11
   

Russia: Nuclear Powered Spacecraft

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 09:48 am
OMFG ! ! !

NASA is polluting the atmosphere with hydrogen and oxygen ? ! ? ! ?

It makes my eyes water just to think of it . . . wait a minute . . .
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 09:57 am
@farmerman,
Let see Farmerman the basic of nuclear weapon/device design is still the same and the men who also produce the designs for Orion program are the same ones who produce our nuclear weapons that did work as they was tested often during that time period. So, I see little likelihood that the basic design would not work now and if we would green light it, the plans would be updated with our current understanding and with all our modern computer power in any case. This seem on it face somewhat of a strawman argument would you not say?

Second for safety concerns as you should know and as I do know nuclear weapons are the safest devices known as they need to be trigger in a very complex chain of events and the timing of the triggering need to be correct in microseconds and in some case nanoseconds to produce an explosion. The poor North Korean for example seem not to have that art of triggering down yet and that is more then likely why to date their explosions had been on the very small size. To be fair to you and to keep you from pointing it out first Uranium gun type trigger nuclear devices are not as safe as in the second nuclear bomb dropped in WW2 however I question if that would be the type used on an Orion ship.

Now as far as spreading radiation far and wide as in a dirty bomb, that express concern of your also seem to be somewhat of a strawman for the following reasons. One, they would have the same safety casings, as the bombs that had flown over our heads for at least two or three generations to the tune of ten of thousands of times in our bombers. In that time frame a numbers of the bombers did indeed crashed carrying such bombs and not one bit of radiation was release as a result. Second, I question if we would launch such a ship from Cape Kennedy but instead in the middle of a million square miles of desert so the risk of harming others or even animal life is somewhat small to say the least.



BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 09:58 am
@parados,
The solid boasters do not however used such fuel and if memory serve me correctly the 1960s moon ships first stage did not either.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 10:08 am
@BillRM,
Youve missed a major point that I was trying to make. All existing nuclear bombs are essentially BINARY explosive devices with an initiator which begins the neutron release, which then triggers a fission reaction. ITS EASY TO KEEP THESE BINARY SYSTEMS "QUIET". In a nuclear plane or rocket, there is no binary safety system. The nuclear fission reaction is ALWAYS ON because thats what makes the damn thing work.

While the scince is pretty much the same, the rationale for controlling the reaction is entirely different in a nuclear rocket.

As far as safety, I have about 30 years in the nuclear mining and processing geo field. The isotopes posiible from a specific fission reaction are many. If an in flight accident happened (mort tables say that they would occur based upon the 2 shuttle and several Russian and American disasters). One accident could spread radiation over several tens of square milkes minimum. YOU cannot deny that this is a high possibility. Trying to discount such an eventuality is playing with a revolver with one bullet.
If you dont believe me, why isnt the world scrambling to develop nuclear rockets for their space programs??

SAFETY CONCERNS PRIMARILY.

There'v been so many scientists who commented on these safety concerns ( I sit on a peer review committee re: ground water cleanup of "Mixed wastes") and our biggest concern in almost any technology is safety and guaranteed safety.

Youre trying to pitch "perpetual motion" Bill.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 10:17 am
@BillRM,
Yes, I am aware of that..

Which chemical that they produce destroys ozone?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 10:23 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
. . . solid boasters . . .


Is he talkin' about himself now?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 10:40 am
@farmerman,
Come on now Framerman you should know better you need to bring the Subcritical masses together in a very rapid manner indeed just to start with even in just a fission device.

For uranium device shooting the masses together with a gun trigger at a few thousand feets or so a second will be enough however even a gun trigger is not fast enough when you are dealing with plutonium and you need to used a shell of explosives surrounding the masses to press it into a critical mass and the timing of setting off the explosives need to be within a microsecond or so.

If you do not do bring the masses together in the correct manner you get just enough of a reaction to blow the masses apart once more. That seem to be why the poor North Koreans trying their very best could get only an explosion of the order of a few hundred tons of TNT instead of a 20 or 30 kilton blast they more then likely was looking for.

This is nuclear bomb making 101 Framerman and you should feel slight ashamed of yourself not to know it.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 10:43 am
@parados,
Quote:
Which chemical that they produce destroys ozone?


Hydrochloric acid for one as the ozone layer does not like Chlorine at all.

Side note the first stage of the moon ships did used Kerosene.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 11:06 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
While the scince is pretty much the same, the rationale for controlling the reaction is entirely different in a nuclear rocket.


Second the Orion system is not a rocket in your sense but used "bombs" behind a fairly simple plate so that comment of your is completely off the subject of Orion.

Quote:
One accident could spread radiation over several tens of square milkes minimum. YOU cannot deny that this is a high possibility.


Now every one of those "bomb"/device will be using the same technology that had keep the spread of radiation to zero after bombers had crash into the ground carrying nuclear weapons.

Yes anything can happen but the risk of any release cause by an accident seem small on it face. That is only for the Orion system so try not to bring in other nuclear rockets system here.

Still you layer your protection and keep the launches in way out the way places and not over ground water<grin>.

Ten of square miles of radiation will do what harm in the middle of a million square miles of desert Farmernman not near any ground water?

You fence the area off with large signs radiation do not enter and forget about it.

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 11:11 am
@BillRM,
Let me ask again Bill.. which chemical compound produced by the solid boosters on the Space shuttle attack the ozone?

Quote:
The Chemistry of Lift-Off

The chemistry of the solid rocket booster propellant can be summed up in this reaction:


http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_chlorine/docs/images/ammperch_form1.gif

I don't see HCL in that formula, do you?

Yes. CFCs and HCFCs break down O3 but to claim all molecules with chlorine will do it ignores basic chemistry and the strength of bonds. CFC's break down under sunlight to release the Cl molecules. Do you have information on ACL3 breaking down in sunlight or the atmosphere?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 11:29 am
@parados,
Good try and your chem teacher will be rightly proud of you however it is my understanding that the HCL is the result of some kind of secondary binding methods used on the fuel not the burning of the fuel itself.

The information can be found by googling and even NASA state that the shuttle solid fuel rockets released HCL.

They claimed it had not proven all that harmful to the ozone layer but they do not question that it is being released.

Things are never as simple as chem 101 in real life.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 12:20 pm
@parados,
You know parados I am still laughing at how must trouble you went to try to show that I am giving out incorrect information.

Instead of impressing us all with your chem. 101 abilities to write out simple reaction statements it might had been more useful to go to NASA own website instead and see that the solid rockets are indeed releasing HCL.

You could have then had come back on me with NASA position that this released of HCL had not proven all that harmful.

My grammar and spelling is god-awful but I do normally get my facts straight unlike a lot of posters on this website.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 12:25 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
My grammar and spelling is god-awful but I do normally get my facts straight unlike a lot of posters on this website. (emphasis added)


You'll go to hell for lyin', too . . .
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 12:26 pm
You know, it's a toss-up who more commonly distorts or just simply lies about history--Bill or Foofie . . . they're a matched set . . .
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 12:41 pm
@BillRM,
You still havent successfullt discussed any of the points that a nuke BOMB is a binary device while a nuke rocket is composed of bomblets that are going off all the time. . Now, if youve created a fallout free bomb, then your whistling out your ass.
"Bomb making 101"--I theenk everyteeng you know be comink from Comeek Boook from IrKustk. NYayevim?

I have no idea why youre so closwely aligned with a nuke spacecraft . It loses you any credibility youve been trying so hard to assert .

BillRM wants the world to believe that we should just write-off some small part of US real-estate so that we can target all "rocket crashes" on that small piece of land. If BillRM remembers the Columbia disaster, it happened as the reentry vehicle was over the Western US. I saw a map of the chunks of debris that were collected by NASA contractors. They covered several states. Imagine if those were nuclear contaminated stufflets.
Im not sure who Foofie is Set, but if a Foofie is anything like BillRM, he/she must have a hard time being understood while speaking so far up his/her ailementary canal.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 12:42 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
My grammar and spelling is god-awful but I do normally get my facts straight unlike a lot of posters on this website.
Since most of your facts are pulled straight out your rectum, I agree with your statement
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 12:43 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
You'll go to hell for lyin', too . . .


You are in my block list but the problem with that is it hard not to look from time to time anyway.

As an atheist by every religion faith, that believe in heaven and hell I will indeed be in hell so your statement is not a news bulletin in any sense.

Hell for lying however?

I will ask you a similar question to the one our chemist just ask me where the HCL oh sorry I mean where are the liars that are sending me to hell?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 12:44 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Since most of your facts are pulled straight out your rectum, I agree with your statement


LOL sound like you are annoy at me why is that?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 12:48 pm
@BillRM,
Yeah, i know most of you clowns can't do the ignore thing--you just gotta peek. The response was to the absurd claim that you get your facts right. That'll be the day.

Tell me all about pirates being labor activists again, Bill, that one always cracks me up . . .
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 01:26 pm
@farmerman,
Where do I begin first we had a history of setting off nuclear bombs in the atmosphere any one of them would had more then likely released more radiation then ten Orions taking off.

When it was the cold war and we needed information on bomb building for defense is seem we were more then willing as a society to set off those bombs within sight of Las Vegas.

Now having access to the whole solar system and all it resources and humankind on more then one small planet in my value system is worth the cost of releasing a small amount of radiation once more but that is my value system that Famerman appear not to share.

Second, I agree with you the complete safety’s crowd is now firmly in power in this country but we are not the only country in the world and it would be amusing to see said China beginning to use our old technology to take over the whole solar system and then see if the zero risk crowd would remain in power here or not.

As far as writing off some small area of the country in case of an unlikely accident why not? There are areas in this country where you could set off a 100 repeat a 100 megatons blast and not kill one person or harm them unless the danger of burning out someone IPOD by EMP is harming them.

Now Framerman as far as a landing accident spreading radiation over many states may I point out that we are not talking about a shuttle that land by orbiting half the planet. Orion had the power and would be design by it very nature to land the same way it took off straight down and therefore it something should go wrong it would be at all time over a fairly small area of the earth. No spreading of radioactive materials all over your farm or my backyard.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/12/2020 at 02:47:54