't call YOU specifically or anyone else on this board a "nuclear fearing tree-huggers". So you can stop the name calling.
And Pomelos, just look into people's reaction when it comes to anything nuclear, and look up just how these things really are. People are intellectually afraid of radioactivity, because they don't understand it. Cancer causing chemicals? People will eat, drink and breath them regularly. A key-chain that glows due to decaying tritum? "Ack, take the evil away from me". And this isn't just "tree-huggers". This is everyone's reaction, except those that are actually know stuff.
| Pomelos said: | | As for myself, I only see this: it has never be built, and not even considered by actual rocket design agencies for the last 40 years. |
It is always considered, just never able to be done. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, NASA all considered and made plans for decades for such crafts. They just know that it will never get supported by politics that fund them. And private spacetravel is still in its infancy.
Just NASA:
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GLTRS/browse.pl?2003/TM-2003-212349.html
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/stus1962.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spacetug.htm
Let me show you a pretty accurate representation of how popular nuclear power is: http://techfox.comicgenesis.com/d/20050905.html | |  | |  |
|
 | | | | ![]() | Zixinus said: | | Cassini-Hyden |
Cassini-Hybris is a fancier name. It sounds greek and passionately cultivated. | | | | |
|
| written by Naavis on May 25, 2007 21:03 |
| | | | ![]() | Zixinus said: | | You are also storing very powerfully reactant chemicals. With nuclear thermal, you have a hot engine trough which you push hydrogen. |
Oh, so hydrogen never blows up? | | | | |
|
   | |  | | ![]() Frankly, off topic for a second, radioactive waste (in general) isn't a very big problem. Ever head of a place called Yucca Mountain?
Quote (Wikipedia):
The proposed repository zone will cover 1150 acres (4.7 km²), be 1000 feet (300 m) below the surface of the mountain and 1000 feet (300 m) above the water table.
Endquote.
It is going to be a place to store waste long-term. Since it's in a desert, you don't have to worry about it getting into the ground water supply. If water did happen to make it's way into the mountain, it would quickly be dealt with by people who know what they're doing. And for the record, although most people generally think about barrels leaking grene ooze when they hear 'nuclear waste'; it's actually just long metal tubes containing spent uranium pellets. No ooze  .
Oh, and proof that it's safe to transport nuclear waste:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4
-------------------
And as for the rocket, I don't see why it wouldn't work... it's worth a shot anyways. And it says right in the first post that the waist is shot towards the sun. It isn't going to rain down on us <.< . I don't see why anyone thinks about nuclear power differently than fuel power.... It's just a different medium. And this medium happens to have easier to manage by-products  . I say go for it...
Edit: By the way, if you're going to talk about a spacemission as if you know all about it, at least call it by the proper name. It's Cassini-Huygens, not Hyden...
Edit2: Dur didn't read second page | |  | |  |
|
| | | | ![]() The reliability of having storage facilities at Yucca Mountain is easily questionable. The main reason for this is that it needs to store its contents for hundreds of thousands of years without being disturbed. This is along a fault line in a mountain range formed by past volcanic activity. Even if the facility is able to hold up as disired, there is an even greater possibility that some future civilization might inadvertantly open it up. If the Earth is inhabited by intelligent beings in 100,000 years, will they know enough not to go tunnelling into that mountain range for any reason? Maybe they'll discover ancient artifacts pointing toward an immense underground facility there, and make attempts to unlock its secrets, much as we have done with ancient egyption structures.
That video is interesting, but doesn't prove that transporting nuclear waste is entirely safe, just that the canisters held up in those situations tested. There's always the possibilty of some unexpected form of sabotage. | | | | |
|
 | |  | | ![]() I am all for nuclear powered spacecrafts, space stations and eventually off-world colonies. Unfortunately, I see the likelihood of that happening in a government-controlled agency is low, due to one thing which Zix pointed out:
| Zix said: | | People are intellectually afraid of radioactivity, because they don't understand it |
The government must respond to the public voice, which often says no. But hopefully the private sector might be more inclined to pursue the technology when the time comes. Unless we have discovered better alternatives by then. | |  | |  |
|
| | | | ![]() | Cryoburner said: | The reliability of having storage facilities at Yucca Mountain is easily questionable. The main reason for this is that it needs to store its contents for hundreds of thousands of years without being disturbed. This is along a fault line in a mountain range formed by past volcanic activity. Even if the facility is able to hold up as disired, there is an even greater possibility that some future civilization might inadvertantly open it up. If the Earth is inhabited by intelligent beings in 100,000 years, will they know enough not to go tunnelling into that mountain range for any reason? Maybe they'll discover ancient artifacts pointing toward an immense underground facility there, and make attempts to unlock its secrets, much as we have done with ancient egyption structures.
That video is interesting, but doesn't prove that transporting nuclear waste is entirely safe, just that the canisters held up in those situations tested. There's always the possibilty of some unexpected form of sabotage. |
Frankly, if a future civilization does discover the facility in 100,000 years:
1. The radioactivity level will most likely have dropped dramatically
and
2. Not our problem. We take risks every day when we dig up ancient egyptian tombs and such. Not to mention, we are going to have the waste one way or another and we might as well put in the safest place we can (which currently is Yucca Mountain). Besides, if we are extinct from Earth in 100,000 years, it will most likely be from either nuclear war or space colonization. In the case of war, there will be massive amount of uncontained waste anyway. And what's the worst that will happen if a future civilization opens it? Assuming they have the technology to mine down thousands of feet (Because it will have been buried long ago by then) then they will probably have the tech to detect radiation as well. And if they don't, a few of their archeologists die <.< Oh wow I feel so deppressed </sarcasm>. | | | | |
|
 | |  | | ![]() I agree with MVSGS' point here, in the sense that I have doubt in "future" civilizations doing archaeology... we'll be colonizing Gliese 581 by that time...
 | |  | |  |
|
| written by Zixinus on May 28, 2007 10:24 |
| | | | ![]() | Cryoburner said: | | A quick list of these can be found here |
Notice that no deaths were mentioned, and that the more dangerous accidents were done by the USSR,not by the USA. The Soviets were famous for their disregard for common sense and safety in my country.
Also the site is protesting againts Cassini too. I do not consider it a really valid source.
| Cryoburner said: | | My recommendation is for the development of clean, renewable-energy wind powered spacecraft. : |
We don't have any. We have to use what we have, and not hope that some miracle technology will solve all our problems. We know how to handle nuclear power, we know what to do with it, how to take care of it, what to do when things go to hell.
Furthermore, atomic radiation isn't some magical, evil thing. We are bombarded with radiation every day.
| Cryoburner said: | | If the Earth is inhabited by intelligent beings in 100,000 years, will they know enough not to go tunnelling into that mountain range for any reason? Maybe they'll discover ancient artifacts pointing toward an immense underground facility there, and make attempts to unlock its secrets, much as we have done with ancient egyption structures. |
If it is an Earth-evolved species, then it will take millions of years for them to develop. By that time, there will be very little radioactive waste for them to meddle with.
If they are aliens from an other planet or something like that, then they are aware of the treat radioactivity possesses. They are from space after all. They will be prepared for it. It only takes once or twice to figure out what the radiation symbol means.
And you should also worry about landfills. Glass doesn't decay at all, I recall. What if one of them steps into a weak spot on the landfill and cuts himself?
| Naavis said: | | Oh, so hydrogen never blows up? |
If properly handled, no. But you can use its reactivity with the air's oxygen to form a jet, that could lessen further the power required to get the thing into space. Skylon actually is planned to work this way.
I also recall that when it heats up enough, hydrogen won't react properly.
| Cryoburner said: | | That video is interesting, but doesn't prove that transporting nuclear waste is entirely safe, just that the canisters held up in those situations tested. There's always the possibilty of some unexpected form of sabotage. |
It is safe as it can be. When you are afraid of sabotage, you are afraid of an outside source of treat, not how its handled. I also presume that there are enough armed guards to prevent half-assed attempts for sabotage, and a serious terrorist would not really consider using it. Dirty bombs are not that good.
| Stargazer said: | | Unless we have discovered better alternatives by then. |
A better alternative would be fusion. We've been trying that for the last 40-50 years.
A curios site on where we are with that:
www.fusor.net
EDIT:
Pomelos mentioned that is nothing is nuclear powered in our world, except for civil and military power plants.
I beg to differ once again, with this that I come accidentally across:
http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/Pacemaker_Pu238.gif
This is a pacemaker. The power is enough for several years. | | | | |
|
└> last changed by Zixinus on May 28, 2007 at 19:20
|
|
