I narrowed my choice of nuclear plants to US commercial very carefully to help show that we can and will be afraid of just about anything that gives us reason. While the US Commercial Nuke field has had zero deaths or explosions, thats not to say they have not happened in a broader range of nuclear power plants, obviously. The US actually has at least 3 deaths that I know of from an explosion of a nuclear power plant, it just happened to be military (see SL-1), not commercial. I understand you said stupid and illogical, and just provided something else to have a stupid illogical fear of. And when I said anything can blowup, i really mean almost anything, nuke plants included. We all just have to pick and choose which ones we are willing to live near/with. I for one will never live near a place that stores molasses, and may not want to live too close to a brewery either, now that I know about the London Beer Flood that took 9 lives (8 from drowning, 1 from alcohol poisoning).
It would be like claiming that the thermostat in your house is slowly increasing the temperature in your room so therefore there's no harm in raising the thermostat further.
But I don't see any harm in that. I may actually like a 1 degree annual average increase. Possibly improve my comfort, and possibly save me some money if spaced correctly (when considering the air conditioning). Thanks for the idea.
And finally because there's no station anywhere near most people homes (I have to walk an hour to get to my station), you have to figure out how to get the people to the train, which is even more overhead to add to the trains' cost.
You conveniently left out the part of the additional overheard required to get all those cars to that 12 lane highway you hold near and dear to your heart. I have to drive 30 minutes to get to the highway. Just like there is no rail station near most peoples homes, there is also no highway near most peoples homes. Just like you have to "figure out how to get the people to the train" you have to figure out how to get people to the highway.
people could kill themselves tripping over the rails when trying to board the train.
What train stations do you frequent that requires people to cross the rails? Every station I've ever been to has bridges over/tunnels under the rails. And to increase capacity, more cars on the trains, and have them come more frequently normally does the trick. Then you add another rail where its needed just like you do for the highways.
Source please? Also discuss the sample data and statistical analysis used to arrive at this conclusion. I'd also like to know the 95% confidence interval.
Actually U-234 decays to Th-230, from Th-230 to Ra-226, then Ra-226 to Rn-222. And the half lives of Th-230 and Ra-226 are in the thousands of years, where Rn-222 is like 4 days. The Rn-222 produced from the decay chain of Uranium-234 should thus deplete much faster than the chain creates more.
My post was in response to the hostility of the two environments. Saying the hostility is on par, means the cost to implement should in theory be on par. To jump to the conclusion that the mass of the solutions should be on par is a strange jump.
The mass is unavoidable on a sub that has to withstand that kind of pressure. Take the pressure swing away, and the mass goes down drastically. Space vessels don't need as thick of a pressure hull because the drop isn't as great. And all submarines do is transit, have you not heard of the incidents of subs running into fishing vessels and underwater terrain they didn't know was there?. Why would they need a propeller or control surfaces if they didn't transit? And when your main purpose is transit, don't you want a better safety record than that?
I do know a way to get something that massive into space for the about same price of a sub, and surprise, it uses the same power source. The US developed nuclear powered rockets in the 60's, only problem is the wake of radiation they left behind. Thankfully those who had to make the decision saw this wasn't the best road to follow in the interest of the general public. Getting stuck on launching something as massive as a sub is a weak argument, because there is no need for it to be that massive. There is however a need for a sub to be that massive. The parallel was drawn to show that a US program was able to find a solution to building a vessel for a similarly hostile environment for less than NASA and with a better safety record.
Lets take at look at pressure. Pressure at sea level is 1 atmosphere (14.7 psi, ~100kPa, whatever units you prefer). Space is considered to be a vacuum, thus 0 atmosphere, or 100% change from sea level. When you go under water you add 1 atmosphere of pressure for every 10m or ~32/33 feet. Virgina class subs have a 34 foot hull diameter. So the pressure change just from top to bottom of the sub is 1 atmosphere different, equal to the difference seen from going from sea level to space. Virginia depth capability is listed as greater than 800 feet. Going down 800 feet at 1 atmosphere of pressure per 33 feet gives ~24 atmosphere, 2400% change from sea level, compared to 100% to go to space.
As far as naked human survivability in space vs the ocean, they're equal. Can't breathe, body can't take the extreme pressure differences. You can natural sunlight in space, light doesn't penetrate very deep in the oceans (at 330ft light is about 0.5% of that at the surface.). These things mean you need support systems to do anything useful. And then the pressure becomes a big deal.
You calling the comparison stupid was based on what now? The comparison is adequate.
And the buoyancy counteracts..... the weight. I did say that if you add weight you need to add length to give enough volume to float that weight, meaning you need to add buoyancy. Anyways the point was, subs could be made a lot smaller and cheaper if they didn't have to worry about coming up, because weight (read:buoyancy) will not matter, thus all those ballast and trim tanks (and associated pumps and piping) can go, the machinery can be packed in different to cut volume.
To relate it back to NASA, it takes a lot to get payload into space. Once its up there, it doesn't cost nearly as much to move around. Point in the right direction, do a short burn and you're on your way. Similar to come back to Earth. A sub however (almost) always needs to be powered if it wants to move anywhere.
First off, i cost next to nothing to get payload to the bottom of the ocean, just grab a penny and drop it. The cost comes in bringing it back up
The weight of a sub is actually quite a critical parameter that is watched like a hawk. Don't forget these thing need to go up an down through great pressure swings and thermal variants for over 30 years (not to mention possible battle conditions). The design is not just "well lets bulk it up". If it adds weight, you have to add length to give enough volume to float that weight, and that costs a lot more money than you think. Lets not forget the newest ones carry all the fuel they will need for 30+ years. So yea, it may be a touch easier, but they're also carrying 30 years worth of baggage.
The oceans are also a hostile environment. Yet we designed a submarine for about $6B and currently buy new ones (1 a year at the moment) for under $3B each. When was the last time the nuclear Navy has had an accident? That would be the USS Scorpion in 1968. Only twice in the history of the nuclear Navy has there been accidents resulting in the loss of life, both in the '60's. The Navy also has many more platforms, operate far more frequently, and are designed and built (nuclear construction too) for less than NASA wants to go to the moon. NASA needs to trim the fat and improve safety if that want to keep support levels high.
You also say that you take a risk every time you strap yourself to a rocket and blast into space. Well you also take a risk every time you strap your self to a car, get on a bike, bus, train, etc. But you have to trust that things have been designed properly and the operator is paying attention to what they're doing. If you want a life without risk, good luck finding it. The key is to make sure the proper steps are taken to mitigate those risks.
I have to correct myself. Policy just changed today. Only personal electronics now allowed are AM/FM Radios and 1980's style four function calculators. Coffee pots, microwaves, and fans are provided by the company.
If its a DSLR, it better blow a non-DSLR out of the water. I know there's better DSLR's, I was giving examples and SUGGESTED price points for high-end, non-DSLRs.
Yes and no. Depends on what you mean. Mini USB ports allowed, cable or anything that plugs into a USB/Firewire port on a computer, No. So I can bring in a cell phone that charges through the Mini USB jack, but no accessories that plug into it and no cables to connect it to a computer. Anything with a standard male USB/Firewire is a no, CD's are a no. Basically nothing that can attach to the computers or network. And before someone mentions it, there is no wireless. Yes we do get checked everyday, by guards carrying assault rifles and handguns. You get caught with a camera/USB storage/cd/any other mode of connecting to the computers/network, the result is likely immediate firing, and most likely legal action resulting in serious jail time.
Missed the point again. This time I'll change my words. If the camera can be removed it means the camera can be reinserted, and thus not allowed on site. Unless they change the casing to have no cutout for a camera, I can't have it on site, no matter if I remove the camera, Apple removes the camera, or the director of security at the site removes the camera. If it has a slot to plug in a camera, and a cutout for the lens, it's a no go.
Well that's your unique situation. My life doesn't involve posting pictures on Facebook or keeping a blog, therefore a camera on everything is of no added value to me.
Not true. It's been tried. Still not allowed. The rationale is if I can take it out, I can just as easily put one back in. It's been beaten like a dead horse where I work (Defense Contractor). They trust us with a security clearance but not enough to think we won't put a camera back in after it's been removed.
Thats when they go to the high end camera thats not a DSLR such as the new Cannon G11. Suggested Retail price: $499.99 or the Powershot SX20IS at $399.99 Not as complex as a DSLR, but better than the cheap point and shoot they had before. If you're going to price it like a DSLR, you better be delivering a DSLR, there's a reason they're that expensive.
I disagree. I would love to see some form of portable electronic NOT include a camera. I can't take a camera into work. That limits me to crappy cell phones. Now i'll have to worry about what mp3 player I can get too. Why does everything need a damn camera.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's a pretty long walk.
I narrowed my choice of nuclear plants to US commercial very carefully to help show that we can and will be afraid of just about anything that gives us reason. While the US Commercial Nuke field has had zero deaths or explosions, thats not to say they have not happened in a broader range of nuclear power plants, obviously. The US actually has at least 3 deaths that I know of from an explosion of a nuclear power plant, it just happened to be military (see SL-1), not commercial. I understand you said stupid and illogical, and just provided something else to have a stupid illogical fear of. And when I said anything can blowup, i really mean almost anything, nuke plants included. We all just have to pick and choose which ones we are willing to live near/with. I for one will never live near a place that stores molasses, and may not want to live too close to a brewery either, now that I know about the London Beer Flood that took 9 lives (8 from drowning, 1 from alcohol poisoning).
Number of deaths in the US from Commercial nuclear accidents: 0
Number of deaths from the bursting of a molasses storage tank in Boston: 21
Anything can blowup and kill your family.
But most of the population is in Europe.
People are lazy. They drop that forth dimension and next thing you know everyone thinks P=E instead of P=E/t
You young whipper snapper, I remember when it was still THEfacebook.com as shown in this Orginal Facebook layout. Now get off my lawn.
It would be like claiming that the thermostat in your house is slowly increasing the temperature in your room so therefore there's no harm in raising the thermostat further.
But I don't see any harm in that. I may actually like a 1 degree annual average increase. Possibly improve my comfort, and possibly save me some money if spaced correctly (when considering the air conditioning). Thanks for the idea.
And finally because there's no station anywhere near most people homes (I have to walk an hour to get to my station), you have to figure out how to get the people to the train, which is even more overhead to add to the trains' cost.
You conveniently left out the part of the additional overheard required to get all those cars to that 12 lane highway you hold near and dear to your heart. I have to drive 30 minutes to get to the highway. Just like there is no rail station near most peoples homes, there is also no highway near most peoples homes. Just like you have to "figure out how to get the people to the train" you have to figure out how to get people to the highway.
people could kill themselves tripping over the rails when trying to board the train.
What train stations do you frequent that requires people to cross the rails? Every station I've ever been to has bridges over/tunnels under the rails. And to increase capacity, more cars on the trains, and have them come more frequently normally does the trick. Then you add another rail where its needed just like you do for the highways.
Source please? Also discuss the sample data and statistical analysis used to arrive at this conclusion. I'd also like to know the 95% confidence interval.
Actually U-234 decays to Th-230, from Th-230 to Ra-226, then Ra-226 to Rn-222. And the half lives of Th-230 and Ra-226 are in the thousands of years, where Rn-222 is like 4 days. The Rn-222 produced from the decay chain of Uranium-234 should thus deplete much faster than the chain creates more.
You could... and thus defeat the purpose of using it as a coolant.
My post was in response to the hostility of the two environments. Saying the hostility is on par, means the cost to implement should in theory be on par. To jump to the conclusion that the mass of the solutions should be on par is a strange jump.
The mass is unavoidable on a sub that has to withstand that kind of pressure. Take the pressure swing away, and the mass goes down drastically. Space vessels don't need as thick of a pressure hull because the drop isn't as great. And all submarines do is transit, have you not heard of the incidents of subs running into fishing vessels and underwater terrain they didn't know was there?. Why would they need a propeller or control surfaces if they didn't transit? And when your main purpose is transit, don't you want a better safety record than that?
I do know a way to get something that massive into space for the about same price of a sub, and surprise, it uses the same power source. The US developed nuclear powered rockets in the 60's, only problem is the wake of radiation they left behind. Thankfully those who had to make the decision saw this wasn't the best road to follow in the interest of the general public. Getting stuck on launching something as massive as a sub is a weak argument, because there is no need for it to be that massive. There is however a need for a sub to be that massive. The parallel was drawn to show that a US program was able to find a solution to building a vessel for a similarly hostile environment for less than NASA and with a better safety record.
Orders of magnitude more dangerous based on what?
Lets take at look at pressure. Pressure at sea level is 1 atmosphere (14.7 psi, ~100kPa, whatever units you prefer). Space is considered to be a vacuum, thus 0 atmosphere, or 100% change from sea level. When you go under water you add 1 atmosphere of pressure for every 10m or ~32/33 feet. Virgina class subs have a 34 foot hull diameter. So the pressure change just from top to bottom of the sub is 1 atmosphere different, equal to the difference seen from going from sea level to space. Virginia depth capability is listed as greater than 800 feet. Going down 800 feet at 1 atmosphere of pressure per 33 feet gives ~24 atmosphere, 2400% change from sea level, compared to 100% to go to space.
As far as naked human survivability in space vs the ocean, they're equal. Can't breathe, body can't take the extreme pressure differences. You can natural sunlight in space, light doesn't penetrate very deep in the oceans (at 330ft light is about 0.5% of that at the surface.). These things mean you need support systems to do anything useful. And then the pressure becomes a big deal.
You calling the comparison stupid was based on what now? The comparison is adequate.
And the buoyancy counteracts..... the weight. I did say that if you add weight you need to add length to give enough volume to float that weight, meaning you need to add buoyancy. Anyways the point was, subs could be made a lot smaller and cheaper if they didn't have to worry about coming up, because weight (read:buoyancy) will not matter, thus all those ballast and trim tanks (and associated pumps and piping) can go, the machinery can be packed in different to cut volume.
To relate it back to NASA, it takes a lot to get payload into space. Once its up there, it doesn't cost nearly as much to move around. Point in the right direction, do a short burn and you're on your way. Similar to come back to Earth. A sub however (almost) always needs to be powered if it wants to move anywhere.
First off, i cost next to nothing to get payload to the bottom of the ocean, just grab a penny and drop it. The cost comes in bringing it back up
The weight of a sub is actually quite a critical parameter that is watched like a hawk. Don't forget these thing need to go up an down through great pressure swings and thermal variants for over 30 years (not to mention possible battle conditions). The design is not just "well lets bulk it up". If it adds weight, you have to add length to give enough volume to float that weight, and that costs a lot more money than you think. Lets not forget the newest ones carry all the fuel they will need for 30+ years. So yea, it may be a touch easier, but they're also carrying 30 years worth of baggage.
The oceans are also a hostile environment. Yet we designed a submarine for about $6B and currently buy new ones (1 a year at the moment) for under $3B each. When was the last time the nuclear Navy has had an accident? That would be the USS Scorpion in 1968. Only twice in the history of the nuclear Navy has there been accidents resulting in the loss of life, both in the '60's. The Navy also has many more platforms, operate far more frequently, and are designed and built (nuclear construction too) for less than NASA wants to go to the moon. NASA needs to trim the fat and improve safety if that want to keep support levels high.
You also say that you take a risk every time you strap yourself to a rocket and blast into space. Well you also take a risk every time you strap your self to a car, get on a bike, bus, train, etc. But you have to trust that things have been designed properly and the operator is paying attention to what they're doing. If you want a life without risk, good luck finding it. The key is to make sure the proper steps are taken to mitigate those risks.
Agreed, also why that whole led zeppelin idea never took off.
I have to correct myself. Policy just changed today. Only personal electronics now allowed are AM/FM Radios and 1980's style four function calculators. Coffee pots, microwaves, and fans are provided by the company.
If its a DSLR, it better blow a non-DSLR out of the water. I know there's better DSLR's, I was giving examples and SUGGESTED price points for high-end, non-DSLRs.
Yes and no. Depends on what you mean. Mini USB ports allowed, cable or anything that plugs into a USB/Firewire port on a computer, No. So I can bring in a cell phone that charges through the Mini USB jack, but no accessories that plug into it and no cables to connect it to a computer. Anything with a standard male USB/Firewire is a no, CD's are a no. Basically nothing that can attach to the computers or network. And before someone mentions it, there is no wireless. Yes we do get checked everyday, by guards carrying assault rifles and handguns. You get caught with a camera/USB storage/cd/any other mode of connecting to the computers/network, the result is likely immediate firing, and most likely legal action resulting in serious jail time.
Missed the point again. This time I'll change my words. If the camera can be removed it means the camera can be reinserted, and thus not allowed on site. Unless they change the casing to have no cutout for a camera, I can't have it on site, no matter if I remove the camera, Apple removes the camera, or the director of security at the site removes the camera. If it has a slot to plug in a camera, and a cutout for the lens, it's a no go.
Well that's your unique situation. My life doesn't involve posting pictures on Facebook or keeping a blog, therefore a camera on everything is of no added value to me.
Not true. It's been tried. Still not allowed. The rationale is if I can take it out, I can just as easily put one back in. It's been beaten like a dead horse where I work (Defense Contractor). They trust us with a security clearance but not enough to think we won't put a camera back in after it's been removed.
Thats when they go to the high end camera thats not a DSLR such as the new Cannon G11. Suggested Retail price: $499.99 or the Powershot SX20IS at $399.99 Not as complex as a DSLR, but better than the cheap point and shoot they had before. If you're going to price it like a DSLR, you better be delivering a DSLR, there's a reason they're that expensive.
I disagree. I would love to see some form of portable electronic NOT include a camera. I can't take a camera into work. That limits me to crappy cell phones. Now i'll have to worry about what mp3 player I can get too. Why does everything need a damn camera.