Clean Nuclear Launches?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by michael on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:30AM from the lead-lined-underwear dept.

AKAImBatman writes "When it comes to launching millions of pounds of material into space, nearly everyone knows about the Orion Project. Blow up a series of nuclear bombs under your dairy-aire and ride the explosion on up. Unfortunately, the Orion spewed out so much radiation that it just wasn't a feasible launch option. If we want commuter trips to space, we're going to have to find another way. Well, it turns out that NASA's been doing quite a bit of research on Gas Core Nuclear Rockets, an ultra-powerful nuclear rocket that puts out almost no radiation. This research has spurred a fascinating new generation of ideas on reaching the cosmos. Could inexpensive cruises to the moon happen within our lifetimes?"

27 of 838 comments (clear)

Two Words by Hell+O'World · 2004-01-13 07:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Space Elevator. Everything else is too dangerous and expensive.
1. Re:Two Words by IWorkForMorons · 2004-01-13 07:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Ok...I'll give you that. To get into space, a space elevator is probably a better idea. Two reason to continue developing nuclear engines:
  
  1) We don't have space elevators. Simple as that. Until the day they are reality, we need something better then conventional rockets.
  
  2) Once in space, either through the use of these rockets or a space elevator, these would be extremely useful for getting around the solar system, or at least roaming our backyard (the moon) or visiting next door (Mars).
  
  IANARS (rocket scientist), but I enjoy learning about developments in space tech. The nuclear engine, while different versions having been developed and tested decades ago, still looks to be the next best thing in space travel.
2. Re:Two Words by *weasel · 2004-01-13 07:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Funny, all the old space probes had nuclear powerplants and that all worked out just fine.
  
  This is an education issue mainly.
  
  If people can believe we have designed black boxes that survive being slammed into the Pennsylvania crust at 400 mph or the disintegration of its containing shuttle at 30000 feet - why is it a stretch to believe we can make a containment system for fissile material that would survive even catastrophic launch failure?
  
  --
  // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
3. Re:Two Words by squiggleslash · 2004-01-13 07:41 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Not necessarily. The space elevator needs equal pull on both sides of the point where it would be at the same distance from Earth as objects in geosynchronous orbit. You can either do that using a counterwieght such as a large asteroid, or by making the elevator exceedingly long, about the same length on either side of that geosync orbit position.
  There's a genuine safety issue with space elevators that ought to mentioned though, which is that if the elevator breaks, the part between Earth and the break point would act as a whip. A few thousand miles probably wouldn't be a big issue, but the closer to the end the cable breaks, the bigger, exponentially, the whiplash. A shockwave that destroys significant amounts of life on Earth isn't impossible.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
4. Re:Two Words by Baron_Yam · 2004-01-13 07:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  You should read up on the concept;
  
  The ribbon would end up fluttering down and wouldn't be dangerous at all
  
  The counterweight would fly off into space
  
  Any load ON the ribbon would be a different matter, but hey, the space shuttles fell without causing planet-wide destruction.
  
  Also, the base of the ribbon would probably be a floating platform in the middle of an ocean, so any falling load would be extremely unlikely to hit land.
5. Re:Two Words by Tackhead · 2004-01-13 07:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  > Space Elevator. Everything else is too dangerous and expensive.
  Two more words for you: Suspension bridge.
  When you can build a 40,000-millimeter suspension bridge out of carbon nanotubes and cross the river near the campus materials lab building, then you can start fantasizing about a 40,000-kilometer space elevator.
  Until then, NERVA is the only way to go. Everything else is still at the research stage.
6. Re:Two Words by epiphani · 2004-01-13 07:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I hate when I see this arguement.
  
  Look at some of the more recent space elevator designs.
  
  Basically, the elevator would be made out of a ribbon so light and with such a surface area that it would fall to the earth like a peice of paper. At least that section of the ribbon that doesnt burn up while entering the atmosphere.
  
  A space elevator isnt like the ones you read about in Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars trilogy.
  
  --
  .
7. Re:Two Words by Phekko · 2004-01-13 07:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You forgot
  
  3) How are we supposed to get the space elevator up in the first place?
  
  --
  
  Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.
8. Re:Two Words by jridley · 2004-01-13 08:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You can't educate someone who doesn't want to be educated.
  
  Remember when Cassini went up, with a little thermal nuclear battery? It would have taken something like a direct DU antitank round to split that casing; a crash never would have done it.
  
  NASA pointed this out, repeatedly, and stated the very safe history of these devices. Nevertheless, there were swarms of people protesting at NASA. They showed footage of families with children crying; the parents had told them that the rocket was going to crash and the radiation would kill them all.
  
  You can't reason with these people any more than you can reason with conspiracy theorists. They know what they "know" and if you tell them different, you're a god-damn liar.
  
  This is the same reason that NMR is now called MRI. Nuclear bad, magnets good! If they put that magnet inside a pyramid, people would pay to sit inside it for no reason.
9. Re:Two Words by MikShapi · 2004-01-13 08:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Actually, a SE makes a significantly better, safer and cheaper inter-solar-system-transportaion-system than dirty bombs. It's not just a tool to escape orbit - it can take us to other planets. That's what's so genious about the idea.
  
  There are two reasons for making it 91000km long when all you technically need is 35000km.
  
  One: because you need a very large and unfeasible mass at the top if you want to balance 35000km of cable hanging below GEO with a weight located, say, 1 meter above it. You need a significantly smaller weight at the top if you want to balance it at 91000km.
  
  Two: (which brings us back to our point of discussion) If you go as far as 91000km, you can slingshot payloads as far as jupiter and its moons. If you build even higher, at 140000km you can get as far as pluto.
  
  Of course, the first thing you'd want to send to your destination is a pre-fabricated and spooled SE to deploy there, so you can send stuff back...
  
  --
  -
10. Re:Two Words by WizardX · 2004-01-13 08:53 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Actually, going critical and melt-down are two different, yet slightly related events.
  
  "going" critical: All nuclear reactions (not nuclear decay) are critical. In order for a self sustaing nuclear to occur, a critical mass of fissible material must be present. If the mass falls below critical the reaction will extinguish. Decay will still occur and generate heat, abliet much less.
  
  Melt-down: A melt-down happens when a reaction goes out of control and produces sufficient amounts of heat to cause the core the liquify (melt down). When a core melt-down happens, there is not a damn thing on this planet (that I know of) that can the molten (and getting hotter by the second) glob that used to be the core.
  
  It has been theorized that if this happens, the molten core will burn through the earth until it reaches water. Upon contact with the core the water will turn into steam and create what is in effect a steam cannon, blasing the core back up the hole and showering bits of the core for miles around.
11. Re:Two Words by random_static · 2004-01-13 09:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  the tonnes of nuclear waste produced for which the only solution seems to be
  
  "stick it in a fast reactor and use it again".
  except that made the know-nothings even more scared of their own shadows, so politics and fear-mongering killed that too.
  Or perhaps my irrationality extends to thinking that when the pigeons around the UK's nuclear waste processing plants are so radioactive they would be classed as nuclear waste themselves
  
  if you think that proves anything about nuclear waste reprocessing as such, then you would indeed be thinking irrationally. if, however, you get a sneaking suspicion that the simple explanation - namely, that whoever operated that particular plant were a bunch of goofball morons who shouldn't have been trusted to operate a toaster - might after all be more likely, then perhaps there is still hope for your rationality and sense.
  The problem with nuclear power is that it is made by humans and they have a habit of fucking up on a grand scale.
  
  how, exactly, is that a problem with nuclear power?
  that is a problem with people. don't blame nuclear power for your belonging to a race of goofball morons. if you let humanity's inherent flawedness scare you away from doing anything at all remotely dangerous - because, ohmygoddess, we might fuck it up somehow, because we are so goddamn motherfucking stupid, we can't trust ourselves with pointy sticks even, we might poke our eyes out, won't somebody think of the children - then nothing will ever get done. at all. by anybody.
  yes, nuclear power carries some risks. so does every other damn thing you will ever think of. as a general rule of thumb, the more worthwhile and useful things you can think of will be proportionally more dangerous. that's life - deal with it.
Public Perception by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-13 07:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

One of the biggest problems with anything Nulcear, be it power, subs, or rockets, there is a very negative public perception. You can tell people that it is safe all you want but there will always be that paranoia. It doesn't help that people don't neccesarily trust the government.
1. Re:Public Perception by CKW · 2004-01-13 08:49 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  "Not to mention the fact that your average coal burning plant simply doesn't have the potential to cause a catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl"
  
  Not all at once in one place.
  
  Coal and Petrochemical based air pollution has killed tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands at younger ages than they would have otherwise died, and cars and tobacco have killed TENS OF MILLIONS of people this century, and yet you think that the HUNDREDS of reactors in current operation in North America whom haven't killed a SINGLE HUMAN BEING yet - are a bigger badder threat.
  
  Stupid dumb public. And they bitch like hell when we try and keep their asses in High School all the way through until grade 12.
Re:Uh by NanoGator · 2004-01-13 07:36 · Score: 5, Funny

"Is derriere REALLY that f'ing difficult to spell?"

Is fucking really that fucking difficult to spell?

--
"Derp de derp."
I can imagine the protests now... by DaRat · 2004-01-13 07:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

A few years back, I remember there being some amazingly loud protests from some anti-nuclear power folks about the dangers of a deep space probe going up with a nuclear power source. Those folks were worried about the danger if the rocket blew up on the pad or the 1 in 100,000 or so chance the probe would hit the earth on one of its acceleration orbits.

Just imagine how happy these folks will be with a nuclear powered rocket, even if the scientific community claims that they are safe. After all, it's nuclear related, so it's gotta be bad!! (tongue firmly in cheek)
1. Re:I can imagine the protests now... by mcc · 2004-01-13 08:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What the protesters didn't tell you--probably because they couldn't be bothered enough to research they'd know this-- is that (1) we'd been putting up reactors on spacecrafts for years and years and (2) the reactor was one of the most mind-bogglingly safe imaginable, if the entire reactor was blown up or disentigrated in the atmosphere the radioactive material would still be able to hold together well enough that at worst it would split together into a couple of chunks so solid you could pick them up and hold them...
  
  My suspicion is that Nuclear technology will get nowhere in the United States until people stop calling it that, due to the huge political movement to make sure no one uses anything with "nuclear" in the name, regardless of the safety, degree of research, or degree of oversight. I'd propose scientists start using some other word, like "happytronic", but this would probably be seen through as "hollow PR from the nuclear industry". (That's another thing. People promoting nuclear energy are often derided as "Nuclear Industry Shills", but people attacking it are never successfully labelled as "Coal Industry Shills", despite the fact that's who they're primarily helping. How is this?)
  
  This is the primary promise Fusion offers IMHO-- because oh, it isn't nuclear, it's "Fusion", right? Which means people will actually use it.
  
  Perhaps we should start researching some kind of "hybrid" technique, which would allow the creation of reactors that can be claimed to be "fusion" although they're actually just fission reactors with some kind of technique involved that has something vaguely to do with fusion.
  
  --
  Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
in case/when the IIS server gets /.ed.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-13 07:38 · Score: 5, Informative

(article text, minus pictures)

Opening the Next Frontier
by Anthony Tate

Part 1: The Frontier Spirit

America loves its legends. George Washington in Valley Forge. The Wild West. World War II. The Man on the Moon.

But lately, it seems the legends have stopped.

Sure, we have the Internet to play with now, and computers are changing the world in ways we can scarcely grasp as of yet. The Soviet Union is no more, and despite our current travails with terrorism, a certain comfortable familiarity has us in its grip.

Where is the next legend? Where is the next frontier? Or are we just going to go comfortably off into retirement?

If the 'entertainments' of the kids these days are any indication, no way.

Extreme sports, fun little things like 'base jumping' and other diversions indicate that the next generation of Americans are harkening back to their roots in a big way. America is ready for the next challenge, refreshed, revitalized, and shaking off old fears and inhibitions.

But what could have caused our recent doldrums?

Why have we not gone back to deep space, that logical 'Final Frontier,' for so many years after Apollo? I believe it was a confluence of several factors, most of which have now passed, that caused us to huddle close to the bosom of Mother Earth for these past decades.

Part 2: What went wrong.

To be blunt, it was the 70's.

After the turbulent change of the 60's, the 70's were just a hard time for America. The Cold War dragged on and on, no end in sight. Vietnam was a horrible, bloody mess, deeply misunderstood to this day, and bitterly divisive even in the aftermath. Watergate destroyed the faith of millions in their own government. The Oil Embargo shocked the economy as well, causing the nightmarish condition of 'stagflation.' Cultural upheaval became the norm as gains in civil rights were cemented into place.

With that litany of bad news, there is little wonder that the public lost interest in space. When you are scared for your job, your children, and whether or not your paycheck next year will still cover the rent, idealism and exploration goes out the window.

Also, lets be honest, landing on the Moon in the 1960's was an incredible feat. That entire rocket, the whole plan, was designed, built, and flown using less computing power than you have in your PC. Genius level effort was used to make that program possible, and the chance of disaster was perilously high, even by the comparatively relaxed standards of the day. In other words, Saturn was ahead of its time, by many years.

If it wasn't for the Cold War imperative to beat the Soviets, we'd probably be looking to go to the Moon right about now, all things considered.

Add in the fact that science itself was throwing up massive roadblocks, and there is little surprise to be had from the seeming 'retreat from space.' The rocket fuel used in the Saturn V moon rocket at launch was BETTER than the rocket fuel used to launch the Space Shuttle today. Why is that? Well, it's simple: The chemical fuels used in the Saturn V are among the best fuels that chemistry allows. Science is remarkably inflexible: unlike in the movies we can't just 'whip up' better rocket fuels. Chemistry is pretty stubborn that way.

So, exploring further in space was not important to the country while we had other problems to deal with, and making rockets better than the SaturnV was pretty much impossible.

So, NASA went sideways for a while. The Space Shuttle is a remarkable system, but it is at its core a compromise. So while it is good at many things, it is great at nothing. But nonetheless, the Space Shuttle kept America in space, and slowly we were building momentum to move forward once again away from the Earth.

Then Challenger blew up (and now we've lost Columbia and her crew as well).

Now, to the doughty folks who made Apollo fly, that disaster would have been a learning experience, and development would have continue
Launches? by znu · 2004-01-13 07:39 · Score: 5, Informative

My understanding is that the clean nuclear propulsion systems presently under serious consideration don't provide a high enough thrust/weight ratio to actually lift a spacecraft off the surface of the Earth. Rather, their primary use would be for entirely space-born craft, which would be assembled in orbit and zip around the solar system without actually ever touching down anywhere.

--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Re:My favorite part... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-13 07:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Call me back when there is none.
Quick, someone ban the sun.
And stop people from living in Denver or flying on planes or going skiing in the mountains.
And let's not forget xray machines, cathode ray tubes (TVs and computer monitors to you non-engineers).
And what about that deadly substance known as "granite" that releases radioactive radon?
It will never happen by Tassach · 2004-01-13 07:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

Most people go batshit whenever they hear the N-word. That's why NUCLEAR Magnetic Resonance Imaging had to lose the N before it could go mainstream. NMRI became MRI for PR purposes, not because the technology changed.
The environmental whackos go nuts (and let slip the lawyers of war) when you launch a totally sealed reactor, can you imagine what they would do if you wanted to launch something that *gasp* released radioactive gasses into the atmosphere?

--
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
1. Re:It will never happen by proj_2501 · 2004-01-13 07:59 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I thought it was because people going into the hospital, saying "I have an appointment for an NMR" (en em ah) in a New England accent, got something VERY unexpected.
Warning! Flee your home! by Chris+Burke · 2004-01-13 07:41 · Score: 5, Funny

You are being bombared with deadly radiation right now! Coming from the ground, objects in your home, and worst, from mankind's eternal nemesis, the Sun itself. Please flee your home screaming and head for your nearest all-lead fallout shelter!

We'll call you out when it's safe.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Safety measure by j_dot_bomb · 2004-01-13 07:44 · Score: 5, Funny

To prevent any sealed radio active capsule from possibly breaking on impact with the ground a malfunctioning rocket will have a 50Meg hydrogen bomb on it to destroy all the pieces in the air
Who knew by GoodNicsTken · 2004-01-13 07:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Magnetoplasmadynamic was actually a word? And why didn't Piccard ever use it?

VASIMR (Variable Specific Impulse magnetoplasmadynamic Rocket)- And I though telecom had too many acrynoms.
One of these things is not like the other.... by DerekLyons · 2004-01-13 07:49 · Score: 5, Informative

A gas core nuclear reactor has a high ISP (meaning it's very efficient), but it does not have a particularly high thrust. That means it's great for cruising and orbital work, but it's not a launch engine like Orion could be.
Well by cubicledrone · 2004-01-13 07:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Could inexpensive cruises to the moon happen within our lifetimes?"

No.

See, here's the problem:

Nothing is permitted any more without a "business case" being made for it. No document, no invention, no idea, no presentation is countenanced unless it has 20% annual growth and the accountants and the management committee sign off on it.

Since it is impossible to get a bureaucracy to sign off on anything, nothing is permitted at all.

Small businesses and entrepreneurs are starved for capital. Large businesses and management committees have substantial capital, but refuse to invest it. Therefore, there is no capital; or, if there is, it is usually totally inadequate.

Middle management has a perfect series of questions for ideas like this. There is nothing in the world easier than criticizing an idea. Questions like "what do we need that for?" and "yeah, but how do you know it will work?" or "how can you be sure that will sell?" These questions are asked as if an answer is expected. The questions are followed by the comments: "It'll never work," and "sounds expensive" and "why can't we just use $OTHER_IDEA?"

But no answer is expected. The people asking the questions simply want to see how well the "idea person" can ad lib and how many bullshit one-liners and jokes they can reply with. After the middle managers have been entertained, a cocktail party laugh will circle the room, and the idea person will be escorted out of the building and into obscurity as the five-foot-wide-asses return to their bean salads.

As long as this continues, the rate of invention and "innovation" will be reduced to unmeasurably small levels. No vision, idea or invention can surmount well-funded cynicism. Brilliant, well-educated people's minds are being wasted because they report to lying, cheat fuck, greed-driven managers.

Middle management routinely turns its back on paying customers and competition-less markets. How the fuck are they ever going to accept a new "unproven" idea?

They won't.

--
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.