tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post7575113320062645645..comments2009-11-19T12:15:28.918-08:00bwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-51521952516759319272008-01-30T13:34:00.000-08:002008-01-30T13:34:00.000-08:00The new designs for gaseous rockets are still to use hydrogen fuel but they have to change the geometry and layout of the injection and flow system.bwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-75172448573506010032008-01-30T12:51:00.000-08:002008-01-30T12:51:00.000-08:00The 70's idea of using hydrogen fuel around the reacton chamber walls to keep the nuclear fuel from melting the chamber was said not be used now.<BR/> What are they planning to use now to accomplish this?<BR/> <BR/><BR/> Bob Carkrgregoryclarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16114043697010364282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-16296314313985790462007-08-03T06:32:00.000-07:002007-08-03T06:32:00.000-07:00All of these comments about people misjudging risk are spot on. The Harvard School of Public Health spends a lot of time wrestling with this problem. You can read more about it <A HREF="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/review/review_fall_04/risk_perspective.html" REL="nofollow"> here</A>. Unfortunately, in the nuclear case, the "natural vs artificial" bias comes into play: It's illogical, but common for someone to be comfortable with sunning themselves at the beach (melanoma kills 8000 per year in the US), but to be vehemently anti-nuclear (when basically, no one has died in a US nuclear power accident).<BR/><BR/>The HSPH researcher Ropeik's book "Risk: A Practical Guide..." is an excellent overview of the many ways people get risk evaluation wrong. The examples that comprise most of the book are overkill IMHO, but the book is definitely worth reading for the first 100 pages or so. Check your local library.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-8364856800702018852007-07-30T00:42:00.000-07:002007-07-30T00:42:00.000-07:00how about we go with a message of:<BR/><BR/>"using nukes for a better future"<BR/>lately i've been looking at the DoD's National Security Space Office SSPS (Space Solar Power study) concept over at http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/<BR/><BR/>And I keep thinking what could we do with "Fly dirty to get clean" use nuclear to get to space then use space power to do away with nuclear. <BR/><BR/>we could certainly do a lot more alot faster with nuclear engines, we could lift lage sections of completed componets with onorbit assembly. and/or go back to the moon with enough supplies to set up mining and electro-launch capabilities so that all equipment<BR/>is made through a few Heavey "dirty" flights with immediate realization of goals that would take convenitional HLLVs 10x-100x more flights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-39639830614614229502007-07-27T13:41:00.000-07:002007-07-27T13:41:00.000-07:00bw,<BR/><BR/>I'm sure that this thing could be made safe. However, the fact that it is a rocket, with exhaust, that is launched from the surface of the Earth is enough for all of the greens and everyone else to come out of the woodwork to oppose it.<BR/><BR/>This is why I think that something like this could only be launched from China or, maybe, Japan. An ocean-based launch site makes sense, but this would also have to be done by a Chinese or Russian entity in the Western Pacific near China.<BR/><BR/>However, a rocket like this could certainly be used in deep space without the political controversy surrounding its use as a launch vehicle.Kurt9noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-63614497517497438712007-07-27T13:26:00.000-07:002007-07-27T13:26:00.000-07:00You would launch this from the middle of the Pacific Ocean<BR/><BR/>http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship9.htm<BR/><BR/>A nuclear rocket if this type would have in the range of 10 pounds of radioactive nuclides in it. The Ivy Mike nuclear bomb test which took place on November 1st, 1952. This is a real test, you can go look it up. Released 1023 pounds worth of radioactive nuclides. No one died or was injured.<BR/><BR/>The a gas cored reactor has several potential "scram" (emergency shutdown) modes, both fast and slow, and the speed of the reaction is easily "throttled" by adding and removing fuel or by manipulating the vortex. A 'scram' is an emergency shutdown, usually done in a very fast way. For example: a gas cored reactor can be fast scrammed by using a pressurized "shotgun" behind a weak window. If the core exceeds the design parameters of the window, which are to be slightly weaker than the silica "lightbulb," then the "shotgun" blasts 150 or so kilos of boron/cadmium pellets into the uranium gas, quenching the reaction immediately. A slightly slower scram which is implemented totally differently is to vary the gas jets in the core to instill a massive disturbance into the fuel vortex. This disturbance would drastically reduce criticality in the fission gas. A third scram mode, slightly slower still, is to implement a high-speed vacuum removal of the fuel mass into the storage system. Having three separate scram modes, one of which is passively triggered, should instill plenty of safety margin in the nuclear core of each thruster. <BR/><BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_disaster<BR/><BR/>As of 2007, in-flight accidents had killed 18 astronauts, training accidents had claimed 11 astronauts, and launchpad accidents had killed at least 70 ground personnel.<BR/><BR/>There have been 230+ ground crew and civilian casualties.<BR/><BR/>Driving cars kill 1.2 million each year. <BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents#Safety<BR/><BR/>Trains have .04 deaths for every 100 million miles<BR/>Air travel has .01 deaths for every 100 million miles traveled. <BR/>Automobile has .94 deaths per 100 million milesbwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-81772710271544505362007-07-27T12:15:00.000-07:002007-07-27T12:15:00.000-07:00What happens when it goes wrong and the core gets blasted across Florida?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-77201364198739336772007-07-26T22:02:00.000-07:002007-07-26T22:02:00.000-07:00I had an article that Steve Howe was trying to get an orbit to the moon nuclear thermal stage done. <BR/><BR/>If that was used for a while, then maybe this could fly. <BR/><BR/>Or China flys it Or we have to wait for other high performance but public relations friendly tech like laser array launch.<BR/><BR/>==<BR/>Irrational ideas about risk cause us to give up 6-200 times the performance in rocketsbwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-17291933238766608732007-07-26T21:53:00.000-07:002007-07-26T21:53:00.000-07:00This would never fly. The anti-nuclear hysterics people would ensure that this type of launch vehicle would never be allowed to fly. Or regulatory hurtles would be created that would make it impossible for anyone to get the necessary environmental permits for such a vehicle to fly.<BR/><BR/>If anything, the Europeans and Aussies would be even more psychotic about this than Americans.<BR/><BR/>My recommendation would be for the individuals or company developing this technology to do so either in Japan or China.Kurt9noreply@blogger.com