The Urge to Explore

John Schilling wrote:
In article uDsre.218$yW.172@fed1read02, Mark Fergerson says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:ecire.7$yW.5@fed1read02...

Jeff Findley wrote:

If unmanned vehicles really are cheaper and more capable, why don't we
see the US Navy building unmanned submarines to replace existing submarines?

Because of the chain of responsibility involved in handling
nuclear materials like reactors and bombs. That's why military
pilots are always officers.

When we get to the point of building vehicles with big nuclear reactors
and/or nuclear rocket engines to really explore the outer planets, we'll
have the same issue with spacecraft.

No we won't, Greenpeace will see to it that we never launch
another gram or radioactive material. The *******s.


Greenpeace has conspicuously failed to stop the launch of spacecraft
carrying many grams of radioactive material in the past. Greenpeace
has never, to the best of my knowledge, succeeded in stopping the
launch of a spacecraft containing radioactive material. What is the
basis for your belief that Greenpeace will in the future become 100%
effective in this area, where their track record to date is 0% and
the relevant legal precedents are already set?

Greenpeace will see to it that we have to drive around a small band
of whining protesters to get to the site from which we will launch
vehicles with big nuclear reactors and/or nuclear rocket engines.

One logical extension of their rubber dinghy anti-whaling interventions
to nuclear-powered spacecraft, is hot air balloons across the launch
trajectory. People might be interested enough then to watch TV
coverage. Sports pay-per-view?

On 14 Jun 2005, horseshoe7 wrote:



John Schilling wrote:

Greenpeace will see to it that we have to drive around a small band
of whining protesters to get to the site from which we will launch
vehicles with big nuclear reactors and/or nuclear rocket engines.

Yes, but in addition, the left-leaning press corps will also help the
Greenpeace fools hype this nonsense.

The big joke is that, as a result of the leftist's overblowing of the
GLOBAL WARNING whistle, the "enviroMENTALISTS" are now having to back
off on protesting each and every plan to build new Nuclear Reactors, or
update/retrofit old inefficient designs.

And, with Yucca Mountain looking more and more like a reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

We may soon see a resurgence in new Nuclear Power Plant activities.

And soon after, the Super Neato Nuclear Powered Spaceships, and maybe I'll
get one of my own! ****ing Fanboys.

In article .com,
says...

John Schilling wrote:
In article uDsre.218$yW.172@fed1read02, Mark Fergerson says...

Jeff Findley wrote:


When we get to the point of building vehicles with big nuclear reactors
and/or nuclear rocket engines to really explore the outer planets, we'll
have the same issue with spacecraft.

No we won't, Greenpeace will see to it that we never launch
another gram or radioactive material. The *******s.

Greenpeace has conspicuously failed to stop the launch of spacecraft
carrying many grams of radioactive material in the past. Greenpeace
has never, to the best of my knowledge, succeeded in stopping the
launch of a spacecraft containing radioactive material. What is the
basis for your belief that Greenpeace will in the future become 100%
effective in this area, where their track record to date is 0% and
the relevant legal precedents are already set?

Greenpeace will see to it that we have to drive around a small band
of whining protesters to get to the site from which we will launch
vehicles with big nuclear reactors and/or nuclear rocket engines.

One logical extension of their rubber dinghy anti-whaling interventions
to nuclear-powered spacecraft, is hot air balloons across the launch
trajectory. People might be interested enough then to watch TV
coverage. Sports pay-per-view?

If they're going to do this, we need to pay more attention to the people
who seriously propose launching orbital rockets from high-altitude
balloons. Maybe subcontract the whole operation to JP Aerospace, the
Hypersonic Ion Zeppelin people.

Not that the technology is particularly sound, but Greenpeace would need
something with a bit more lift and maneuverability than a hot-air balloon
to keep up. So we get our Nuclear Rockets against a backdrop of Duelling
Giant Airships.

That, I'd pay to see...


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

horseshoe7 wrote:
John Schilling wrote:
Greenpeace will see to it that we have to drive around a small band
of whining protesters to get to the site from which we will launch
vehicles with big nuclear reactors and/or nuclear rocket engines.

Yes, but in addition, the left-leaning press corps will also help the
Greenpeace fools hype this nonsense.

There has been a pretty consistent exponential decay of anti-nuclear
protest energy since the Galileo probe.

There were thousands of protestors, widescale disruption, legal and
political attacks on the Galileo RTG launch.

There were hundreds of protestors, moderate disruption,
and a couple of lawsuits over Ulysses.

There were tens of protestors, and a couple of lawsuits,
and a lot of web-blogging about Cassini.

As far as I know, we're going to launch New Horizons to Pluto
in roughly a year and a half, and haven't seen any protest of
any type rise above the noise filter. A year and a half before
Cassini, there were high profile people making speeches and
lawsuits floating and the like.

No peep has been heard objecting to the one or two RTG powered
Mars rovers which are the Next Big Thing for Mars.

There is a logical conclusion he the anti-nuclear movement
has died off into a few energized diehard zealouts and everyone
else doesn't care anymore. The press coverage has declined in
proportion to the protestor turnout.

Lacking some sort of accident or incident to re-energize them,
the movement may just have naturally died off to the level of
being ineffective at stopping reasonable space nuclear power
and propulsion projects. Evidence suggests so, though assuming
so yet would be optimistic.

None of this should be taken as an excuse to skimp on the safety
engineering and safety review process. The general public
indulges a lot of technical professions relatively lax oversight
on the assumption that we do in fact care and exercise due dilligence
to protect the general public good. Violation of that trust would
be irresponsible, not to mention dangerous and immoral...


-george william herbert

wrote in message
oups.com...

One logical extension of their rubber dinghy anti-whaling interventions
to nuclear-powered spacecraft, is hot air balloons across the launch
trajectory. People might be interested enough then to watch TV
coverage. Sports pay-per-view?

And dependnig on range, a few snipers put a few leaks in their balloon
envelope, wait for them to land and arrest them.

In any case has Greenpeace (as opposed to other groups) actually actively
been involved in trying to stop launches? I can't remember.

The problem is that nuclear means a lot of different things. I would
object to a large amount of radioactive material being placed in
something with the failure rate of shuttle launches and satelite
launches - for example, if we trying launching tons of radioactive
waste into space. But the amounts of radioactive material in the
various space probes are so small that they simply aren't dangerous
even if the thing blows up. The reality of that eventually sank in.

horseshoe7 ) wrote:


: John Schilling wrote:

: Greenpeace will see to it that we have to drive around a small band
: of whining protesters to get to the site from which we will launch
: vehicles with big nuclear reactors and/or nuclear rocket engines.

: Yes, but in addition, the left-leaning press corps will also help the
: Greenpeace fools hype this nonsense.

: The big joke is that, as a result of the leftist's overblowing of the
: GLOBAL WARNING whistle, the "enviroMENTALISTS" are now having to back
: off on protesting each and every plan to build new Nuclear Reactors, or
: update/retrofit old inefficient designs.

Right, which makes the rightests correct about the environment in every
regard...

: And, with Yucca Mountain looking more and more like a reality:

: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

: We may soon see a resurgence in new Nuclear Power Plant activities.

In your backyard, right?

Eric

: - Stewart

In article ,
George William Herbert wrote:
As far as I know, we're going to launch New Horizons to Pluto
in roughly a year and a half,

That would be in roughly half a year now. January 2006.
And the "Nuclear Materials Launch License" or whatever they
call it, is beginning to look like the long pole in the tent.

--
Kathy Rages

Eric Chomko wrote:
horseshoe7 ) wrote:

: The big joke is that, as a result of the leftist's overblowing of the
: GLOBAL WARNING whistle, the "enviroMENTALISTS" are now having to back
: off on protesting each and every plan to build new Nuclear Reactors, or
: update/retrofit old inefficient designs.

Right, which makes the rightests correct about the environment in every
regard...

Hey, think about it - EVERYBODY cares about the environment... the
trick is not to over do it with hysteria.

Global warming is just another overhyped/underscienced STATE OF FEAR.

: And, with Yucca Mountain looking more and more like a reality:

: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

: We may soon see a resurgence in new Nuclear Power Plant activities.

In your backyard, right?

I suppose, in a way - I go to Indian Springs sometimes... but, the fact
is, it really isn't in ANYBODY'S back yard. It is perfect - so quit
your complaining. Or do you prefer the current in situ "casking"
method? The bottom of the Mariana Trench? Blast it to outer space?
Better make up your mind, though - we are going to be having a LOT more
nuclear waste to deal with in the near future

If y'all would quit bitching about new Nuclear Power Plant designs and
implementations, we could switch over to better technology that would
significantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste being generated by
Nuclear Power Plants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

- Stewart

Kathy Rages wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
As far as I know, we're going to launch New Horizons to Pluto
in roughly a year and a half,

That would be in roughly half a year now. January 2006.

I sit corrected. I've been head down in manned capsules for
too long since last I noodled on PK trajectories.

And the "Nuclear Materials Launch License" or whatever they
call it, is beginning to look like the long pole in the tent.

That was always a risk, but is more flexible of a problem
these days (I posit) than hardware problems with the spacecraft...


-george william herbert
/