NuclearNut

Because there was no political will to use orion or other nuclear rocket systems.

The only issue with CHP is the air pollution it produces assuming you utilize fossil fuels.

Well, I have been thinking for quite a while that there is one thing all mods that I am presently informed of are missing, that is, as stated in this title, a proper model to simulate nuclear reactor operation. Yes, I am very well aware of the existence of nuclear reactor mods and they have proved quite interesting, thus making them a source of architectural entertainment for me, but one problem persists, a profound lack of both modularity and actual simulation of reactor physics. Far too often nuclear reactors have proven to be at best blocks that generate power while consuming uranium, generating some waste heat that must be radiated, and taking a few seconds to get up to power. At worst they simply magically load follow instantaneously and require no waste heat management. While indeed these are minor gripes with the present paradigm they also tax the realism and exceptional quantities of FUN that could be had with nuclear reactors as a unique power supply. Indeed there are several unique things that reactors present that no other power source does, such as the production of waste heat while non operational, the need for criticality testing before startup, the need for shielding, the need for waste disposal routes as well as possible reprocessing and enrichment of nuclear fuels, and possible PR sapping accidents. Reactors are wonderful and powerful things that can be far better than any other power source when it comes to extraplanetary operations, but they also present unique challenges and complications that could present many FUN engineering problems as well as operating experiences. Thus I have decided that I would start to move towards actually putting together a comprehensive plan to create such a mod. So here is the rough draft of the equation set that I intend to use, please critique them: Fission Rate Multiplication Factor: Because all reactors will be operating in the prompt sub-critical, delayed critical, regime the reactor core will have a update occur once every tenth of a second while the player is running it. A fudge value will be included in the event the player ends up somehow pushing the reactor into the prompt critical regime, making the reactor nigh uncontrollable and prone to all kinds of reputation sapping nastiness. K = ((σF /(σNF+σF ))/ (T(Tc)))N+R Where K is the fission rate multiplication factor, T is the present reactor temperature, Tc is the "temperature coefficient of reactivity" for the core, N is the neutrons generated per fission event, σNF is the neutron absorption cross section of the nonfuel, σF fission cross section of the fuel material, and R is a random number set between two small numbers that is regenerated every 0.1 seconds. The Nonfuel Neutron Absorption Cross Section: σNF = C(Cσ) + Wσ + Sσ Where σNF is the absorption cross section of the non fuel, C is the control rod insertion percentage, Cσ is the absorption cross section of the control rods, Wσ is the absorption cross section of waste products, and Sσ is the absorption cross section of the structure of the reactor itself. Also updated every 0.1 seconds for exactly the same reason stated above. The Waste Absorption Cross Section: Wσ = SLFσ + Stσ + LLFσ Where Wσ is the waste absorption cross section, SLFσ is the short lived fission products cross section, Stσ is the mean stable waste cross section, and LLFσ is the mean long lived waste cross section. Also updated every 0.1 seconds for exactly the same reason stated above. Fission event rate: FF = K(FI) Where K is the fission rate neutron multiplication factor, FI is the initial event rate, and FF is the updated event rate Guess what, updated every 0.1 seconds. Core Energy Value: E = EF(FF) + (EI - EO) + D Where E is the core energy value in units of energy, Ef is the energy per fission event, FF is the fission event rate, EI is the energy produced during the last update, E is the energy output by the core in the intervening time, and D is the decay energy generated likewise in that time period. Again, updated every 0.1 seconds. Suggestions are welcome and recommended. I am presently very, very iffy on the concept of two values for short and long lived waste going into Wσ as it reduces realism; however, at the same time it makes the concept a lot, lot easier to deign excepting the next question as I also have yet to format a nuclear waste buildup equation due to the fact that sleep is necessary as well as a general... confusion as to where to start. I do not know particularly how I would divide short lived waste from long lived waste, how I would realistically model fission product poisoning, how I would write the decay rate equation, nor do I know how I would write a decay heat equation for such a simplified model. Thus I would really like suggestions in that matter due to my general confusion on that issue, and as I said before, please, give me advice, I am not a nuclear engineer nor a nuclear physicist, and thus am likely to have made several errors in my attempt to make a simplified, easy to use nuclear reactor simulation that is not computationally intensive. So please, if you know better, do not be afraid to tell me I am wrong. And yes, I know these look nothing like the proper equations to compute the criticality in a non-homogeneous reactor core. The goal is a simplified setup, rather than the full complexity of the proper equations. I also am worried about computational intensity, which I fear might get out of hand with the proper equations being applied across hundreds of separate isotopes, etc. and at a rapid rate.

It depends. Is LNT accurate or is it not, the Health Physics Society states otherwise, and so does France, but the NRC uses the LNT model. Likewise the question arises on what you mean by "worst case". There will always be a supremely horrible "worst case" situation that is likewise supremely improbable, making it statistically moot. To be quite frank I would not know where to begin assessing the probabilistic risk of a launch as no such device has actually been launched, and thus many of the usual problems that may seems small and insignificant on the outset have not ever actually been displayed in their fullest.

I am a little crass (really, really crass when I get angry), brutally honest when it comes to failure, a bit obsessed with safety, more than a little narcissistic, and end up taking over most projects regardless of if I am the designated leader or not. In other words, I would have problems with working with others and doubtless some would hate me quite rapidly.

Why build a bigger more expensive rocket with the same lunar bound payload when you could build a smaller rocket with the same lunar bound payload and for less money?

Why not just spin the ship?

The water hammer effect strikes again. As stated above this molten NaCl salt (which I am assuming it is, rather than some fluoride salt or something like that) it will be reacting with the water chemically and in a quite exothermic manner as well as heating the water to an extreme degree, causing it to expand in a steam explosion. Because the water that is not a gas is incompressible to a great degree it ends up smashing the glass like a solid rock propelled by a similar explosion.

Oh, god, why do we have to bring THIS discussion into Science & Spaceflight? Do you know what kind of political hell you will bring to this island of reason in a deep, dark abyss of fear and illogic?

Well, there could be various things done to make the pulse units cheaper than conventional nuclear weapons. Considering mass if far less a concern here than with nuclear weaponry, we could use larger reflector units around the pit, something that the W48 did not have due to it's microscopic size. This would allow us to shrink the quantity of plutonium needed significantly, cutting down the cost some more. We could potentially, if we are willing, use a N reactor type reactor to produce nuclear energy while producing weapons grade plutonium. This, unlike a conventional civilian nuclear powerstation, would have an extremely short fuel cycle and low burnup during operation. This could be improved by making the unit a special fast reactor, capable of online refueling, thus allowing for both high utilization for our uranium resources and weapons grade plutonium production, but again, it would have to be a fast reactor designed specifically for this purpose, an S PRISM will not do. This again could cut down the cost of our plutonium quite a bit by making our facility dual use. And lastly the cost could be expected to decline due tho the size of the production of nuclear weapons, 1163 nuclear bombs is about a fifth of the size of the present US arsenal. Because I am not privy to the actual design of nuclear weapons, I can only make broad guesses about the quantities of plutonium, but I would say that it is probably likewise a fifth of the US weapons grade plutonium tied up in nuclear weapons as larger nuclear weapons would presumably have reflectors and other such plutonium saving devices to ensure a minimum cost. As you can see, an orion would not be a simple thing to just throw about, and a significant number of orion launches would require a physics package production capacity the likes of which the world has never seen before and would likely never see again should orions cease to be launched. This would imply that the production of such devices would reduce in cost over time as the industry grows, though these gains are likely to be quite small in comparison to the previously mentioned options.

That is a PWR Pressure vessel for the VVER 1000. PWR units are ill suited for extraplanetary utilization due to their high volume for their power output and inability to breed fuel without some extremely special (expensive) modification. They also require high pressure forging in a specialized foundry, of which their are only a few ten such units on earth. On mars there is none and it is probable that that will remain for quite a while after we establish a base. Even if a PWR was utilized, it would still have a power density advantage over all other options. Solar panels would weigh significantly more than a reactor for the same power output. Instead we could utilize lead, sodium, or other cooled fast reactors. The advantage to these reactors it that they can operate at low pressures, which is to say that they will not need a pressure vessel like a PWR would need. They also do not need enrichment facilities, though reprocessing would be needed (probably pyroprocessing), and that I concede is a bit of a problem. These reactors, again, due to the lack of a need for a PV, could also be made from locally sourced materials to a great degree, with concrete holding together the RV in a way similar to that of the Fort Worth NGS unit. This could reduce the required shipments to just that of the inner lining for the RV and fuel to startup the reactor, presumably along with some fresh materials to produce fuel elements every so often. Now mind, nuclear is definitely the most practical option for power generation on mars, but to imply that a laser sail is the most practical means of going to mars is, in my opinion, not entirely correct. So while using nuclear energy to power the receiving laser is the most reasonable, using lasers is not so reasonable for the foreseeable future.

You could utilize multiple nuclear reactors on mars to generate the electricity needed to power the giant laser needed to move the ship. The units would probably be fast reactors designed to breed fissile fuel from fertile material, reducing the cost to generate said fissile material. These reactors would also need nowhere near the safety, waste disposal, and leak prevention systems as earth reactors due to the preexisting shielding requirements on mars, thus they could be created and operated at costs far, far lower than conventional earth based reactors.

Orion Fallout from repeated nuclear detonations Sucks to be that one guy who dies

A ton more proper space research, and a ton less military development. It would likely be for the better, ending with us on multiple planets and having the ability to exploit resources far outside of the reach of other nations, but it would also damage are national defense in the short term, assuming most defense money is transferred to the NASA budget.

Define life. Do you mean something that can maintain homeostasis, is composed of various materials, has a metabolism, reproduce, and can respond to stimuli? Do you define a self replicating robot as life, or is it something else? At which point does something become living and something become non-living?

The solar system would be stranger than anything we can imagine 500 years from now. In fact I would be sorely dissatisfied if we had absolute control over *just* the solar system. To imagine how strange it would be for use to explore our future in 500 years is hard, but probably could be assisted by the recognition of how far we have already gone in the last 500 years. How far have we gone? Well look back, 500 years ago we did not have the steam engine, nor did we have the mighty machines of industry that go along with it. In the year 1516 we did not even have the basic theories of how light was formed, how gravity worked, and the basic concept that the earth orbited the sun would not become commonplace for another couple hundred years. The scientific method had not really been developed to any great degree and the most common source of energy was the mussels of workers. We did indeed know the earth was round, and some of us did by that time have some inkling of knowledge of all the continents on this earth, but maps were poor and woefully incomplete. Our main source of heating was wood harvested from forests, and steel was uncommon to an extreme degree. This is what we had 500 years ago. Now imagine a European intellectual from that time attempting to conceive of the future, of a new place. What would they think of? They would likely think of something bigger, better, greater, all by their standards. They might envision greater cathedrals, more massive towers, greater castles, larger cities. Possibly they might conceive of some innovative device or another that would now be recognized as completely impractical and wasteful by our standards. But regardless of where they would go with their vision for the future it would be inexorably tinted by their experiences and lack of knowledge about future innovation. Imagine now what that very same intellectual would see of our present world. They would be amazed, confused, and recognize it's strange familiarity. They would see our computers and be amazed by their ability to project images, to transmit effortlessly messages across thousands of miles. Facetime for someone from 500 years ago would be almost surreal. They would likely marvel at our transit and our means of moving, be impressed and possibly terrified at our aircraft, and be shocked at our ability to extract energy from fission, a concept that they would not have the faintest idea of before. They would see how many scientific truths we have discovered and possibly become confused from the sheer volume of it. A person who at most learned that the earth is orbited by the sun and moons, that there are four indivisible elements that make up everything, and is mired in what we now know is superstition would be overwhelmed by the mere realization that the earth orbits the sun and that their are over a hundred elements with many isotopes as well as the ability to break up those elements. Our warfare too would be strange, they then had but primitive gunpowder weapons systems, utilizing basic explosives to propel low velocity projectiles at targets with a low degree of accuracy. Now we have missiles that can be carried by infantry and that can guide themselves to their targets, lasers for removing missiles, guns that can shoot tens of miles, phased array microwave weapons for incapacitating enemy infantry, and explosives that can from an object weighing a few tens of kilograms output the power of hundreds of tons of TNT. The political situation would be similarly confusing to them. We have massive nations with armies larger than many of the nations in their time. We have democracies as a common form of government. We have the freedom of speech, gay marriage in many nations, welfare, the freedom of religion. To them most everything with the possible exception of various bodily functions would be strange to them. Now, imagine what the future holds to us. Considering the exponential rate at which our technological development seems to accelerate, what we will see in the next five hundred years from now would likely be stranger to us than today would be to a person a thousand years ago. To imagine that we would be mining helium on Jupiter for fusion reactors, or using solar panels on Mercury to beam energy to the rest of the solar system is, in my opinion, quite silly as what power we used 500 years ago is certainly not the power we use today. I know this is not the answer that is presumably expected of me, but I think it is the most accurate one.

War is more complex than just maximizing the explosive yield of weapons for material input. Think of your 5-10 times bigger nuclear bomb, can it be backpacked in and placed on a bridge or what not now? No, it must now be trucked in, meaning that the enemy can now easily identify the movements of your forces and respond with appropriate amounts of force to neutralize the threat you pose. This larger bomb also has other problems in itself regarding the yield, larger yields means more stuff gets caught in the blast, necessitating a larger launcher if you are using it in an artillery capacity and making it so that you cannot use nuclear weapons at a range close to your own forces, severely limiting their tactical utility (the W54 in 20 ton TNT yield mode could be used within 2 kilometers of exposed friendly infantry). If the world ran on higher yields per kg being the be all and end all of war than we would not have infantry rifles but massive artillery pieces.

The the God Emperor of Kerbalkind is most pleased by your choice of mission. He demanded that the crusade be conducted at once. (success will come once I can get my new monitor and graphics card fully functional)

They celebrate Christmas (at least in my program) by launching a large number of nuclear bombs as fireworks.

I dump nuclear waste in the sea right outside of KSC. I also conduct frequent nuclear weapons tests there with extremely high yield nuclear bombs, lower yield bombs are tested on Kerbkini atoll, the islands right outside of KSC. I use nuclear pulse drives in kerbins' atmosphere along with smash-into-ground NERVA disposal. But, I also have a strict policy of leaving no debris in orbit, it is bad for business you know; it might actually injure my kerbals (apparently unlike huge MGy levels of radiation exposure) and cost me insurance money.

But it is much cooler. (read in Dr. Evil voice) I mean, really, it is a friggin planet that shoots friggin "laser" beams at friggin planets and blows them to friggin smithereens and consumes friggin stars to power it. it destroyed the suns it orbited to kill the planets orbiting other suns.

You dont need a airplane or missile to deliver nukes, just three people with a lot of strength. Or one if you do not need it delivered onto the enemy themselves / can get their undetected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

Plus, you get a nice area denial effect afterwards, well for troops without CBRN uniforms that is, heck, even if they have full CBRN uniforms. CBRN suits tend to weigh a lot and are bulky. Of course for tanks this is not a problem, but still... I wonder what the lowest possible mass for a nuclear warhead with reasonable yield is.

The point is twofold. First, the shockwave does more damage to enemy ships at a distance if detonated underwater as it tends to cause hull ruptures etc more effectively so it could be used to remove larger groups of enemy ships with a smaller charge than if you were to use a surface/airburst nuclear bomb. Secondly, it can occasionally be quite hard to pinpoint the exact location of enemy submarines, a nuclear depth charge being a nuclear depth charge it means that you can get a pretty much guaranteed kill of the enemy sub. The personnel transported Atomic Demolition Munitions (ADM) also had their own interesting uses. Due to their small size and exceptional yield for their mass (compared to C4, they are fecal matter compared to other nukes) their use as landmines would allow a small squad of troops to make a truly massive minefield, they could also be used to easily demolish structures such as bridges, dams, and dikes in scorched earth situations. And, of course, they could be used to sabotage enemy factories etc.

Could we by any chance have lower yield nuclear ordinance? Like the W48 for the 155 mm gun or a M29 that can fire M338 rounds? Regardless, time to make a "CAS" plane armed with a Kompensator to strike fear into those capitalist pig-dogs.