No Nukes in Space

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

"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?

That this is a pointless request. Why exactly are you opposed to nukes in
space?

And if you're so opposed to them, are you willing to shut down the
uncontrolled fusion reaction that's only 93 million miles away?

And I don't recall antimatter ever being discussed for the DS1 project. It
wouldn't make sense. We simply don't produce nearly enough.


peace, mmgr

On 27 Jan 2006 03:50:17 -0800, "ramiga" wrote:

Sent to NASA

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

Yes, we need far more of it. NASA moving to a new and improved super
RTG would be a start.

And well like here in the UK we need new nuclear power plants to help
reduce our carbon emissions. Lots more as it happens.

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.

You mean unlike all that carbon dioxide being pumped into the
atmosphere which is the number one cause of global warning. So by
avoiding nuclear power our planet gets to die from a global carbon
smog.

At this rate you will start to sound like President Bush.

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

It is not unusable. And I would not say that "burning" is quite the
right word to describe "nuclear fission".

They once believed that the Sun was made from burning coal you know,
where I guess that not everyone has caught up.

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.

Space sounds like a better place to do your testing. No people around
to moan about the power generation near them.

There are too many unknowns.

Not really. Space is like full of radiation already.

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.

So you do not know what you are talking about.

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

Nice. Both very expensive and difficult to contain. I would like to
see an unplanned large scale antimatter bomb go off in your
neighbourhood. Well not really.

Antimatter now is not possible. It cannot be made in the required
volumes.

Please, no nukes in space.

Nukes everywhere in space. Clean reliable energy for all. Just blast
any leftovers into the Sun.

They tend to bury it simply because it is cheaper.

What are your thoughts?

NASA has a requirement to use nuclear power in space. It is not a free
choice but a requirement of the mission.

Your comments are unlikely to change their mind.

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

ramiga wrote:

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

Are you also against that big nuke in the sky called the sun?
Your nuclear paranoia is showing.

Nog wrote:

Please, no nukes in space.

What are your thoughts?
peace, mmgr

Are you also against that big nuke in the sky called the sun?

You should be able to grok that is referring to nuclear fission.

Your nuclear paranoia is showing.

Your nuclear ignorance is self sustaining.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

"ramiga" wrote in message
oups.com...

drivel snipped

I'm assuming this post was from a troll looking for attention.

"ramiga" wrote in news:1138362617.117616.268320
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

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

That technology will not be practical without a massive
source of power to generate, very inefficiently, the
antimatter. That source will certainly have to be
conventional nuclear fission for the first few decades.

Please, no nukes in space.

What are your thoughts?

I want LOTS more nuclear energy, everywhere. Sure
beats burning coal.

--Damon, having fission chips for lunch

Damon Hill wrote:

"ramiga" wrote in news:1138362617.117616.268320
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

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

That technology will not be practical without a massive
source of power to generate, very inefficiently, the
antimatter. That source will certainly have to be
conventional nuclear fission for the first few decades.

I could envisage giant solar power sats orbiting in mercury orbit,
using the energy to generate anti matter for high velocity travel.

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.

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.

peace, mmgr
no nukes in space

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. 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. 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. 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.

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