A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old June 1st 06, 02:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

In sci.space.policy Henry Spencer wrote:

For example, I see no mention of the problem of keeping the collection
system free of barnacles and other sea life, a problem that's never been
fully solved even for ships.

Bear in mind that we're talking about doing chemical processing on an
enormous scale. To get 30 TW-yr worth of U-235 per year, assuming
complete recovery of U-235 from natural uranium, would require complete
extraction of the uranium content of about a cubic kilometer of seawater
per *minute*. I'm not aware of any chemical process -- not even
purification of drinking water -- which has ever been done on anything
like that scale.


The trick is growing the right kind of sponge as the filtration medium ;-)

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Ads
  #132  
Old June 1st 06, 03:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Sander Vesik wrote:

After India builds a dozen - and there are good reasons to think they
will - it will be much less of a problem. Give it a couple of decades.


I seriously doubt this will happen soon. Breeding has very serious
economic problems. Reprocessing is expensive, fabricating fuel
elements containing Pu or 233U is expensive (due to the high
alpha activity, particularly of the latter if it is contaminated
with 232U), and ordinary uranium is still comparatively cheap.

You *might* see thorium used to extend enriched uranium
in once-through fuel cycles, since that avoids reprocessing.

Paul
  #133  
Old June 2nd 06, 11:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

The point is, of course, that even the most expensive viable
alternative power source is orders of magnitude cheaper than designing,
testing, building, and maintaining structures in space.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.