Psycix

Indeed it is different. 1- 20 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere create environmental problems, while radioactivity in the desert does not harm anyone. Sure, radioactivity is more harmful, but nuclear waste is not vaporised and released into the air we breathe. 2- Fossil fuels contain radioactive isotopes. Yes, these are trace amounts, but looking at the ludicrous amounts of fossil fuels we need to burn even a coal plant injects radioactive isotopes into the air. http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~aubrecht/coalvsnucMarcon.pdf#page=8 So while the radioactivity of nuclear waste is contained, fossil fuels inject TONNES of radioactive elements into the atmosphere. About the 12 kTons: good find, I stand corrected, but less than 10% is debatable. It was 13% in 2008, and dipped to 10% in 2011. Let's assume 10 percent and recalculate. (I'm not sure what year the 12 kTons belong to though) 12000 / 10 * 100 = 100 000 tonnes of nuclear waste. This is about a 66% increase over my first calculation, so we would need to fill the soccer field to 1.21 m instead of 0.73 m. The point still stands against 284 km of gasoline.

Primary payload <> discounted piggyback payload. Quite a big difference. The ULA payload had to expend stationkeeping fuel to reach the intented orbit, and the sattelite's lifetime was reduced. Also, just in the view of ethics, SpaceX always states exactly what is going on, while ULA initially stated their AV-009 flight was a success ('The payload reached it's desired orbit'), until 8 hours later the news came out that it actually didn't. Were they trying to cover it up? The reason why I believe the Falcon 9 is a better rocket is the price tag. An Atlas V 541 costs ~$226 million, for 17,44 metric tons to LEO A Falcon 9 v1.1 costs ~$61 million, for 13,15 metric tons to LEO And this price is not counting on F9 first stage reusability at all, which might happen soon and slash the SpaceX price tag in half or even as low as tenfold. If they don't, the F9 is still cheaper. Have faith in the Muskinator.

But as I said: They were physically able to complete both the primary and secondary objectives. They were simply not allowed to by NASA. The loss of the secondary payload was because of bureaucratics, not physics. If you want you can hold on to 'a faillure is a faillure', but given the relative tinyness of the 500 pound secondary payload versus the 12,000 pound dragon capsule, the mission should be considered 96% successful (1/25th faillure) - and that doesn't count the massive discount Orbcomm got. I think it is silly to consider the entire mission as a faillure because of the loss of a heavily discounted piggyback payload worth 4% of the weight. So we could calculate that over 9 launches from which 8 were 100% succesful and one 96% succesful, the Falcon 9 has thus far achieved a 99,556% success rate. (By weight, still not counting in the discount.)

The fate secondary payload was covered in the contract, NASA's payload simply took priority over it. Orbcomm got a HUGE discount on the launch to begin with because of these risks. They didn't lose *that* much really. Note that despite the engine faillure the F9 was physically able to have finished the job and deliver BOTH payloads to their correct orbits, but NASA regulations wouldn't allow it. http://www.spacenews.com/article/orbcomm-craft-launched-by-falcon-9-falls-out-of-orbit --- The only thing they can make are monopoly situations for their self-benefit rather than cheap space acces for the human race. Musk has ideals. ULA has a craving for profit.

Your question about the amount of nuclear waste spurred me to do a calculation. How much nuclear waste would we create if we generated ALL of the world's electricity with nuclear power? World electricity production: 20,279,640 GWh/year [1] This equals about 73006704 terajoules/year Grams of nuclear waste per joule [2] 8.193 · 10^-10 grams/J Nuclear waste per year: 8.193 *10^-10 grams/joule * 73006704 terajoules = 59814392.6 kilograms This is about 59814 metric tons of waste per year. Let's say 60-thousand tons of nuclear waste per year. I couldn't find the exact density of nuclear waste, but let's assume about 11 grams / cm^3 (uranium dioxide is 10,97 g/cm^3) 60 000 metric ton / 11 gram/cm^3 = 5454 m^3 We would generate 5454 cubic meters of nuclear waste per year in order to generate ALL the electricity in the world. How much is this? Football/soccer field size: 105 m × 68 m = 7140 m2 5454 m^3 / 7140 m^2 = 76 centimeter If we would put all nuclear waste to generate all electricity in the world on a soccer field, it'd cover a layer of 76 centimeters per year. Compare! Gasoline energy density: 36 MJ/L 73006704 terajoules / 36 MJ/L = 2027964000000 liters = 2027964000 m^3 Which is about two BILLION cubic meters of gasoline. If we had a tank the size of a soccer field, the tank needs to be this high: 2027964000 m^3 / 7140 m^2 = 284 kilometers If we were to generate ALL of our electricity using nuclear power, THE ENTIRE WORLD would need to fill a soccer field to 76cm high with nuclear waste every year. If we were to generate ALL of our electricity using gasoline, the entire world would need to burn an amount of gasoline equivalent to filling a tank the size of a soccer field 284 kilometers high. Now tell me, which one do you prefer: Burning 284000 meters of gasoline, or storing 0,76 meters of nuclear waste for a few generations? All we need are a few remote locations where we can collect and store the waste. In return our entire species are provided with electricity while not injecting billions of tons of CO2 into our planet's atmosphere. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_energy_consumption [2] http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste_per_person.pdf

The problem is that the requirements for waste storage are extremely high due to an irrational fear. It is perfectly fine to store it in a warehouse in the desert or such. No need to bury anything. A good reason to keep the waste around is because generation 4 fast reactors will be able to burn it as fuel. You read that right. Gen4 reactors can burn waste as fuel. The waste from gen-4 reactors contains isotopes that are radioactive for mere decades rather than centuries. --- Yes because we can compare 21st century western technology to careless russians in the 70's that had (in comparison) had no clue what they were doing. Chernobyl didn't even have a containment building. Chernobyl's reactors had inherent design flaws. One of the most prominent being SCRAM-ing the control rods back in would stall coolant flow while not yet reducing reaction rate in the bottom part of the reactor. Chernobyl's staff was not properly trained. Even common sense could have prevented the insane human mistakes that were made. At the the day of the incident they mistreated the reactor, causing it to get 'reactor poisoning', this filled the core with the wrong isotopes, stalling power production. In order to try to get the power back, they took out almost all control rods. They even MANUALLY removed ALL but 9 of the fail-safe control rods that were never to be removed at any point. THEN, while the reactor was beyond full throttle the improperly trained night-crew decided to do perform the test that simulated coolant pump faillure. Stack that with the fact that the back up generators started up nearly 3 times slower than initially intended AND the issue of SCRAMming the rods in blocking coolant flow while bottom half of the reactor is still control-rod-less, and you have a conundrum involving runaway prompt criticality. Chernobyl is not an example of nuclear power hazards, it is an example of human imcompetence, playing with forces they didn't fully understand yet. Modern reactors are designed to be incapable of a runaway. As it heats up, the water boils, changing the neutron moderation characteristics and slowing the reaction in a negative feedback loop. Modern reactors are controlled by properly trained staff under strict protocols. Modern reactors actually have a containment building. These are just a few of the many examples why today, modern nuclear energy is safe.

Looks cool. Each part seems so short. I'd love to see double-length (or more) versions of each component. Being able to have all elements in one 'pill' sounds a bit boring, and coupling multiple pills together (as shown using the 90* cubic coupler) is a fun thing to do.

Nice point, but remember that the leidenfrost effect will form an isolating barrier of steam This is one of the main challenges in conventional nuclear reactor design, the hotter the reactor is, the better the bubbles insulate the core.

One of the fun things regarding reactor safety is that the NERVA is practically a nuclear reactor cooled by liquid hydrogen. Can you imagine a more effective way to cool something than pumping cryogenic liquid hydrogen through it with a rocket engine's turbopump?

This is a very bad idea in the long run. Humanity needs to cooperate in unity thoughout space. Having seperate factions/nations in space is going to stall everything. First off, there is the risk of conflict. As the fear of that increases, our science missions will have to start carrying defense. Pointless cargo making everything more expensive. On top of that, it will discourage smaller players to join in. Also, there a gigantic bureaucratic system will stall everything; just like planes have to fly around a country because of airspace limitations, imagine certain trajectories in space being forbidden simply because another country owns that part of space. Also, you don't need countries to have competition! The future of spaceflight is commercial spaceflight. And commercial entities compete with eachother; often doing it's job many times more effectively than any government.

Got any in 1920x1080? Aka, wallpaper suitable.

No. (Read my previous post, I seem to have ninja'd you.) But the explosive force cannot send particles away faster than lightspeed. Hence they (and all other energy unleashed) stay inside the black hole.

Very well put, I agree with everything. What I'd like to add, is that instead of trying to withstand lightspeed impacts (if any), the easier thing to do is to provide redundancy. Send two ships! Or a thousand!

Antimatter is quite a misleading name. Most people (including former me a few years ago) think antimatter is negative matter, as in, a negative amount of mass. This is incorrect. Antimatter is matter made out of the same particles, with reverse charge. Instead of electrons circling around protrons, we have positrons (positive electrons) circling around anti-protons. Unless there are some very interesting mechanics in gravity related to charge that we do not understand yet, it is reasonable to assume (and assumed by most scientists) that as antimatter has positive mass (by definition), hence it will also fall down, not up, and have attracting gravity, not repulsive. So remember: Antimatter means reversed charge, not negative mass! @Black hole discussion Assuming it has normal gravity, it will fall in as usual. It contains the same amount of energy as normal matter, so it will contribute to the black hole in equal amounts. If it were to anihallate with matter inside the black hole (as far as that is possible), the energy would still be trapped, and since energy and mass are the same thing (E=mc^2), it will still contribute to the black hole in the same way as before. I think it is safe to assume there is no difference between a black hole out of matter, antimatter, energy or a combination thereof.

Why not make feet using a train or circle of big rover wheels? Those have the highest impact resistance and should be able to carry quite a few tons each, especially when you strut them.

These parts look great! I love the square fuselage pieces, it's a style of sci-fi construction I haven't seen in any other addons. It gives this certain tech look that I can't really describe.

This addon is based upon real science. I like it. Why is this not stock?

Lowering the minimum yield is possible through antimatter catalyzation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter-catalyzed_nuclear_pulse_propulsion About the fallout: The Linear No Treshhold model predicts that every launch will globally kill a few hundred people. Luckily, the LNT-model is not proven and is known for grossly overestimating kill count. More and more people start to argue that it is downright wrong, and that a very low dose of radiation over a very large population doesn't harm anyone at all, as we may have an immunity against very low dosages of radiation.

If all bottom engines line up perfectly, you can get rid of the launch supports. I don't even need them anymore now that physics are fixed and just have the rocket stand on it's first stage nozzles.

The capability of leaning forward makes IVA so much more useful.

A ferris wheel that tears itself to shreds due to reaction wheel force? This has my interest. Any spectacular screenshots or a video?

I still think it's weird how the scanners don't scan faster with timewarp. It's as if they slow down in time. I consider putting them to 0 scan time a fix, not a cheat.

Blast them with whack-a-kerbal! Quicksaving highly recommended.

Try these: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Structural_Pylon People use them to make helicopters, so I figure a truck would work too. Otherwise you can also stack multiple connections on top of eachother to make it more flexible.

Ok its called potato forum etiquette violation screenshots will come later. (Yes this was an intentional double post as to ridicule this thread.)