CNN: U.S. considers plutonium space rockets

John Savard wrote:


I guess we can shortly expect from CNN a story about how NASA is going
to make a space rocket powered by concentrated orange juice crystals...



How about Pinot Grand Fenwick wine?
Seriously, I wonder if the plutonium for classified programs is for
military space use of some sort (RTGs for reconsats, etc.) or is for the
production of the controversial "bunker-buster" bombs?

Pat

GA-5009, 2kg of Pu per second, momentum constrained jets of propellant
reacting against a minimalist combustion chamber.

Rocket:
2: a jet engine containing its own propellant and driven by
reaction propulsion [syn: rocket engine]


The only problem is that the CNN reporter doesn't know of this, and the
actual plan isn't this ambitious.

Jim Oberg wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote
Why is it funny? This has been in the works for months - we've all
known the decision was coming soon one way or another.

PLUTONIUM ROCKETS ??????????????????

Yahbut, that was in the headline. I'm sure some of us have
had experience in seeing things we've written show up under
headlines that made us wince fairly forcefully. I know I have.

(Actually, headlineology is an amusing hobby in itself. It's
fun to compare headlines with the stories under them to see
how well they match up. Also to compare headlines over the
same stories in, zB, the Washington Times and the New York
Times.)

Pat Flannery wrote:

How about Pinot Grand Fenwick wine?

Probably goes well with ham roast a la cobalt thorium-G.

Seriously, I wonder if the plutonium for classified programs is for
military space use of some sort (RTGs for reconsats, etc.) or is for the
production of the controversial "bunker-buster" bombs?

Press and other accounts of cold war submarine cable tapping programs
and other monitoring equipment in remote locations like the Himalayas
mention the use of RTG's for power.

How does Pu-238 figure into "bunker-buster" bombs?

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:18:11 GMT, lid (John
Savard) wrote (in part):


So *that* part makes perfect sense. But why are they using any
U.S.-produced plutonium for NASA projects, when they have plutonium from
Russia available for them?

Presumably because the Russian plutonium is too old for use in a mission
to the outer planets.

Mike Chan wrote:


How does Pu-238 figure into "bunker-buster" bombs?



Whoops, wrong isotope! :-[
However I was thinking further about use of RTGs in relation to military
satellites, they might be useful in Earth orbit due to the fact that you
could delete the solar arrays- which are a vulnerable area for attack by
laser, shrapnel, or space nuclear detonation effects (like the Argus
tests showed) and thereby decrease the overall size of the satellite,
making it easier to use stealth technology to conceal it.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


However I was thinking further about use of RTGs in relation
to military satellites, they might be useful in Earth orbit
due to the fact that you could delete the solar arrays-
which are a vulnerable area for attack by laser, shrapnel,
or space nuclear detonation effects (like the Argus tests
showed) and thereby decrease the overall size of the satellite,
making it easier to use stealth technology to conceal it.


Been there, done that: LES-8/9. Possibly PROWLER et seq.

Note that RTGs do eliminate the need for solar panels, but
themselves need radiator surface. An advantage of the radiators
is that they just need to be pointed Out There rather than
generally sunward as the solar panels do. Out There subtends
way more solid angle than the sun does and allows a bit more
design freedom for those wishing to remain inconspicuous.

Allen Thomson wrote:

Been there, done that: LES-8/9. Possibly PROWLER et seq.

Note that RTGs do eliminate the need for solar panels, but
themselves need radiator surface.


An advantage of the radiators
is that they just need to be pointed Out There rather than
generally sunward as the solar panels do. Out There subtends
way more solid angle than the sun does and allows a bit more
design freedom for those wishing to remain inconspicuous.



You would want the radiator to be in shadow at all times, so at least as
far as seeing it by reflected sunlight that should help.
It might be interesting to look at Sven Grahn's excellent webpage on the
Soviet nuclear-powered RORSATs to see what their radiator array looked
like: http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/RORSAT/RORSAT.html
In that case it was a wrap-around radiator on the exterior a cylindrical
spacecraft.
What's interesting here is just how small the reactor was- the reactor
itself was under 1 meter in length, but turned out 3 kw of electrical
power generated from 100 kw of thermal output.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Mike Chan wrote:


How does Pu-238 figure into "bunker-buster" bombs?



Whoops, wrong isotope! :-[
However I was thinking further about use of RTGs in relation to military
satellites, they might be useful in Earth orbit due to the fact that you
could delete the solar arrays- which are a vulnerable area for attack by
laser, shrapnel, or space nuclear detonation effects (like the Argus
tests showed) and thereby decrease the overall size of the satellite,
making it easier to use stealth technology to conceal it.

Though I suspect their thermal efficiency is quite poor, making them
easy to pick up on Infrared.

making it easier to use stealth technology to
conceal it.

Been there, done that: LES-8/9.

Speaking of which, LES-8 seems to have lost attitude
control and to be rotating, exhibiting an interesting
double flash pattern. One is tempted to speculate that
the rumored optical-stealth mirror is now generating
solar flashes.

See http://www.kfetter.com/satvideo/08746.wmv
for a video of LES-8 made last night.