I said keep it civil or expect a 3 day vacation
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t3/reports/eurtc1.pdfFlaming_Maniac wrote:
sourceBLdw wrote:
when one nuclear spacecraft launch might cause a death of 10 people in the same period of time as half a coal plant.
Page 55, pretty small figures if you ask me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or … n_vehicles
800 bombs at .14kt each means... 112kt?
I'm still struggling to see how this is a safe alternative using fission.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
To pull the relevant paragraph from the source (thanks presidentsheep)
EPA wrote:
Based on the CAP-93 modeling, 667 of the 684 plants are estimated
to pose multipathway risks less than 1 x 10-5. The highest estimated
multipathway radiation exposure for the MEI due to radionuclide
emissions from utilities was predicted to be 1.5 millirems (mRems) per
year, which is estimated to pose an increased cancer risk of 3 x 10 -5.
Seventeen plants (13 coal- and 4 oil-fired plants) were estimated to
pose multipathway risks between 1 x 10-5 and 3 x 10-5. The estimated
cancer incidence in the U.S., due to emissions and dispersion of
radionuclides within 50 km of each utility, is estimated to be 0.3
cancer deaths/yr. The cancer incidence appears to be mostly due to
inhalation exposure. The non-inhalation exposures contribute only
slightly to the incidence. The non-inhalation exposure pathways have
a greater impact on the MEIs, especially for coal-fired plants.
Have you guys never heard of the NERVA rocket? (another nuclear powered rocket)
I was fascinated by it when I was studying space systems. It absolutely blows everything else away in terms of raw performance.
It was considered safe enough to be approved by NASA and congress.
I was fascinated by it when I was studying space systems. It absolutely blows everything else away in terms of raw performance.
It was considered safe enough to be approved by NASA and congress.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-08-14 11:09:13)
Now that seems a more realistic and safe alternative. Damn nixon.Bertster7 wrote:
Have you guys never heard of the NERVA rocket? (another nuclear powered rocket)
I was fascinated by it when I was studying space systems. It absolutely blows everything else away in terms of raw performance.
It was considered safe enough to be approved by NASA and congress.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/1 … ars-proof/
i'm not surprised - good example of how science works and why you should be deeply skeptical of a new fantastic but as of yet unpublished/unreviewed paper.
i'm not surprised - good example of how science works and why you should be deeply skeptical of a new fantastic but as of yet unpublished/unreviewed paper.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It was approved during the Cold War, and only the upper stage of the modified Saturn rocket was nuclear.Bertster7 wrote:
Have you guys never heard of the NERVA rocket? (another nuclear powered rocket)
I was fascinated by it when I was studying space systems. It absolutely blows everything else away in terms of raw performance.
It was considered safe enough to be approved by NASA and congress.
I am well aware of that. I did study the thing at uni rather than just reading about it on wikipedia. That's only the prototype to test the theory, many variants were proposed.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It was approved during the Cold War, and only the upper stage of the modified Saturn rocket was nuclear.Bertster7 wrote:
Have you guys never heard of the NERVA rocket? (another nuclear powered rocket)
I was fascinated by it when I was studying space systems. It absolutely blows everything else away in terms of raw performance.
It was considered safe enough to be approved by NASA and congress.
It's still a fairly safe nuclear rocket that is miles ahead of any chemical rockets in terms of power. The specific impulse it generates is crazy and that's what you want from a rocket.
Okay? I am disagreeing with nuclear rockets being launched from the ground. Nuclear rockets in space are a given. I don't know enough about the fallout patterns from the upper atmosphere to make a judgment about its danger to the public one way or the other, though it is certainly better than launching it from the ground. Safety to the crew was not an issue.
The only thing that worries me about nuclear rockets within the atmosphere, no matter how safe the engineering or how sophisticated the computers are, is what happens if they crash? Plane crashes are rare enough, as are space shuttle ones. However in the rare event of that happening, it doesnt seem like a good idea to have a load of uranium on board. Hydrogen (and isotopes) fine, but heavier stuff? Seems too great a risk to me.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
The same could largely be said of nuclear power plants.
What kind of G's would we be talking about with an explosion that big? That has to be taken into account as well if you plan on having manned flights.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
acceleration dampers would be required
What do you mean "explosion"?JohnG@lt wrote:
What kind of G's would we be talking about with an explosion that big? That has to be taken into account as well if you plan on having manned flights.
Well, that effectively neutralizes the primary benefit unless we're talking massive payloads.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
acceleration dampers would be required
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You are talking controlled nuclear explosions are you not?Bertster7 wrote:
What do you mean "explosion"?JohnG@lt wrote:
What kind of G's would we be talking about with an explosion that big? That has to be taken into account as well if you plan on having manned flights.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No.JohnG@lt wrote:
You are talking controlled nuclear explosions are you not?Bertster7 wrote:
What do you mean "explosion"?JohnG@lt wrote:
What kind of G's would we be talking about with an explosion that big? That has to be taken into account as well if you plan on having manned flights.
Just heat transfer from fission. Not explosions.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-08-15 12:13:30)
That is what I am talking about, I dunno what Berster is talking about.
2) dampers does not necessarily mean turning down the acceleration, only spreading out the total acceleration changes for the passengers.
1) One of the main benefits is larger payloadJohnG@lt wrote:
Well, that effectively neutralizes the primary benefit unless we're talking massive payloads.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
acceleration dampers would be required
2) dampers does not necessarily mean turning down the acceleration, only spreading out the total acceleration changes for the passengers.
Then pressurized steam? What exactly are you using as a propellant?Bertster7 wrote:
No.JohnG@lt wrote:
You are talking controlled nuclear explosions are you not?Bertster7 wrote:
What do you mean "explosion"?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Hydrogen.JohnG@lt wrote:
Then pressurized steam? What exactly are you using as a propellant?Bertster7 wrote:
No.JohnG@lt wrote:
You are talking controlled nuclear explosions are you not?
I'm talking about how the NERVA rocket works.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That is what I am talking about, I dunno what Berster is talking about.
Ahh, ok, that makes a lot of sense. Not only would there be zero radiation released, it also diminishes the chance of an explosion to near zero. Me likey.Bertster7 wrote:
Hydrogen.JohnG@lt wrote:
Then pressurized steam? What exactly are you using as a propellant?Bertster7 wrote:
No.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No it isn't. NASA had plans to use it to put payloads into LEO.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
oh lol, this is ONLY good for an upper stage
Exactly - it's awesome.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ahh, ok, that makes a lot of sense. Not only would there be zero radiation released, it also diminishes the chance of an explosion to near zero. Me likey.Bertster7 wrote:
Hydrogen.JohnG@lt wrote:
Then pressurized steam? What exactly are you using as a propellant?