The stupidity of those against nuclear energy

[Chalnoth]

I just read this (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/04/29/shuttle.okeefe.ap/index.html) article. It really amazes me that there are actually people against using nuclear energy in space.

I can perfectly understand why people would not want nuclear propulsion to be used in the atmosphere, but once you're in outer space, well, it just shows the total ignorance of these people.

First of all, space is a hazardous place. We are alive because the atmosphere protects us from deadly cosmic radiation. Adding a little bit of plutonium, even if it is used carelessly, would be just a drop in the bucket compared to the cosmic rays that are currently bouncing around.

I see a lot of people just blasting nuclear energy just for the sake of blasting nuclear energy. They act out of ignorance and total lack of knowledge of what's going on.

And yet, these people can prevent us from reaping the great benefits that could come from using nuclear energy in outer space.

In conclusion, I'll end with a quick argument: if you're against nuclear energy in outer space, are you against the Sun?

[The Baron]

We could detonate every nuclear weapon on Earth somewhere out in space (completely random point)... and we'd never know that they went boom. Heh.

[Chalnoth]

Well, you'd need to do it a fair bit out there...too close and you'd knock out all "nearby" electronics...

[ASCI Blue]

Gee guess there goes freedom of thought. Deities forbid we think for ourselves. You're right Chan, maybe we should promote you to god before someone burts your ego. :rolleyes:

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Chalnoth
I just read this (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/04/29/shuttle.okeefe.ap/index.html) article. It really amazes me that there are actually people against using nuclear energy in space.

I can perfectly understand why people would not want nuclear propulsion to be used in the atmosphere, but once you're in outer space, well, it just shows the total ignorance of these people.

First of all, space is a hazardous place. We are alive because the atmosphere protects us from deadly cosmic radiation. Adding a little bit of plutonium, even if it is used carelessly, would be just a drop in the bucket compared to the cosmic rays that are currently bouncing around.

I see a lot of people just blasting nuclear energy just for the sake of blasting nuclear energy. They act out of ignorance and total lack of knowledge of what's going on.

And yet, these people can prevent us from reaping the great benefits that could come from using nuclear energy in outer space.

In conclusion, I'll end with a quick argument: if you're against nuclear energy in outer space, are you against the Sun?

the only thing I can think of is a possible explosion on launch or within the atmosphere...

there would be no other logical reason that I can think of...

obviously we have not developed this sort of technology incorporated in our propulsion technologies and therefore it will be interesting to see what avenues they take..

naturally if developed properly... the weight of the craft would be reduced greatly... but we are talking about controlled fission here... :) a very interesting idea and one that may not come to fruition..

beyond that is the problem of cooling these things... we need running water on earth... sure the vacuum of space is cool but how what will they come up with to cool the rods ? if it is indeed rods that are used...

many interesting technological challenges and I just can't wait to see the solutions :D

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by Sazar
beyond that is the problem of cooling these things... we need running water on earth... sure the vacuum of space is cool but how what will they come up with to cool the rods ? if it is indeed rods that are used...
I would expect the main method of cooling would be to use the thermal energy to propel the craft (in one way or another). I remember reading a sci-fi book some time ago that used expelled water for propulsion, with a nuclear reactor for heat. There may be other ways to use the cooling of the reactor for propulsion.

[The Baron]

There's always the Project Orion way to do it :D

Coolest way to propel a spacecraft. Ever.

And the new nuclear reactors are pretty much completely safe--they don't get hot enough to melt down.

[Chalnoth]

I've seen similar ideas in terms of matter-antimatter propulsion (Store large amounts of antimatter and it's component matter, annihilating them with many small explosions for propulsion).

The main problem that I see with antimatter propulsion is that it would require significant magnetic containment (meaning lots of energy would be required just to store the fuel), and antimatter takes huge amounts of energy to produce.

As a side note, physicists currently know all about how to create and store anti-matter, as this is one of the things necessary for modern particle colliders.

As for the small atomic bomb idea, it's potentially an excellent idea, but it seems like it would be exceedingly expensive to implement.

[The Baron]

We already have those Cold War-era warheads just kind of sitting there doing nothing ;) The problem isn't the cost, it's the buffer that you would need to prevent the nuclear bomb from, uh... blowing up the craft. ;)

[Chalnoth]

Well, I think the idea isn't so much that as that you wouldn't want to use large blasts. You'd want to use many more small blasts. If the blasts are too big, you can't have the craft very close, and so you can't absorb as large a portion of the energy of the explosion. That, and the relatively high accelerations would be more stressful (on the craft, its components, and any potential passengers).

[Kruno]

Chalnoth, why not have the world's/country's power supplies in space?

Wouldn't it be not only safer but take less room? Albeit, costs will sky rocket but I think it would be cool. People working and living in space. :D

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by ASCI Blue
Gee guess there goes freedom of thought. Deities forbid we think for ourselves. You're right Chan, maybe we should promote you to god before someone burts your ego. :rolleyes:

loser*cough*

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
Chalnoth, why not have the world's/country's power supplies in space?

Wouldn't it be not only safer but take less room? Albeit, costs will sky rocket but I think it would be cool. People working and living in space. :D

There are already people living and working in space. :D

[Kruno]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
There are already people living and working in space. :D

Not enough. :p

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by ASCI Blue
Gee guess there goes freedom of thought. Deities forbid we think for ourselves. You're right Chan, maybe we should promote you to god before someone burts your ego. :rolleyes:

You are really starting to annoy me now, take this as a last warning.:mad:

[Fotis]

What about nuclear fusion?Any chance of that working anytime soon?

[Kruno]

Originally posted by ASCI Blue
Gee guess there goes freedom of thought. Deities forbid we think for ourselves. You're right Chan, maybe we should promote you to god before someone burts your ego. :rolleyes:

Pack up and **** off if you are going to bash members of the community.

We don't need such rude and sarcastic comments about others. Chalnoth has been helping this community for a very long time.

What have you done to aid the community?

I make people laugh. That's my job on these boards.

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by Fotis
What about nuclear fusion?Any chance of that working anytime soon?
That's a good question. Nuclear fusion would probably be easier to use in a situation such as that listed above, in the Orion project (where nuclear bombs are set off behind the craft, propelling it forward). Current problems with Nuclear fusion deal largely with containment. The temperature requirement for a sustained nuclear fusion reaction is so high that there no matter can be to enclose the reactor (it could burn through anything). So, many of the ideas that have cropped up on how to attain nuclear fusion involve igniting very tiny nuclear bombs within the reactor, small enough that the heat output over time can be managed. The problem is that more energy is used in creating the reaction than has been gotten out (so far).

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by ASCI Blue
Gee guess there goes freedom of thought. Deities forbid we think for ourselves. You're right Chan, maybe we should promote you to god before someone burts your ego. :rolleyes:
I think I'll finally comment on this.

This is exactly the type of idea that I can't stand. An opinion without understanding is meaningless. Too many times have decisions been made based on the opinions of those who have no understanding of what is going on, who have no authority to be making those decisions.

In other words, put up or shut up. If you have a counter argument, then present it. But, you apparently do not.

[Kruno]

put up or shut up

:lol:

I love this comment. The Australian media use it a lot. :D

Chalnoth, I heard cold fusion was attained (last year). Using little energy to get more or something.

Apparently they had succeeded. After that news report I don't know what happened. I heard all the hype about it. Cheap/clean energy stuff.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
:lol:

I love this comment. The Australian media use it a lot. :D

Chalnoth, I heard cold fusion was attained (last year). Using little energy to get more or something.

Apparently they had succeeded. After that news report I don't know what happened. I heard all the hype about it. Cheap/clean energy stuff.

It was probably fake :p

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Chalnoth
I would expect the main method of cooling would be to use the thermal energy to propel the craft (in one way or another). I remember reading a sci-fi book some time ago that used expelled water for propulsion, with a nuclear reactor for heat. There may be other ways to use the cooling of the reactor for propulsion.

logically it would be easy enough... radiate heat from water by having a heater exposed to the outside hence letting the 'cool' of space carry away the heat and have pipes transfer back the cooled water to circulate and cool down the rods...

but there is an inherent safety risk there... namely the radioactivity of the water... it is going to get exceedingly contaminated as time progresses... and radiation is one of the things they are trying to reduce/eliminate as a risk factor...

matter/anti-matter is quite an interesting proposal :)

natural charged ion particle propulsion proposed and suggested for a while may also be quite interesting and relatively cheap in terms of energy usage :)

heck... we should just build a time machine and hijack a warp engine from voyager :D

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by Sazar
logically it would be easy enough... radiate heat from water by having a heater exposed to the outside hence letting the 'cool' of space carry away the heat and have pipes transfer back the cooled water to circulate and cool down the rods...
Possibly, but you would need far more surface area than you would need here on Earth. The only method of heat transfer available would be radiation, and things might be complicated if the spacecraft is forced to face towards the sun at some point.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Chalnoth
Possibly, but you would need far more surface area than you would need here on Earth. The only method of heat transfer available would be radiation, and things might be complicated if the spacecraft is forced to face towards the sun at some point.

yes... the exposed part would be some kind of radiator... but you understand the complications devices like this raise ?

it is not like a ship or submarine that is in the water or a nuclear power plant which is generally built or has water diverted to it to cool down the devices...

I cant understand the point about the sun though ? heat will be dissipated and it will be reasonably easy enough to keep teh radiator outside direct line of sight of the sun.. dunno how this could post much of a problem... though in theory it would not be good if it was :)

[Chalnoth]

I was just thinking that the craft would need to not have to depend on this radiation to work every moment of operation. That is, there will almost certainly be some maneuvers during which the radiator would have to be shielded, or would have to actually accept quite a bit of heat from the sun. It may be possible to always keep it turned away from the sun, but it would really depend on the proposed flight plan.

Additionally, if the craft is going to be using the nuclear reactor to generate electricity, how is that electricity going to be used to power the craft? Unless a gravity drive could be made, it would need to expel something to propel itself. The natural thing to expel, of course, would be the water. Who knows? Perhaps it would be more efficient to use charged ion propulsion than simple heat-accelerated water. I would tend to believe that ion propulsion would not be energy-efficient, but it would use less water, which may make it useful in this scenario.

This may also be the answer to the increasing radioactivity of the water. Perhaps the drive could be made to specifically filter out the radioactive paritcles and use only those for propulsion. A reservoir of water would be needed for long missions, but a powerful enough accelerator onboard would generate an incredible amount of acceleration from each and every expelled particle, which could keep it working for a very long time.