DeaconBlues
They call Alabama the Crimson Tide - call me...
Joined: Apr 22, 2007
Posts: 3930
Location: Earth, mostly
|
 Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I am amused by the assumption that the Soviet Union would have openly reported any failures in their space-launch systems. Just like they provided open coverage of their corrupt politicians, and free, unsupervised visitation of any part of their country by foreign nationals...
_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
edgewaters
hibernating
Joined: Aug 17, 2006
Age: 40
Posts: 2426
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DeaconBlues wrote: | | I am amused by the assumption that the Soviet Union would have openly reported any failures in their space-launch systems. Just like they provided open coverage of their corrupt politicians, and free, unsupervised visitation of any part of their country by foreign nationals... |
You can't really hide failed launches too well. They tend to be rather spectacular.
Besides, the US isn't much better really, they've publicly acknowledged manipulating media reports and spreading falsehoods for propaganda purposes. And the space race was all about propaganda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LiendaBalla
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Oct 24, 2007
Age: 34
Posts: 2857
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wish commercial corporations could really have at the moon to. That would do a lot.
Oh, and go Russia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29709
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AspieRogue wrote: |
And that is why I believe they will probably be the first to launch a nuclear rocket into space. |
Believed when seen. As long as a domestic version of the Russian Mafia is running Russia, it is not going to happen.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Raptor
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 4744
Location: Southeast U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DeaconBlues wrote: | | I am amused by the assumption that the Soviet Union would have openly reported any failures in their space-launch systems. Just like they provided open coverage of their corrupt politicians, and free, unsupervised visitation of any part of their country by foreign nationals... |
The Russian space agency is extremely closed minded, secretive, and distrustful. Their practices and quality control are spotty at best compared to American, Canadian, European, and Japanese standards. Close enough is good enough for them and they won't even entertain the thought of anything different. This isn't just speculation on my part but actual experience having worked with some of them and their products intended for space flight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DC
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 16, 2011
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AspieRogue wrote: | Alright, enough about Russia let's get back to America(since dats where I live  ). If the US government were to pursue R&D into Nuclear Propulsion, it would have to be done in the utmost secrecy because of the public outcry that would occur due to paranoia about anything nuclear thanks in big part to the hippies. I think I know a very good location for this: AREA 51.
And no, I am NOT KIDDING! Forget about the UFO/Alien conspiracies; that place would be ideal to conduct actual testing of nuclear engines as well as develop the technology necessary to build them. What is really needed for nuclear propulsion to work and maximize safety is to use Gas Core Reactors rather than the Solid Core reactors used in power plants and on naval vessels.
Should Uncle Sam retain its monopoly on all things nuclear though? |
Uncle Sam doesn't have a monopoly on all things nuclear, first off there are other countries in the world, quite a few of them in fact.
Secondly, even in the US civilian companies and university are allowed reactors, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors
Scroll down to this heading: Civilian Research and Test Reactors Licensed To Operate
Even the US Veterans Administration has a nuclear reactor to play with, along with Kodak, Dow chemicals, GE and lots of universities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29709
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AspieRogue wrote: | Alright, enough about Russia let's get back to America(since dats where I live ). If the US government were to pursue R&D into Nuclear Propulsion, it would have to be done in the utmost secrecy because of the public outcry that would occur due to paranoia about anything nuclear thanks in big part to the hippies. I think I know a very good location for this: AREA 51.
And no, I am NOT KIDDING! Forget about the UFO/Alien conspiracies; that place would be ideal to conduct actual testing of nuclear engines as well as develop the technology necessary to build them. What is really needed for nuclear propulsion to work and maximize safety is to use Gas Core Reactors rather than the Solid Core reactors used in power plants and on naval vessels.
Should Uncle Sam retain its monopoly on all things nuclear though? |
It would also violate several environmental protection laws.
The only safe place to use nuclear propulsion is above the atmosphere and launch from orbit. So we still need chemical rockets to get more advanced propulsion systems above the atmosphere and into orbit.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29709
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AspieRogue wrote: |
Well if you're talking about 100% foolproof safe, then yes. But if a chemical rocket carrying a nuclear payload explodes in mid flight, or the payload fails to achieve orbit, there is also the possibility of contamination. I will admit that I don't know enough about federal law to determine if the Area51 facility is subject to there, because it is officially unacknowledged that makes me wonder if it is exempt from such laws. If a government agency violated such laws there, there are plenty of loopholes that could grant them legal immunity. |
Launch from a spot on the ocean. Problem solved.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
The reactor isnt radioactive if it's not running yet. You could launch the fuel separately on a smaller rocket and load it later in space (robotically). You could also launch it with an escape rocket, like crew, in case of a launch accident. Having an escape rocket puts the chance of loss at 1-1000 or better. Compared to 1-100 for a big rocket like shuttle. The amount of precaution depends on the amount of radioactive material you are launching. We've already risked small RGBs to power spacecraft like Cassini. Larger loads would require more care.
The problem is financial. NASA, the DOD, and private industry all need rockets so an investor has a proven market to pursue. There is no current market for space based reactors so you'd need to spend a lot of money developing one and then hope that NASA would use it. No other customer would need one for the forseeable future. And NASA is not a rational agency. It's driven by a commitee of congressmen who are concerned about local jobs. Even if you made them a good deal they might not be able to understand it or act on it. They may not even care.
That's a lot of money to risk (billions) for the hope of selling to a single, slightly deranged customer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29709
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| simon_says wrote: | The reactor isnt radioactive if it's not running yet. You could launch the fuel separately on a smaller rocket and load it later in space (robotically). You could also launch it with an escape rocket, like crew, in case of a launch accident. Having an escape rocket puts the chance of loss at 1-1000 or better. Compared to 1-100 for a big rocket like shuttle. The amount of precaution depends on the amount of radioactive material you are launching. We've already risked small RGBs to power spacecraft like Cassini. Larger loads would require more care.
The problem is financial. NASA, the DOD, and private industry all need rockets so an investor has a proven market to pursue. There is no current market for space based reactors so you'd need to spend a lot of money developing one and then hope that NASA would use it. No other customer would need one for the forseeable future. And NASA is not a rational agency. It's driven by a commitee of congressmen who are concerned about local jobs. Even if you made them a good deal they might not be able to understand it or act on it. They may not even care.
That's a lot of money to risk (billions) for the hope of selling to a single, slightly deranged customer. |
There is a market for launching communication satellites. Private companies could pay for the development of a lifter that could launch their satellites.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I said there was a market for launching rockets. The US now has several private launch companies.
But there is no market for space based reactors today. You'd have to hope that NASA (or DOD) would buy them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29709
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| simon_says wrote: | Yes, I said there was a market for launching rockets. The US now has several private launch companies.
But there is no market for space based reactors today. You'd have to hope that NASA (or DOD) would buy them. |
What do we need space based reactors for. We have plenty of energy from the Sun. Us photovoltaics.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
