Nuclear Light bulb rocket "Liberty ship"

[Moontanman]

What we really need is a real space ship to not only explore the solar system but to lift huge payload to earth orbit and to bring those same payloads back. This space ship should be reusable and durable enough to be used many times. I envision this space craft not only being used for Earth to orbit and back but as a interplanetary space craft. What I am talking about is described in this article.

 

http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.aspx

[big314mp]

This was a very cool article.

 

I think the technology will need decades of ground testing before it will be accepted however. An accident/explosion on the way up (or down) would be absolutely unacceptable.

[Moontanman]

This was a very cool article.

 

I think the technology will need decades of ground testing before it will be accepted however. An accident/explosion on the way up (or down) would be absolutely unacceptable.

 

Either you didn't read the article or you didn't pay attention to to what the article said. I'm betting you just skimmed it and made your own conclusions.

[big314mp]

Either you didn't read the article or you didn't pay attention to to what the article said. I'm betting you just skimmed it and made your own conclusions.

 

Assuming something like that is a rather dangerous thing to do on a science forum . You couldn't be more mistaken.

 

Going to space is a risky endeavor. Even with technology that we supposedly have mastered, the safety record of space flight is pretty awful.

 

For example: According to wikipedia, the space shuttle has had 128 flights. 2 out of these 128 flights resulted in destruction of the orbiter. Thus, this implies a 1.6% chance of the space shuttle blowing up .

 

This is not a promising record for putting nuclear materials into flight. I'd like to see you sell that one to the public.

[CaptainPanic]

The article mentions risk mitigation, and gives two examples:

 

1. Chernobyl: relatively small, unexpected, at least 40 casualties (probably a few more), area the size of a small country uninhabitable for decades.

2. The Ivy Mike nuclear test, expected, planned, no casualties (that we know of).

 

Let's do a risk assessment:

 

[math]Risk = chance\cdot{impact}[/math]

 

The impact:

The thing with a nuclear rocket crash is that I would put it in category 1: unexpected nuclear meltdown possibly in an urban area (wherever the debris comes down). That's what makes accidents totally unacceptable. It would be in the Another-Chernobyl-Category.

 

The chance:

As mentioned above by big314mp: we should take into account the amount of rockets that failed during operation. It's pretty high.

 

So, you get:

[math]Risk = \text{pretty high chance}\cdot{\text{another Chernobyl}}[/math]

 

The article says that it is not a big danger on a global scale. True. But since the rocket here is also no global project, and does not have 6.7 billion passengers, that is no argument. I think that chapter 9 "But isn't this dangerous?" is flawed.

[Moontanman]

First of all you are ignoring the built in safety protocols, the release of 10 pounds of radionuclide's would only happen if you had both a catastrophic failure of the space craft and total failure of three different safety protocols on the space craft. On top of that the space craft would be lunched from an area where no people lived. Nuclear power has been the but of fear mongering extreme exaggeration and out right lies for many years. Decades of b horror movies where radiation spawns a monster that kills the world not to mention all the fear mongering and out right lies from every nuclear crazy looking for his 15 minutes of fame. Coal fired power houses release 800 tons of radioactive materials into the atmosphere every year. this is far more than nuclear power plants produce and the radio-nucleotides produced by nuclear power plants are not released into the atmosphere. The publics wildly distorted view of nuclear power has little or not basis in reality. Compare the release of 800 tons of radioactive debris into the atmosphere to 10 pounds in the absolute worst case scenario. Yes the entire anti nuclear stance is based on bullshit. Just because the public has been scared into a anti nuclear stance doesn't mean it's true nor does it negate the real worth of nuclear power or nuclear engines on space craft.

[CaptainPanic]

I am not trying to break down your idea. I am merely setting up a risk assessment. Determining the risk is something you must do anyway... so I feel that I am helping here. I feel that your last post is less objective than mine, and that the public opinion is not likely changed by your words, true or not.

 

On topic again:

A rocket is meant to go into orbit, and after further acceleration perhaps into the final frontier and beyond. But it's a fact that it will orbit a couple of times, if only to reduce the acceleration so that the astronauts survive.

 

Therefore, it will come over urban areas.

 

Therefore, it is possible that it comes down in an urban area.

 

I have read about safety in the engine. I do believe that nuclear power is safe on the ground. I don't think we'll have another Chernobyl soon in a stationary nuclear facility. I have not yet found a piece of text that described what happens if the Lightbulb Rocket goes from 6000 meters/second to zero in less than 1 second. Does the reactor survive such an impact? I might have overlooked the text describing this. I'd appreciate if you can point out where it is written. Thanks.

[Moontanman]

I am not trying to break down your idea. I am merely setting up a risk assessment. Determining the risk is something you must do anyway... so I feel that I am helping here. I feel that your last post is less objective than mine, and that the public opinion is not likely changed by your words, true or not.

 

On topic again:

A rocket is meant to go into orbit, and after further acceleration perhaps into the final frontier and beyond. But it's a fact that it will orbit a couple of times, if only to reduce the acceleration so that the astronauts survive.

 

Therefore, it will come over urban areas.

 

Therefore, it is possible that it comes down in an urban area.

 

I have read about safety in the engine. I do believe that nuclear power is safe on the ground. I don't think we'll have another Chernobyl soon in a stationary nuclear facility. I have not yet found a piece of text that described what happens if the Lightbulb Rocket goes from 6000 meters/second to zero in less than 1 second. Does the reactor survive such an impact? I might have overlooked the text describing this. I'd appreciate if you can point out where it is written. Thanks.

 

Exactly how would this rocket, with out any warning what so ever, go from 6000 MS to zero in less than one second? Crashing? If was going to crash the safety protocols would remove the radio-nucleotides from the reactor in one of the three ways proposed before the crash. No space craft dies with out any warning what so ever, even the space shuttle had enough time for some of the protocols for the nuclear rocket to have kicked in and removed the radio-nucleotides from the reactor into storage that would have held them and prevented any spread. No one seems to mind a near by coal fired power plant releasing tons of radio-nucleotides on nearby cities, why would a small amount protected from any possible dispersal be a problem?

[big314mp]

Exactly how would this rocket, with out any warning what so ever, go from 6000 MS to zero in less than one second? Crashing? If was going to crash the safety protocols would remove the radio-nucleotides from the reactor in one of the three ways proposed before the crash. No space craft dies with out any warning what so ever, even the space shuttle had enough time for some of the protocols for the nuclear rocket to have kicked in and removed the radio-nucleotides from the reactor into storage that would have held them and prevented any spread. No one seems to mind a near by coal fired power plant releasing tons of radio-nucleotides on nearby cities, why would a small amount protected from any possible dispersal be a problem?

 

The article mentioned 3 scram modes. In all of the scram modes, the radionuclides are still on the spacecraft. If the entire space craft runs itself into the ground, then what? Unless the craft is so obscenely overbuilt that it couldn't get off of the ground, you will have a radionuclide release. And I can virtually guarantee you that a mess like that would kill all public support for both nuclear powered space travel, as well as terrestrial use of nuclear power. Is that really what you want?

 

And, just to pass on some advice, appeals to emotion won't convince anyone here.

[Moontanman]

The article mentioned 3 scram modes. In all of the scram modes, the radionuclides are still on the spacecraft. If the entire space craft runs itself into the ground, then what? Unless the craft is so obscenely overbuilt that it couldn't get off of the ground, you will have a radionuclide release. And I can virtually guarantee you that a mess like that would kill all public support for both nuclear powered space travel, as well as terrestrial use of nuclear power. Is that really what you want?

 

And, just to pass on some advice, appeals to emotion won't convince anyone here.

 

If you had read the article you would have seen that one of the really good things about having a nuclear motor is being able to over build the space craft but building a compartment to hold ten pounds of radio-nucleotides should be that difficult.

 

Appeals to emotion? What are you talking about? I appeal to reality, emotion has nothing to do with this.

[big314mp]

The "coal power plants release radiation" is a roundabout appeal to emotion. It won't convince people here, as it is off topic.

 

Look at a nuclear power plant sometime. That is how much overbuilding is needed for people to trust nuclear power, even though that is an application that doesn't go anywhere. Without lots and lots of testing to conclusively prove that it is as safe as a nuclear power plant, the public will not trust it.

 

Also, consider asteroids. Solid balls of rock that are completely obliterated when they hit the ground. That should give you some idea of the level of overbuilding needed.

[Moontanman]

The "coal power plants release radiation" is a roundabout appeal to emotion. It won't convince people here, as it is off topic.

 

Look at a nuclear power plant sometime. That is how much overbuilding is needed for people to trust nuclear power, even though that is an application that doesn't go anywhere. Without lots and lots of testing to conclusively prove that it is as safe as a nuclear power plant, the public will not trust it.

 

Also, consider asteroids. Solid balls of rock that are completely obliterated when they hit the ground. That should give you some idea of the level of overbuilding needed.

 

Coal fired power plants do indeed release many times the radiation of any and all nuclear power plants it is not an appeal to emotion it is the truth. If the truth is an appeal to emotion then I am guilty. Comparing the possible worst case scenario of a nuclear light build rocket release to a common radioactive release is not emotion it is a completely fair comparison. No space craft launched from the earth is going to impact the earth at any speed even remotely approaching the impact speed of an asteroid. Solid balls of rock are not particularly strong or survivable. Nickle/iron asteroids survive impact at many times the speed a space craft launched from the earth could reach if it failed trying to reach orbit. It would be relatively easy to protect the contents of the engine from impact at any reasonable speeds.

[insane_alien]

Coal fired power plants do indeed release many times the radiation of any and all nuclear power plants it is not an appeal to emotion it is the truth.

 

yes, coal fired plants release more radioactivity as they do not have safe guards in place like nuclear plants do. HOWEVER, a serious nuclear accident, say chernobyl, will release more radioactivity than if you burned all the coal ever mined and even that still down there.

 

Comparing the possible worst case scenario of a nuclear light build rocket release to a common radioactive release is not emotion it is a completely fair comparison.

 

no it is not, the radioactivity released is a few orders of magnitude different, sort of like comparing a bucket of water to a lake of water, but hey, its both water so its a completely fair comparison right?

 

No space craft launched from the earth is going to impact the earth at any speed even remotely approaching the impact speed of an asteroid.

 

oh yes they will, they'll burn up travelling several kilometers per second and this is where the radiation release is likely to happen(i say they'll burn up as we are discussing a major failure and it isn't a controlled decent) and if travelling faster for interplanetary travel then they may still be intact and travelling several kilometers per second upon imapct with the ground. one way or another, its going to crack open the reactor.

 

Solid balls of rock are not particularly strong or survivable. Nickle/iron asteroids survive impact at many times the speed a space craft launched from the earth could reach if it failed trying to reach orbit. It would be relatively easy to protect the contents of the engine from impact at any reasonable speeds.

 

the thing is, the speeds are not reasonable. a few hundred miles an hour and i'd say 'yes, it is feasible to suitably engineer the reactor to survive the impact' for a few thousand miles an hour the answer becomes, either A. the vessel is so massive it will never get off the ground and will be a strictly space based vessel

or

B. not a chance in hell, the thing is going to release radiation on impact.

[Moontanman]

yes, coal fired plants release more radioactivity as they do not have safe guards in place like nuclear plants do. HOWEVER, a serious nuclear accident, say chernobyl, will release more radioactivity than if you burned all the coal ever mined and even that still down there.

 

Not true, Chernobyl released just a few pounds of radionuclide's, it was just released all at once in a completely uncontrolled manner mixed with tons of other debris.

 

no it is not, the radioactivity released is a few orders of magnitude different, sort of like comparing a bucket of water to a lake of water, but hey, its both water so its a completely fair comparison right?

 

You are appealing to emotion, there is no comparison to the immense amount of radio-nucleotides released by a coal fired power plant and the tiny amount released by Chernobyl

 

 

oh yes they will, they'll burn up travelling several kilometers per second and this is where the radiation release is likely to happen(i say they'll burn up as we are discussing a major failure and it isn't a controlled decent) and if travelling faster for interplanetary travel then they may still be intact and travelling several kilometers per second upon imapct with the ground. one way or another, its going to crack open the reactor.

 

Storage for the radioactive fuel can be easily built to with stand impact. Cracking open an empty reactor is no big deal.

 

the thing is, the speeds are not reasonable. a few hundred miles an hour and i'd say 'yes, it is feasible to suitably engineer the reactor to survive the impact' for a few thousand miles an hour the answer becomes, either A. the vessel is so massive it will never get off the ground and will be a strictly space based vessel

or

B. not a chance in hell, the thing is going to release radiation on impact.

 

Again you are being emotional, it would be easy to protect the fuel from impact by storing it in a small armored space. this fuel can be swept out of the reaction chamber immediately. There is no comparison to a nuclear power plants with many tons of core material and shielding. You really need to do some research about gaseous fission nuclear reactors. On top of that risk mitigation means lessening the risk, nothing will ever be absolutely safe, I think in the article they used Bhopal India as an example of risk mitigation. Just because of that accident chemical plants weren't shut down everywhere. No that plant didn't do a good job of risk mitigation just like Chernobyl, Chernobyl shouldn't have been built much less run by incapable people. Chernobyl melted down due to bad design and human error. If a space craft was seen as going to impact the earth the radioactive fuel would be removed from the reactor immediately, if a high speed impact as inevitable it would be steered toward an uninhabited site or a site of less inhabitation. You have to plan ahead for problems, plan for the worst possible scenario after you have mitigated the risk from the worst possible scenario then you do everything you can to avoid that scenario to begin with. You seem to think this would be done by simply launching a nuclear light bulb rocket and see what happens. That's not the way safety works. I used to be employed by the DuPont corporation in the safety department. Somethings are inherantly unsafe, but nothing cannot be made safer and even the worst possible disaster can be planned for.

[big314mp]

It is ridiculous to assume that we can plan for all problems with something as risky as space flight. Do you honestly believe that NASA engineers were too lazy to think of as many problems as possible, and engineer solutions to those problems? In spite of their best efforts, 2 shuttles still crashed. That is an unacceptable failure rate for something like a nuclear reactor.

 

And I'm beginning to suspect that you are greatly exaggerating the effect of coal power plants based on this paper:

 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/01604120/1996/00000022/90000001/art00112

[foodchain]

It is ridiculous to assume that we can plan for all problems with something as risky as space flight. Do you honestly believe that NASA engineers were too lazy to think of as many problems as possible, and engineer solutions to those problems? In spite of their best efforts, 2 shuttles still crashed. That is an unacceptable failure rate for something like a nuclear reactor.

 

And I'm beginning to suspect that you are greatly exaggerating the effect of coal power plants based on this paper:

 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/01604120/1996/00000022/90000001/art00112

 

 

I think from many perspectives we have to make space flight that safe, if not for a short term aspect such as atmospheric nuclear detonations or what not just for any survivable future of such for people in general. It may be far fetched to think such but what could honestly support any large scale effort to even live on the moon not to mention mars?

 

if to just narrow this down to nothing but nuclear power as the option for spaceships or related topics then I don't think you can suggest such being a non consequence for absolute safety, maybe it would not be earth such would crash on but what about anything else it might have to land on? Would landing sites have to be extraneously placed in regards to say a base camp on some other planet? What about issues of a meltdown in flight? I know in the movies such seems always to be fixed but what could people do in reality being all life support is based on whatever the current environment can afford?

 

The only option I have thought possible in regards to the incident in space case would be that the nuclear system could be in the form of separate individual and small cells, though I don't know how feasible such currently is.

[Mr Skeptic]

When considering something like this, it is advisable to consider three things:

1) the risk

2) the reward

3) the alternative

 

Risk:

Now, everyone is at least vaguely familiar with the risk that radioactive waste poses. It is perhaps exaggerated, as most people would be terrified by an amount of radiation which is less than is present in their own bodies. Regarding the comparison of nuclear and coal, coal does release more radiation than a nuclear power plant of equivalent capacity produces (but does not release!), but it has a long half life, and is widely dispersed, so it poses little risk. As to the risk of a rocket, the greatest risks are during takeoff, re-entry, and landing. By picking isolated areas for each of these stages, even a worst-case scenario should result in no deaths on the ground.

 

Reward:

Simply stated, a nuclear rocket has much higher capacity than a fuel based rocket. The efficiency of the rocket is related to how hot the exhaust is, and the heat from a chemical based reaction is limited (much lower theoretical maximum) than that of a nuclear rocket. This is because a fire can only get so hot, because the energy gained by burning fuel is countered by having to heat the cold fuel. A nuclear rocket is limited by how hot you can heat your engine without melting it, and how fast you can cool the engine.

 

The overall result is that a nuclear rocket is far more efficient, which means it can lift more, or go further. Even a small gain in efficiency is very valuable, as most of the energy in a chemical rocket is for lifting the fuel, not the cargo. And a nuclear rocket is far more efficient, so most of its energy can go into lifting cargo. This also means that the rocket can be built more solidly or with more safety features. Also, the nuclear rocket could have enough fuel to do a powered descent, rather than a let's-pray-the-heat-shields-hold descent, which would again be safer. In any case, less fuel and more cargo means cheaper space launches, and more efficient engines mean we can go farther (eg mars).

 

If you consider that colonizing other worlds is our insurance against us earthlings destroying ourselves, then the nuclear rocket would be almost a necessity for this, as it is unlikely anyone could afford the fuel and number of rockets that would be required otherwise.

 

Alternatives:

Some chemical rockets use carcinogenic fuels, and use them by the ton. This is comparable to a release of radioactive wastes, as the danger from both of them is cancer.

 

Other rockets use something like liquid hydrogen and/or liquid oxygen. However, these are very dangerous fuels, as they must be kept cold so they won't explode or leak out of the tank; also, they are cold enough that they can make rocket parts very brittle, or cause ice from the air to condense on the rocket. All in all, a dangerous proposition, and also responsible for various rocket explosions from the Apollo program till now.

[ydoaPs]

An accident/explosion on the way up (or down) would be absolutely unacceptable.

 

Why would that be absolutely unacceptable. It wouldn't be much worse than a rocket exploding.

 

The article mentions risk mitigation, and gives two examples:

 

1. Chernobyl: relatively small, unexpected, at least 40 casualties (probably a few more), area the size of a small country uninhabitable for decades.

2. The Ivy Mike nuclear test, expected, planned, no casualties (that we know of).

 

Let's do a risk assessment:

 

[math]Risk = chance\cdot{impact}[/math]

 

The impact:

The thing with a nuclear rocket crash is that I would put it in category 1: unexpected nuclear meltdown possibly in an urban area (wherever the debris comes down). That's what makes accidents totally unacceptable. It would be in the Another-Chernobyl-Category.

 

The chance:

As mentioned above by big314mp: we should take into account the amount of rockets that failed during operation. It's pretty high.

 

So, you get:

[math]Risk = \text{pretty high chance}\cdot{\text{another Chernobyl}}[/math]

 

The article says that it is not a big danger on a global scale. True. But since the rocket here is also no global project, and does not have 6.7 billion passengers, that is no argument. I think that chapter 9 "But isn't this dangerous?" is flawed.

You know Chernobyl deliberately disregarded and deactivated safety features, right?

 

 

I am not trying to break down your idea. I am merely setting up a risk assessment. Determining the risk is something you must do anyway... so I feel that I am helping here. I feel that your last post is less objective than mine, and that the public opinion is not likely changed by your words, true or not.

 

On topic again:

A rocket is meant to go into orbit, and after further acceleration perhaps into the final frontier and beyond. But it's a fact that it will orbit a couple of times, if only to reduce the acceleration so that the astronauts survive.

 

Therefore, it will come over urban areas.

 

Therefore, it is possible that it comes down in an urban area.

 

I have read about safety in the engine. I do believe that nuclear power is safe on the ground. I don't think we'll have another Chernobyl soon in a stationary nuclear facility. I have not yet found a piece of text that described what happens if the Lightbulb Rocket goes from 6000 meters/second to zero in less than 1 second. Does the reactor survive such an impact? I might have overlooked the text describing this. I'd appreciate if you can point out where it is written. Thanks.

 

Okay, so it blows up.......It's fairly simple to calculate the activity(how radioactive) of the debris.

[math]A=N \lambda[/math] where A is the activity, N is the concentration, and [math]\lambda=\frac{\ln 2}{t_{\frac{1}{2}}}[/math]. Now, the fuel has a half life of millions of years. I guess we just need to know how big the explosion is, how much drifts down into the atmosphere, and how strong the wind is.............a rough estimate is that the activity due to such explosion would be extremely negligible.

 

 

The "coal power plants release radiation" is a roundabout appeal to emotion. It won't convince people here, as it is off topic.

 

Look at a nuclear power plant sometime. That is how much overbuilding is needed for people to trust nuclear power, even though that is an application that doesn't go anywhere. Without lots and lots of testing to conclusively prove that it is as safe as a nuclear power plant, the public will not trust it.

 

Also, consider asteroids. Solid balls of rock that are completely obliterated when they hit the ground. That should give you some idea of the level of overbuilding needed.

 

Overbuilding? What do you mean? Sure, there's redundancy, but not much "ovedrbuilding", whatever that means. However, if you provide some examples, I can tell you how wrong you are. Did I mention I operate two reactors?

Edited October 3, 2008 by ydoaPs

[foodchain]

 

You know Chernobyl deliberately disregarded and deactivated safety features, right?

 

 

I cant say for the math of how big a potential nuclear explosion might be, this though is not a null issue on the basis of explosion size. One, I do not think you could afford such a situation in flight, I think a human based attempt to repair that would be highly dangerous to do unless any populous in mass was very educated, which brings up another point about population. How many people do we really plan to support via nuclear technology like hypothesized here? I think the more prominent you make nuclear technology or central you make it the more prone that a potential accident can become real?

 

How much exposure in time is good for a gene pool to constant radioactive bombardment, let us think it will hit meiotic cells constantly or in some good quantity without really strict control or really limited use right? Would this require genetic engineering to give people polynuclear cells or something with great deals of chromosomes? Could some kind of shielding proteins exist? Bottom line is the support for such a reality I think is skin deep when it comes down to it, I mean how you would actually get there from here minus some quantum leap. How do you control such nuclear technology in regards to the total process really? Would space trash gain a new component? To many real questions don't have any factual answers to me.

 

I also do not think some fail percentage for nuclear reactors or technology can be 0% or some non occurrence for all time. How do you control this and how well on so many different levels or something as important of what makes space travel a reality for everyone?

[ydoaPs]

I cant say for the math of how big a potential nuclear explosion might be, this though is not a null issue on the basis of explosion size.

Let's see.........insignificant concentration divided by a HUGE halflife........BTW, most materials have trace amounts of radioactive materials. How much do you think such a disaster would increase background radiation?

I think the more prominent you make nuclear technology or central you make it the more prone that a potential accident can become real?

You VASTLY underestimate the amount of training and safety features.

 

How much exposure in time is good for a gene pool to constant radioactive bombardment, let us think it will hit meiotic cells constantly or in some good quantity without really strict control or really limited use right?

Do you know how much radiation you got last year? It was roughly 300mrem. In fact, if you live in a valley, on a mountain, or if you fly a lot, you got significantly more than that. Do you know how much I got last year from operating a reactor? I'll tell you: 6mrem.

 

Would this require genetic engineering to give people polynuclear cells or something with great deals of chromosomes? Could some kind of shielding proteins exist? Bottom line is the support for such a reality I think is skin deep when it comes down to it, I mean how you would actually get there from here minus some quantum leap. How do you control such nuclear technology in regards to the total process really? Would space trash gain a new component? To many real questions don't have any factual answers to me.

What on earth are you talking about?

[foodchain]

Let's see.........insignificant concentration divided by a HUGE halflife........BTW, most materials have trace amounts of radioactive materials. How much do you think such a disaster would increase background radiation?

 

I don't think it such a variable could have any cumulative effects, such as concentrations of such materials growing in time, plus you would still be subjecting people to levels of fallout if you want. I also would just like to think we are not talking about riding nuclear misses into population centers correct?

 

You VASTLY underestimate the amount of training and safety features.

Which would have to rival I think to the complexity or occurrence of such? I dont know if every modern home could make unless they had regular education on it, in terms of just spaceships you do deal with how bad any explosion could be I think regardless of how do deal with any dangerous levels of exposure, do you we think the halflife issue becomes more important in some vessel?

 

 

Do you know how much radiation you got last year? It was roughly 300mrem. In fact, if you live in a valley, on a mountain, or if you fly a lot, you got significantly more than that. Do you know how much I got last year from operating a reactor? I'll tell you: 6mrem.

 

Is that application you work with capable of what we are talking about? I think engineering on that scale or support for large populous in space flight or at home starts to deal with its own issues and dimensions that may not exist for every other application, it would not be like storing misses or anything right?

 

What on earth are you talking about?

 

Genetic engineering or related. Some microbes can take great deals of radiation and still survive using lots of copies of genes, this trait could be possibly useful to reduce hazards for people if it were to be integrated somehow into our cells, or some form of radiation protection at a cellular level, I think a cell/molecular level becomes again paramount in regards to exposure to radiation. You could by exposure I think become to generate hereditary cancers or what not, this in time could become build up I would think unless we can always cure cancer somehow.

[ydoaPs]

I don't think it such a variable could have any cumulative effects, such as concentrations of such materials growing in time, plus you would still be subjecting people to levels of fallout if you want. I also would just like to think we are not talking about riding nuclear misses into population centers correct?

The fallout would be next to nothing. As I implied in my last post, it wouldn't really even increase the background radiation levels.

 

Which would have to rival I think to the complexity or occurrence of such? I dont know if every modern home could make unless they had regular education on it,

Are you expecting random people to be the crew? Do we let random people just walk into the airport and rent a 747 for a weekend getaway?

 

in terms of just spaceships you do deal with how bad any explosion could be I think regardless of how do deal with any dangerous levels of exposure,

What dangerous levels of radiation?

 

 

 

Is that application you work with capable of what we are talking about?

I work in an application with 5000people living right on top of two reactors. Actually, the cafeteria is right above the reactors, but you know what I mean. Also, only a few hundred of us have any training about the reactors.

 

I think engineering on that scale or support for large populous in space flight or at home starts to deal with its own issues and dimensions that may not exist for every other application, it would not be like storing misses or anything right?

You mean the scale of small cities living in a structure the size of the empire state building with two reactors?

 

 

You could by exposure I think become to generate hereditary cancers or what not, this in time could become build up I would think unless we can always cure cancer somehow.

Do you actually know anything about radiological fundamentals?

[Mr Skeptic]

How much exposure in time is good for a gene pool to constant radioactive bombardment, let us think it will hit meiotic cells constantly or in some good quantity without really strict control or really limited use right? Would this require genetic engineering to give people polynuclear cells or something with great deals of chromosomes? Could some kind of shielding proteins exist?

 

All life on earth already has mechanisms to deal with radiation and chemical damage to the protein and DNA. Proteins get replaced, and there are some DNA repair mechanisms. Unfortunately, the DNA repair mechanisms are limited and some of that damage might not get repaired. Multicellular life has a mechanism to detect excessive DNA damage, and will self-destruct the cell and recycle it.

 

Also, there is a fungus that thrives on nuclear radiation, as opposed to just being damaged by it.

[foodchain]

I still think the issue is being reduced to unrealistic levels. To launch a nuclear payload in the form of ship, how big would that be, I think such would depend a bit on the ship and the gravity or planet right? SO would this mean we would trying to land possibly to giant cluster bomb of nukes, or fly that in space? This in regards to nuclear technology powering space travels is a serious issue? I don't think chemical rockets always proved to be safe in the first place, but in regards to impact whats worse? I honestly think space stations orbiting planets or just in space themselves is probably a better answer. Other technology I think would not only prove safer in terms of how much a threat in how many ways that would still make space travel a reality, I mean we dont even know I think really what we could do until we get past the current stage which barely has a space station capable of supporting life without aid yet by any means, its a big of a jump to say it has to be nuclear for anything more of a future to exist for such.

 

I would like to close with this question. Lets say you want to make a ship that will carry 1000 people with correct life support for say some year long journey then land with such system intact on a earth sized planet, would or how could nuclear technology be made safe really for just that process? What if you change the numbers to ten thousand on some decade long journey? Do we have to have tons of little space shuttle like spaceships, I think that means lots of nukes flying around though.

 

The issue about exposure has merit, any place on earth in which nuclear reactors have had issues its been nothing but harmful to people. There is bacteria under the site in handford washington for instance that via mutation has actually come to be able to survive in soil pretty much laden with toxic by products and waste. These are the real issues because the ships themselves would become life support and nuclear accidents truly represent that much more of a threat giving the situation such as using it to travel in space or even land such equipment.

[big314mp]

I have no opposition to the proper use of nuclear technology. It operates like any other tech, except more powerful. This can (and should) be put to good use.

 

My points are simple:

Space flight has a notoriously poor safety record. Testing needs to be done to ensure proper safety. This testing needs to ensure that the safety of such a rocket is on the order of a nuclear power plant.

 

Should a nuclear rocket be built, and then release significant amounts of radionuclides, public support for both the nuclear rocket and for terrestrial nuclear power use will evaporate. Quickly.

 

If public support for nuclear power evaporates, it may take a generation or more to rebuild that support. This hampers

 

The evidence:

Look at the Chernobyl disaster. Regardless of any science present, it trashed public support for nuclear power. Same for Three Mile Island. It doesn't matter that the safety features were turned off, current reactors are safer, current operators are better trained, etc. None of that matters to the public.

 

My conclusion:

You had better make damn sure that this nuclear rocket doesn't blow up and dump a bunch of radionuclides into the air. The public uproar will kill any and all nuclear projects for 30 years afterwards. So I think what I am advocating is reasonable: that such a rocket be held to a much higher standard than current space vehicles.