No Nukes in Space

"ramiga" wrote:

:To the group:
:
:We need to think and not idealize situations based on power. We have
:had nuclear accidents. Does this not bother you?

Not especially, no.

:Will you please tell
:me the results of blast over Florida and how I am wrong about those
:resutls.

To answer the first, not much. Answering the second would require
that you make a claim as to what you think the 'results' are.

:How about blast in the atmosphere, before the Van Allen Belt.

We set off lots of nuclear bombs. Not a big deal, even if the
unlikely event occurs.

:And beyond the Van Allen belt. What about blast in space? Will the
:resulting radiation cloud impact future space missions or not?

Not.

:Speak to the subjects. What is the most accident proof technology we
:can use.

Right now, RTGs if we have low power requirements. If we're close to
the Sun (and have low to moderate power requirements) solar can be
made to work over a relatively short term (solar cells 'age' and die
out). If we're not close to the Sun and need more than low power or
have high power requirements, nuclear isn't just the "most accident
proof"; it's the ONLY technology.

:If all you have is nuclear in the present fomulas of usage,
:then we do have a problem. Can you even think in terms of fusion?

You think fusion isn't nuclear? You think we have it now? You think
we can lift a fusion plant into space?

:Can you think?

Can you?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Pat Flannery wrote:

:Len Lekx wrote:
:
: The same applies to you. We have had - what? - three major nuclear
:accidents. (TMI, Chernobyl, and a Russian spy satellite that crashed
:in northern Canada... please correct me if I'm wrong.) How many
:coal-mine accidents, cave-ins, dam-bursts, etc. have been reported
:over the years?
:
: Nuclear power is not 100% safe - what technology IS??? - but it's
:the safest we currently have.
:
:Yeah, but when the coal mine has a fire you don't have to seal it in a
:concrete sarcophagus for around 1000 years.

No, what you do is seal it up and just let it burn the seam out, being
left to deal with all the subsidence, risk to people, fire hazards if
it surfaces, etc.

There are coal seams in this country that have been burning for
decades. You can't put them out. They're much more dangerous than an
entombed reactor.

: Can you say 'Flash in the Pan'? :-) Certainly, launching an
:*activated* reactor on a rocket would be a Bad Thing, but nobody in
:their right mind is going to do that. (Unless you're a terrorist
:trying to make a point, that is...) Space - above AND below the Van
:Allens - is awash with radiation... anything we add would be
:infinitesimal compared to what's already out there.
:
:Including a few clouds of radioactive potassium droplets for instance:
:http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/RORSAT/RORSAT.html

And this has been a risk to who, precisely?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

"ramiga" wrote:

:NASA has used ion reactors and have a working plasma reactor.

Excuse me, but just what are these things?

:I
:consider these very plausible. In 2001, they discussed using nuclear in
:a different way. This does not cause harm to us on Earth. The plan is
:quite logical. It would not be the type of reactor we use on Earth.

And I consider that you really don't have a clue what you are talking
about.

:I would like for them to proceed as originally planned, and really hope
:that the ion or plasma engines become the optimal choice.

They've still got to have power. Where's that coming from?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 28 Jan 2006 04:06:38 -0800, in a place far, far away, "ramiga"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

You guys can't be serious. depleted uranium is terrible to us here on
Earth.

In what way?

On 30 Jan 2006 04:09:03 -0800, in a place far, far away, "ramiga"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

CalTech has a video that shows the principle in action, they used
cartoons for their depiction.

Oh, well, if you can't believe a cartoon, what can you believe? As
thousands of death-chanting brainwashed Islamists can attest, cartoons
must be taken seriously. Attention must be paid.

Damn, you are one stupid, lefist, knee-jerk commie pinko anti-progress
activist.....
You probably picketed at the launch of Cassini (or at least wanted to),
didn't you?


"ramiga" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sent to NASA

It appears to me that we are somewhat weak on nuclear power.

We already know that fuel can be burnt to ashes without leaving a type
of residue that can be harmful, such as when burning wood.

We also know that using nuclear power creates unburnt and unusable
waste.

Here is the lesson.

We can use nuclear power without waste but, we must learn this before
we decide to put that power in space. There are too many unknowns.
Using nuclear power today is only half of what is required for the
highest and best results. In order to complete the process, the next
half, we must have a way to burn nuclear so as to leave no trace of
potentially harmful effects, like ashes from wood.

I prefer that you use antimatter as was discussed with the DS1 project.

Please, no nukes in space.

What are your thoughts?
peace, mmgr