"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" :

I suggest you do some reading on how metallic Uranium
behaves on impact, here's a hint - its pyrophoric

Good point for the metal, still means nothing if it is in oxide form - and
at
no point insures the dust size is the right one to stay in the lungs.


The results from testing of uranium penetrators carried
out by the British military indicates the risk is real

Actually I'm behaving as if Uranium is a heavy metal that
needs handling with care and respect

You still read to me like you are handling it like it will wipe out the
human
race.


I cant help you control your imagination
I'm afraid.

I dont recall claiming it would.

No, you imply it by writting as if a nuclear reactor falling to earth must
kill large numbers of people, and that where it lands is doomed, doomed,
doomed. Basic solid lumps of radioactive material can detected and
picked/removed - the proper design/material will prevent dust production.
You write as if all thet is impossible.


No I dont, indeed I mentioned the cost of the
Canadian cleanup operation.

I am not the one making the claim that its launched cold,
frankly I dont know but given the poor safety record
of Soviet designed reactors I'd need to know before
making that assumption.

Consider the poor safety record, I am even more sure they could not do it
with a hot reactor. But I agree with one thing, if there is anyone on the
face of this planet who would be as dumb as to intergrate a 'hot' reactor
the
Soviets are by far the leading suspects.

Yes they do, these reactors had an operational life of less
than a year

Old designs, not a design planned for such a mission.


The only designs being evaluated at present are the
follow on Topaz reactors - another Soviet design

The cost of cleaning up the mess left by Kosmos 954 was in excess
of 14 million dollars (in 1977) and that was in a remote area

And as you admit, the soviets would be very unlikely to make a design with
safety in mind. A better design would have cost a lot less to clean up.


Feel free to give details of such designs.

Nuclear power gives us more speed and operates further from the sun
than
solar panels.

No nuclear propelled spacecraft has ever flown, there are spacecraft
propelled by solar electric drive in service. This claim fails
the reality check.

Now you are being picky, you know damn well we are talking about a new
design
that has not even been built yet. The question is using what we know
today
how good a design can we make using no new tech.


No I'm being an engineer, vapourware doesnt count.
The only hardware alternative out there is Topaz 2

Because the Soviet designs werent suitable for
high levels of power generation or extended service.
Essentialy they were simply higher powered RTG's

Ok, by why does this stop us from designing better systems?


Go to it.

They put out only 2 kw and weighed around 1200kg
Thats less than 2 watts per kg, the latest generation of
solar cells out out 100 wats per kg in near earth orbit
and 10 watts per kg at Jupiter. The ion drive on the
NASA probe Deep Space 1 was powered by a
2.5 kw solar array and the entire spacecraft weighed
less than the reactor of a Kosmos series satellite

And you don't think that after all these years a better design can't be
made?

Substantial amounts of money have been thrown
at the Topaz II reactor but it still only outputs 6kw

Sounds like a government program to me, they can't reach their goals but
they
still plug away at the same ideas.

This is a poorer power to weight ratio than the
solar electric system adopted for the DAWN
mission which has a 10kw triple junction solar array.

This mission has a launch scheduled for June 2006
and is expected to spend the best part of a decade
exploring the asteroid belt.

The present generation of nuclear generators designed
for use in space just dont output the levels of power
that would justify their use.

Then it is time to design and build the next generation.


Feel free to invest your pension fund, just dont
volunteer mine OK

Keith