Jump to content

Green Baron

Members
  • Posts

    2,989
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Green Baron

  1. That is cool, it looks like an iron 5, but i think in reality it comes from space. -------------
  2. Hehe :-) I recall participating in such a training way back. That was something we had to understand, switching in the brain from "stutter brake" to "just nail the pedal down". But in this case it doesn't matter. No human and only a bf computer can react at the proposed speeds and distances.
  3. Irl little mining is involved in the fabrication of solar cells, compared to classic industrial power generation and fuel hauling. In an ideal case one wouldn't even need conversion or grid connection. You make them once for 10-20 years of reliable generation, maintenance free lifelong, partly from recycling materials, except the cells themselves which need a little sand, sloppy spoken. Classic power otoh needs a constant flow and much more for initial investment for everything, including transport of fuel and generated power. Many more hard and dangerously working people are needed for classic power generation and maintenance than for solar power. Which is an argument against the latter then if one puts economic turnaround over life quality. There is less turnaround in solar power fabrication and maintenance, that makes it unwanted in some countries (like spain). Lobby and all that. Consciousness is only slowly changing. There is still far too much irrationality and constructed arguments involved. "People dying working for solar power" is non argument, and totally turns against the arguer. For space application solar is ideal, light weight, reliable, maintenance free. I say, the only two arguments not to use it are if people don't want to and willingly take high risks, including outage in case of failures, or if there isn't enough solar radiation (beyond Mars).
  4. Well, but for solar you must really fetch an argument from far, while for fossil and nuclear there are direct connections. Lets stay in the inner solar system. Is solar really heavier than nuclear ? If i recall we did a calculation in the past in this forum, and the result was surprisingly on the solar side. Of course, for a journey to Jupiter conditions change.
  5. They are not too low to detect, there exists for example a study (i am sure it is linked above) that detected a slightly increased thyroid cancer rate in new born, especially girls, but it was still at the upper range of the natural variability in comparative studies. But we cannot deduct from that that the radiation did not cause any fatalities until now, only that its contribution to cancer rates is still in the range of natural processes. Otoh, hadn't there been such an accident, the cancer rate might have been at the lower end of the natural variability. In this case the difference could be attributed to the accident. Of course, such a comparison can not exist, there is only one timeline. Now both sides can stand up and say "See it was nothing, haha" and "That killed hundreds and many more in the future, don't you see ?". The first version can serve the purpose of rejecting responsibility, the second one can be basis for accusation of cover-up. It is, as is the windshield of my car after a short rain, unclear, as i had to assert today. That problem can be solved tomorrow with acquisition of new windshield wipers :-) (Edit: just trying to be funny, no sarcasm !)
  6. duckduckgo.com, search pictures xxx. Oops rule violation. I must wait with a new number until somebody else has posted a number.
  7. Yep, i wanted to keep it simple because a few people here asked lately what it takes to begin coding, because its not directly understandable why the root suffices (at least to me) :-)
  8. Had to open my pc for google to read it ... but it is cool. I recall the city of Berlin steaming from dog excrements during a thaw after a long and hard winter.
  9. Food for the deniers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/03/01/editorials/fukushimas-appalling-death-toll/ and of course, the lobby estimation: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx without further comment.
  10. *looks at bottom of teapot* I can't see us producing and storing antimatter in sufficient quantities, i only see fusion in a still nebulous future ...
  11. Fusion ? In two generations ? Which as just a little longer than Apollo is from us ... or not ? Heat an inert gas to ludicrous ISP or spit out the fuel directly along the fieldlines ... theoretically fantastically maybe ...
  12. I edited my post. I think my impression was not incorrect.
  13. You mean i overreacted ? Anyway, he repeated a similar statement with calling out "luddites" which is simply nonsense. I indeed prefer newer technologies for power generation and transportation, though i can't afford an electric car yet. It is interesting, both sides tend to quit the path of reason in this discussion. Anyway, nuclear contamination (in contrast to disaster) is not a non-issue. The risks are being assessed per mission (which i didn't know until today) and presented to the public, at least by the NASA. A modern RTG (like New Horizon's) does not bear the risk of disaster, but indeed of contamination with possible long term fatalities from cancer in the magnitude of 1/1000 to 1/10000. I admit, i thought the risk was actually lower. Larger reactors of course impose a greater risk being heavier, containing more fuel, etc. The risk can be minimized through construction of course, but it will never be near zero. An impact of a Kosmos 954 type reactor in a densely inhabited area would surely have the potential for disaster, meaning a lot of potential fatalities and maybe uninhabitable ground for a time. I don't know, people who need >1000 deaths to name something a disaster will probably be "fine" ...
  14. *lol* Nuclear power generation is dangerous ! People die from bricks/screws/plastering/stucco falling off nuclear power plants ! Piffle.
  15. Sure, it went well. Great. But there was no guarantee, that is the point ! We'll never know, as there is little published data and cancer deaths are difficult to attribute. But up to 1400 (2016) cases may be related. We can believe what we want to. And keep the evacuation zone as big as necessary. But this wasn't about Fukushima ;-) That is your right :-) Edit: i will willingly advocate new nuclear powered missions to the solar system, no question. May point was: there is a risk connected to that technology, and it is higher than many think. We do not need it for now to power manned missions. By the time we may have better tech available. And, frankly, i was annoyed by you indirectly naming people like me "idiots". You cannot judge that, @tater.
  16. We can go to Moon and Mars with solar. I mean, from an energy point of view alone, ignoring everything else. :-)
  17. Well, then, it is a shame, i continue referring to people playing down risks and ignoring data to the contrary as uninformed. I am certainly concerned, as i am to any risk i can see, though i cannot define most of them due to lack of knowledge. But i am in extremely good company here, if you know what i mean. We all see what we want to see, eh ? :-) -------------------- There is controversy over the Apollo 13 plutonium cask. http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/aerospace-engineering/nuclear-propulsion/will-anyone-recover-apollo-13s-plutonium/ Nobody looks or wants to see, that is, like so often, the problem. Funds. --------------------- Nobody has been hit by parts of the ISS for now and probably nobody ever will, but people have been hit by debris from launch failures. The risk of such failure with nuclear release is much higher than being hit by debris from orbit because nothing falls up. It was in the range of 1/620 to 1/62,000 for the New Horizons mission in the launch area, as calculated by the Agency itself. That is a pretty good chance if you ask me. You have the numbers. Potentially 0.4 to 5.2 cases of latent cancer in the case of a launch failure in category "unlikely", more in the higher categories.
  18. Here's data: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Mission/Spacecraft/docs/NH-DEIS_Front.pdf Risk assessment for the New Horizons mission defines the risk of releasing plutonium material (1% of the inventory, possible fatal consequences to humans from latent cancer 0.4 to 5.2) in the launch area in case of a launch failure as "unlikely" (1/100 to 1/10000), which is the highest of three categories (inlikely, very unlikely, extremely unlikely). Only an uninformed person can assume that there is no risk connected with the launch of a modern RTG, and it is far higher than being hit from the ISS. *hough* Edit: but hey, this mission is fully worth the risk imo !
  19. Before you continue with "idiots" and so (lets stay friendly), the reactors that did reenter did not survive, despite claims of being able to, so this is incorrect. A more compact RTG might. If you have infos on larger reactors, that may be the time to post them, but i doubt there are any except claims. @tater: This article says that the risk of contamination of an RTG during a launch failure can not be excluded. So there you go. Will you take back the "idiot" ?
  20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK158798/ Yep, cancer and cellular decay take some time ... That is what i criticize. The filling is not very weakly but highly radioactive. And it is not the stopped reactor in quiet conditions but the broken impacted parts of it. And the Soviet expectations obviously where incorrect. The reactors broke up in the atmosphere and spit their contents over >10.000 square miles.
  21. Experience tells the contrary, people rather ignore risks than logically calculate them. There is no irrationality connected to existing nuclear failures, in contrary there is an irrational hope in "it'll go out good and if not we'll keep it under the carpet" connected to these failures. I spare you the sources for that claim. While the small kilo reactors might survive a launch failure, they will (probably) not survive an uncontrolled reentry, and finally spread their contents on impact or when dissipating in the atmosphere(*). The coolant mentioned above was the basis for Kessler's theorem. While chances that things hit population may be low (not zero, that is the ignore part :-), see Chinese rocket launches, even an astray rocket from Baikonur could fall on a nearby city and one from Florida could reenter over Europe or Africa), there is no need to take it. Sure, fusion is not there in the next 20years, but maybe in 50 ... (*) radioactivity has been measured by planes after uncontrolled reentries of Rorsat reactors. So they do not survive, "fortunately" most of them fell in the ocean.
  22. Yes, it does. You are apparently unaware of the risk of enriched u 235. A brief contact can and does cause death. You don't fall immediately, which doesn't make things better. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK158798/ Yes they are, read the links i posted. But normally not as poisonous as reactor fuel and contaminated coolant. People actually die from contact and inhalation. Cesium from medical stuff for example is still not good and can when longer in contact with cause cancer, but it is by far not as bad as the above. That is ... nonsense. An intact reactor only presents a potential hazard. A broken one .. look at Tchernobyl and Fukishima. As i said, people actually do die. And if it breaks in the atmosphere (don't tell me it survives intact, it simply did not and will not in the future) or on impact you'll have a big and lasting mess.
  23. A small step for a human:
×
×
  • Create New...