No Nukes in Space

"ramiga" wrote in message
oups.com...
The sun neutralizes the poison - radiation - before it sends the energy
into space. We create nuclear waste. Will the sun remediate the waste
we send out. Only if we put the waste into the sun, otherwise, natural
laws of solar remediation are not available.

Ok, the above paragraph shows that you are clearly a kook or have absolutely
not idea what or how radiation works.



Yes, Science Live had the prject team discuss the fuel source while the
vehicle was in transit, among other things. The team leader also
mentioned that NASA was dedicated to not putting nukes in space.
However, 2 years later, Congress approved it and we now have a project
to do just that.

And which project is that exactly?

If you're referring to New Horizons, that already launched.



peace, mmgr
no nukes in space

"ramiga" wrote in message
oups.com...
to the group

You guys can't be serious. depleted uranium is terrible to us here on
Earth. space is not a waste basket, it is the clean energy that comes
into our atmosphere without harming us.

Again, clearly you have no clue. w/o harming us? Take a look at skin
cancer.


The research indicates that we
could create a small ort like cloud of nuclear radiation (poison) in
space that could eventurally lead to more disasters that would obstruct
future explorations.

Umm, WHAT research?

Consider a cloud of depleted uranium that we might
fly into. Apparently, we would never be able to return home, similar to
what we see in sensational movies.

No, apparently you have no clue. Do you realize first of all exactly how
HUGE space is?

Secondly, depleted uranium by its definition is fairly non-radioactive. Why
do you think it's called depleted? It's not used for RTGs. (Heck, even
uranium isn't used for RTGs these days.)

And any particles pretty much would be swept out of anything above HEO
pretty quickly.

This has been discussed, all the ins
and outs by NASA and other scientists and NASA is proceeding to take
the chance, with the idea that thousands of lives could be damaged by
blast in various ways.

A mistake could wipe out central florida.
A mistake could pollute the atmosphere.
Blast in space could send that tiny cloud of radiation back to Earth.
Blast in space leaves that tiny cloud of poisonous radiation in that
spot.
That spot could aggregate until no space exploration is possible.

Whether on Earth or in space, we are adding trash to our solar system.

We need to learn to take nuclear to its limits and stop half-stepping.
It is better to know how to burn out nuclear by products like the sun
does than to leave that job half done. We need to slow down and think
everything through.

Good advice. Take it.



peace, mmgr
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...p12apr99_1.htm

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"ramiga" wrote in message

to the group

You guys can't be serious. depleted uranium is terrible to us here on
Earth. space is not a waste basket, it is the clean energy that comes
into our atmosphere without harming us.

Again, clearly you have

nothing of significance to offer.

plonk

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

"ramiga" wrote in news:1138449261.728898.228070
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

You are technically incompetant. Learn the technology,
else we'll either roast you online or ignore you.

--Damon

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:49:41 -0600, Damon Hill
wrote:

"ramiga" wrote in news:1138449261.728898.228070
:

You are technically incompetant. Learn the technology,
else we'll either roast you online or ignore you.

It is interesting how the only person here currently making anti-
nuclear power comments is rather short on the science knowledge behind
the very subject.

At this rate you would think that those two to three dozen people that
were protesting against the New Horizons launch should have been
tested to see if they had suitable scientific knowledge. Those that
fail can then be kicked out with a "Come back when you actually know
what you are talking about!"

The wonderful rights to free speech and public protest, even if they
are totally clueless.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Cardman wrote in
:

It is interesting how the only person here currently making anti-
nuclear power comments is rather short on the science knowledge behind
the very subject.

At this rate you would think that those two to three dozen people that
were protesting against the New Horizons launch should have been
tested to see if they had suitable scientific knowledge. Those that
fail can then be kicked out with a "Come back when you actually know
what you are talking about!"

The wonderful rights to free speech and public protest, even if they
are totally clueless.

Ignorance and willful stupidity as an essential component of a
free society? There's an upper limit to stupidity that should be
tolerated before slapping the dope silly and telling him to try
working with the facts. Won't happen, of course; he's emotionally
committed to being anti-nuclear and the facts are irrelevant.

--Damon

On 28 Jan 2006 04:06:38 -0800, "ramiga" wrote:

to the group

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

Ramiga, you really need to do some reading on the subject and at least
have your basic facts in order before arguing your case publicly.

Depleted Uranium is indeed somewhat controversial, but it is hardly
"terrible to us". Do you even know what DU is?

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

Brian

To the group:

We need to think and not idealize situations based on power. We have
had nuclear accidents. Does this not bother you? Will you please tell
me the results of blast over Florida and how I am wrong about those
resutls. How about blast in the atmosphere, before the Van Allen Belt.
And beyond the Van Allen belt. What about blast in space? Will the
resulting radiation cloud impact future space missions or not?

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

Can you think?

peace, mmgr
no nukes in space

On 29 Jan 2006 05:06:49 -0800, "ramiga" wrote:

We need to think and not idealize situations based on power. We have
had nuclear accidents. Does this not bother you? Will you please tell

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.

me the results of blast over Florida and how I am wrong about those
resutls. How about blast in the atmosphere, before the Van Allen Belt.
And beyond the Van Allen belt. What about blast in space? Will the
resulting radiation cloud impact future space missions or not?

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.

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

Can you think in terms of technology that currently WORKS? Using
current technology, fusion is unsustainable - except in short bursts.
It takes more power to produce and contain than it generates. And
let's not forget that, no matter what form of fusion we use, it won't
be totally radioactive. Stray neutrons will bombard the containment
facility, eventually causing the very structure to be radioactive.

Can you think?

Can you?

no nukes in space

Your prejudice is showing... ;-)

I am biased against nuclear. The movie "China Syndrome" made me do
research. However, more importantly, physicists have been on TV time
and time again discussing the impossibilty of Nuclearn Fusion. I take
the stand that nuclear fusion is not impossible, the same as
electricity is not impossible, though I gather some considered Benjamin
Franklin mad.

Einstein once stated that using the Earth as a laboratory is as
feasible as experimenting in space and should give us the same results.
Once we develop a fusion reactor that works on Earth, we can apply that
same principle in space. Before that, as it is now, we are just
half-stepping and continuing to promote pollution from polluted ideas
that constantly circulate in the global mind.

A clear thinking being brings about clear solutions and does not stop
half way. Using Columbus as an example: He had a terrible time getting
here. It all looks like a mistake, but is it really? The object lesson
of his journey from Spain is that he persisted. For physicists to say a
fusion reactor is impossible is fatalistic and complacent.

peace, mmgr