backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 74 comment(s) - last by onwisconsin.. on Jan 11 at 1:13 AM

The geological interior of Europa
Joint Russian-ESA mission to take off for Europa in 2015

Scientifically, Jupiter's moon Europa is one of the most intriguing bodies in the solar system. Slightly smaller than our own moon, it is thought to possess vast liquid oceans under a surface of ice.

That liquid water means the potential for life. And Russia plans to search for it, with newly announced plans to explore Europa and search for simple life forms. The mission, announced by Lev Zelyony, head of the Space Research Institute, is to be conducted in conjunction with the European Space Agency, starting in the year 2015.

The mission, code-named Laplace, will land on Europa in one of the many fissures on the moon's crust. It will then melt some of the ice, and conduct its search.

"Where there is ocean", says Zelyony, "life could arise. In this respect, the Europa satellite is probably the most intriguing place in the solar system".

Russia's space program all but collapsed after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The nation's new-found prosperity is allowing it to revive that program. Moscow recently signed an agreement with Washington to provide NASA with instrumentation for scanning the Moon and Mars for water.

The mission to the moon is due for launch this year, with the Mars mission following in 2009.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
very cool
By Screwballl on 1/8/2008 11:09:26 AM , Rating: 3
This is very cool that they are looking at other bodies other than our own moon or the planets themselves... now we just need to get some sort of sub-warp engines invented so satellites and man can go farther faster....
Will be interesting to see what they find on Europa




RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 11:19:25 AM , Rating: 5
We invented the drive needed to quickly travel anywhere in the solar system back in the 1960s -- nuclear propulsion. Anti-nuclear sentiment shut down the programs though.

Despite the clear benefits, it's unclear if the US will ever launch a nuclear-propelled mission again. China or Russia perhaps...both seem considerably more practical when it comes to such matters.


RE: very cool
By FITCamaro on 1/8/2008 12:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another example of progress put on hold by the environmentalist lobby.

Luckily, once we create less ballistic ways of getting into space, they won't have any way to complain about taking nuclear material into space to use as fuel.

The International Space Station should be nuclear powered as well.


RE: very cool
By Combatcolin on 1/8/2008 12:35:43 PM , Rating: 3
If we used your back garden as a launch site, would you still be pro Nuke Spacecraft?

Until someone comes up with a much safer launch vehicle, Mr Burns private pension fund is not really a suitable choice.

Pushing Ice, by Alistair reynolds is a good "realistic" space opera, where the mining ship is Nuclear powered - good book.


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 12:51:34 PM , Rating: 5
At one point, my backyard essentially *was* a launch site, and yes I was still pro Nuke.

The safety issue is wholly overblown. Even with 1960s technology and materials, we were capable of building spacecraft that could withstand catastrophic reentry into the earth's atmosphere without releasing nuclear materials. Remember Apollo 13? The unused moon lander which burned up on reentry to the earth, contained an RTG (radioisotope nuclear generator), which survived reentry as designed, and landed harmlessly in the ocean.


RE: very cool
By Polynikes on 1/8/2008 1:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't heard anyone complaining about nuclear-powered subs and battleships chugging through the ocean... Oh yeah, that's because they don't give off any radiation or drop nuclear waste everywhere they go. I think it's a safe bet a nuclear-powered space vehicle wouldn't either. Test vehicles will be tested far away from people, I'm sure.

I'd offer my back yard for a non-test launch, but it's a bit too small.


RE: very cool
By FITCamaro on 1/8/2008 1:57:46 PM , Rating: 1
Uh yes. I lived in Florida most of my life. And not far from Kennedy. As well as worked out there. I've been to numerous launches out on the strip of land between the Air Force Base and Space Center (requires a pass) and even a landing once (family and press only).


RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 12:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the environmental lobby is solely responsible for nuclear propulsion not having taken off (pun intended). The cost and difficulty of testing theoretical space propulsion methods have absolutely nothing to do with it (seething sarcasm intended as well).

Look, get off this imaginary trip that the environmental lobby has anything to do with the lack of nuclear propulsion. We have nuclear powered subs and ships. We have weapons made of depleted uranium. Auto makers are experimenting with the viability of nuclear cars. The problem is that with most applications, it is extremely expensive to safely harness, test, and implement nuclear technology. These are human and monetary limitations.

If you want to be pissed someone for not doing this already, be pissed at the governments and corporations (who have far more money and influence than any environmental group) who are unwilling to invest in it. You want me to prove they have more influence than environmental groups? They have actually convinced you it's the fault of environmental groups that nuclear technology isn't already in mass use. And the sad truth is, it already is in mass use- in the military.


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 1:02:29 PM , Rating: 3
> "The cost and difficulty of testing theoretical space propulsion methods have absolutely nothing to do with it (seething sarcasm intended "

Sarcasm aside, there really isn't room for debate on this. Nuclear propulsion wasn't "theoretical" even back in the 1960s. The US launched one nuclear-powered satellite, and the Soviets launched several. NASA had a full-fledged program (Orion) to test nuclear-pulse propulsion, which the ABM treaty-- widely pushed in the US by anti-nuclear elements-- illegalized further work upon.

For long-range space missions, RTG-powered probes have been used many times. They are cheaper and more effective than chemical or solar-powered alternatives. Yet every time one launches, there are protest demonstrations at NASA offices, and tens of thousands of letters written to Congress.

In fact, federal environmental regulations require a period for public comments before each and every nuclear-powered mission, with a federal review board to review them and then approve or deny the mission. This explains why the Mars Rovers were solar powered, despite NASA's preference for RTGs, a decision that limited their landing site and operating capabilities severely.

Here's a link to the ongoing debate on whether NASA's 2009 Rover will be allowed to be nuclear-powered, and the consequences should it not.

http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_0610...


RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 1:13:36 PM , Rating: 3
So you're telling me that the ABM treaty had more to do with environmentalism than politics? The threat of nuclear holocaust took a back seat to the environmentalist groups?

Now I understand enough about history to know that the Soviet Union was not going to bomb us, nor were we going to bomb them- but the fear of it still existed. I'm sorry, ABM had more to do with political will and fear rather than the fact we might contaminate a few trees.

Also, nuclear power is different from nuclear propulsion, most methods of practical nuclear propulsion are no more than proposals.

Besides, ABM treaties don't seem to stop us from using depleted uranium on the battlefield or from propelling submarines through the water. This is all about will and cost.


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 1:30:00 PM , Rating: 3
> "So you're telling me that the ABM treaty had more to do with environmentalism "

Correction, it was the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that banned further work on Orion. And yes, it was largely (but not entirely) motivated by the anti-nuclear lobby in the US.

The case of RTG-powered spacecraft is even clearer. There are no additional development costs or political considerations here. RTGs are *already* cheaper and more effective than any other alternatives. The missions that have flown without them have done so because of public outcry, plain and simple.

> "ABM treaties don't seem to stop us from using depleted uranium on the battlefield or from propelling submarines through the water"

But the NTBT did explicitly ban the use of nuclear detonations in space.

> "This is all about will and cost."

The will of a nation is defined by its people. As long as the world "nuclear" carries such unsavory connotations, there will be no government will to deploy nuclear powered spacecraft, despite the clear advantages.

As for cost, nuclear-powered missions are, according to NASA, significantly cheaper per mission capability than those of any other. Nothing is more costlier than chemical-based rockets, which are essentially gigantic semi-controlled bombs. Chemical propulsion is so inefficient that nearly all the weight must be fuel. The space shuttle weighs some 4.5 million pounds...and can only boost some 8,000 lbs to geosynchronous orbit.

We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on shuttle operations and now we're due to retire it...and replace it with yet another chemical-powered model.

For a shuttle replacement, A NERVA-style nuclear variant would cost perhaps 2.5X as much to develop as the current proposal, but would pay that back in less than 10 years in lower operating costs. It would also have a far higher payload and significantly lower turnaround time.

But the public would never hear of it.


RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 1:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
I have no argument that chemical overall is inefficient and more costly in the long term. In fact, I would like to see nuclear power in cars and in more places.

My argument was that the cost of development is more costly. The thing is, chemical combustion is an established method of propulsion- which, for most applications (I wasn't just talking about space flight) is less costly due to the fact that its infrastructure is established.

Further, the Anti-Nuclear groups are NOT the same as environmentalist groups. I was talking about the Environmentalist groups specifically.

Lastly, political will does not always come from public will, even in the history of the United States, but I won't diverge from the topic at hand to make my point. The NBTB doesn't make much sense from a defense point of view- we permit uranium in the battlefield on earth but not for propulsion in space? That clause was put in place by governments who thought that eachothers intention was to annihilate one another- this clause is most definitely not a case of public will.

And just to illustrate my point yet again- we USE URANIUM ON EARTH. If the Anti-Nuclear lobby was as influential as everyone seems to think, this wouldn't happen.


RE: very cool
By kenji4life on 1/8/2008 2:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
I can see your point. Although anyone can agree that the largest group against nuclear power is the environmentalists, I ponder if anyone considered the possible benefit of oil companies on nuclear bans. The oil companies would lose billions, maybe trillions of dollars if nuclear power was allowed to be developed to the point where it provides power to a large majority of homes, transportation, and exploration.

We all know how powerful the oil lobby is. This of course certainly doesn't dismiss the fact that the environmentalist groups have been the most pressing and outspoken group, within the population of anti-nuclear sentiment. There are also some conservatives (although they were in the minority) who were dissuade by the costs, not seeing the long term benefit.

Never overlook the fact, though that fear is always the biggest motivation in the resistance to change.


RE: very cool
By Ringold on 1/8/2008 6:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Further, the Anti-Nuclear groups are NOT the same as environmentalist groups. I was talking about the Environmentalist groups specifically.


Say what?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns

"DANGEROUS, HIGH-RISK, MELTDOWN, CATASTROPHE . . . NO NEW NUKES"

Right along aside "environmentalist" issues.

quote:
And just to illustrate my point yet again- we USE URANIUM ON EARTH.


We don't use enriched uranium on earth -- except in nuclear power plants, and bombs.. I don't see your point.

quote:
My argument was that the cost of development is more costly.


The US managed, with 1960s technology, to test-fire a prototype of the sort Masher describes, so not sure why that argument holds water if the benefits are clear and environmentalist groups or lack of political will isn't in fact the primary reason for it not having momentum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kiwi-A_Prime_At...

I'm impressed anyone actually has the kahunas to suggest anything other than politics being behind its failure, frankly. It wouldn't be the first good idea crushed by democracy.


RE: very cool
By retrospooty on 1/8/2008 1:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
"If you want to be pissed someone for not doing this already, be pissed at the governments and corporations (who have far more money and influence than any environmental group) who are unwilling to invest in it. You want me to prove they have more influence than environmental groups? They have actually convinced you it's the fault of environmental groups that nuclear technology isn't already in mass use."

Owned... Really great point. Your comment says it all, end of story, negative rebuttal automatically dismissed.


RE: very cool
By onelittleindian on 1/8/2008 1:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Negative rebuttal automatically dismissed.
Cool, saves you the problem of actually thinking, doesn't it?

Governments do whats popular. Nuclear isn't. The anti-nuclear lobby killed nuclear power and nuclear spacecraft both. Thank god we already had nuclear ships and subs by the 1960s, or they'd have never been developed either.


RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 1:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
Again, we utilize depleted uranium as bombs. Most methods of utilizing depleted uranium in weapons weren't developed until the 80's.

So, we developed in use weaponry after the 60's- does it really make sense that we'd develop nuclear based weapons and not propulsion?


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 1:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "Again, we utilize depleted uranium as bombs"

Err, depleted uranium isn't used as a bomb, its used as a penetrator. And DU is actually LESS radioactive than the natural uranium found within the earth. It is by no stretch of the imagination a "nuclear" weapon.


RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 2:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
It may not be AS radioactive as natural uranium, but there remain radioactive effects including air contamination and environmental toxicity.

Part of the purpose of banning nuclear weapons was to prevent these issues- it's not just the size of the blast or the isotopes, but the lasting effects all of these combined; you can't just separate out the issues.


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 2:14:27 PM , Rating: 3
The fact remains that it is safer than natural uranium, and hunreds of millions of times less radioactive than high-level nuclear waste.

Even still, there is a vast degree of resistance to its use, with the International Coalition to Ban Nuclear Weapons operating in 25 different nations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Coaliti...

The European Parliament has also passed several resolutions to ban the use of DU weapons...acts solely motivated by the anti-nuclear lobby.


RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 2:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
And again, someone wasn't paying attention to what I said- I was defending the environmentalist lobby- not the anti-nuke lobby; they are NOT the same. I am pro-environment and pro-nuke, if you need a concrete example.

Secondly- it's only "relatively safer." It just doesn't cause the same level of devastation as a full blown nuke. Just because you limit the level of destruction doesn't make it a good thing. Are you now going to argue that a depleted uranium bomb is safe? The whole point of any bomb is not good.

My whole point is that it doesn't make sense that the government uses it for weapons, which is the intent of most of these treaties, versus propulsion.


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 2:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "I was defending the environmentalist lobby- not the anti-nuke lobby; they are NOT the same"

Each and every one of the dozens of major environmental organizations are vehemently anti-nuclear. The European Green Party is adamantly anti-nuclear. The US Green Party is as well.

Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the WWF, Friends of the Earth, the Earth Policy Institute, The Nature Conservancy, you name it-- all of them have campaigned extensively against nuclear power and technology. Most specifically identify the elimination of nuclear power as a goal in their mission statement.


RE: very cool
By FITCamaro on 1/8/2008 3:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you masher.


RE: very cool
By 91TTZ on 1/8/2008 8:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly- it's only "relatively safer." It just doesn't cause the same level of devastation as a full blown nuke. Just because you limit the level of destruction doesn't make it a good thing. Are you now going to argue that a depleted uranium bomb is safe? The whole point of any bomb is not good.


It's obvious that you don't really know what you're talking about. There is no such thing as a "depleted uranium bomb". As another user pointed out, it's just used as a penetrator.


RE: very cool
By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/8/2008 2:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, the chemical toxicity of Lead is more of a concern then than the radiation of DU.

DU is not a nuclear weapon. It does not have a "blast."

I do agree that you have a nice vocabulary though...


RE: very cool
By retrospooty on 1/8/2008 1:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
"Governments do whats popular. Nuclear isn't. "

Clearly you are not an American, or are an American that lives with his head in the clouds. The US govt. does NOT do what is popular, and does NOT care about the will of its citizens, especially the left wing environmentalist ones.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not an environmentalist and am not against using nuclear power (in fact, I am all for its use to help reduce our dependence of foreign oil) but to say that the US govt does or does not do anything at all because of environmentalists lobbying against them is ludicrous. Environmentalists are nothing but an annoying "fly" to the US govt. Its annoying, but does not effect anything, other than being annoying.


RE: very cool
By FITCamaro on 1/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 2:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, don't lump environmentalists in with the anti-nuke crowd (which is who I was talking about to begin with). They have different objectives and purposes. Secondly, don't lump all those in with the people have a beef with saying "in God we trust."

You need to get over the fact that not every environmentalist is anti-nuke, nor are they anti-"in God we trust." Just because someone doesn't agree with one time stablished tradition in this country doesn't mean they disagree with it all. It's a fantasy. A lot of religious people believe in environmentalism and nukes. It's a mixed bag of people with minority views.

And by the way, the courts that make all the decisions on the "in God we trust" and the 10 commandments in city hall or whatever issue you have with an issue someone else had were all made by judges- you may want to look up how Judges are put in place in this country.

Here's a hint- they're not democratically elected.


RE: very cool
By FITCamaro on 1/8/2008 3:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
Judges in your local area are elected.
Federal judges are appointed by the president and senate.

And its not always federal judges making those decisions anymore.

And I wasn't lumping in environmentalists with those who are against "In God We Trust". I was making a point of how the extreme minority try to bring about changes that go against the beliefs and opinions of the extreme majority.

And yes I know not all environmentalists are anti-nuclear. But whenever you hear about it in the news, the protest or whatever is often linked with a major environmentalist group. In my mind any smart environmentalist would be pro-nuclear since nuclear powers impact on the environment can be near zero. Especially once fuel reprocessing is used. Solar power on the other hand requires vast tracks of land to be covered by solar panels. And wind energy requires large numbers of towering generators across the landscape. Both are limited in use to certain geographic locations. Nuclear power can be used anywhere.


RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 2:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Apparrently retrospooty and I think along the same lines.

Personally, I am for nuclear technology; I just don't understand where this collective imagination comes from that blames poor (comparatively) environmentalist groups for the lack of use of nuclear technology rather than the governments and corporations that are supposed to be developing it.


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 2:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who lived through the waves of US anti-nuclear power protests in the 1970s wouldn't doubt it. Anyone whose seen the billions of dollars utilities spent in costly delays fighting legal challenges from environmental groups would have no doubts either. The stated goal of every major environmental organization is the elimination of nuclear technology. Those organizations wield a powerful political force.

In parts of Europe, nuclear power is even more taboo, with prexisting plants being rapidly decomissioned, and environmental groups regularly bringing suits to force the government to close down plants early. Many nations such as Sweden have announced a goal to phase out nuclear power entirely, as a result of the powerful Green lobby there.

Countless books, magazines, and news articles have explored the links between the anti-nuclear lobby and the death of nuclear technology. For a more scholarly look, try "Nuclear Protest and National Policy" by Dorothy Nelkin from Cornell.


RE: very cool
By retrospooty on 1/8/2008 2:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
Come on man, use some common sense here... Like I said, I am for the use of nuclear power too, but I DO understand that there is an issue with dangerous waste, and potential accidents that can be catastophic.

It is that dangerous waste, and potential catastophic accidents that keeps nuclear power from being widespread, it is NOT due to Anti-nuke lobbyists.


RE: very cool
By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/8/2008 3:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
Right- waste is dangerous. Yucca mountain provided a long-term storage for these contaminates. Why is it not being used? Environmental, and anti-nuclear lobbyists. These are outspoken people who have no extended knowledge on the matter, who throw words around and numbers with irrelevant meanings, so that the public gets on the bandwagon.
They argued that the storage in Yucca wasn't sufficient enough. The damn complex within the mountain can sustain a direct hit from an asteroid. So outside of an "act of god", the waste is safe there. Better than the leaking temperary on-site storage all around america, which is leaking and polluting groundwater and soil every minute we speak. These people lobbying against such programs as Yucca care more about being right. Meanwhile they slow progress towards facilitation of corrective action.
I agree nuclear waste is bad. Let's reprocess it- make it last longer. Then lets throw the rest in Yucca Mountain. But that is being impeded.
Everyone wishing nuclear waste doesn't exist won't do it- so instead of fighting every aspect of it in every way, why don't these people lobby for addendums or changes in regulation rather than outright stalling and abolishment of useful technologies and programs? But they don't. And the problems are getting worse. And agencies trying to move forth with the right actions aren't able to- they'll later be blamed for slow-ups, and the buildup of onsite radiation.

Its kinda like theres a large fire spreading, and someone gets the grand idea to take all the oxygen away.


RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 4:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
"Working for disarmament and peace by reducing dependence on finite resources and calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons."

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/our-...

Apparrently you have problems reading- this is the only part of Greenpeace's current statement that pertains to anything nuclear. It refer's ONLY to nuclear weapons, not ALL nuclear technology.

Also, get yourself out of the 70's. We live in 2008, and if you've seen the laws passed by Congress and the President, you would know they don't yeild as much power as you want me to believe.


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 4:31:51 PM , Rating: 5
> "Apparrently you have problems reading- this is the only part of Greenpeace's current statement that pertains to anything nuclear"

Time to end this nonsense. Under the Greenpeace page entitled, "Time to End the Nuclear Age", Greenpeace devotes several paragraphs as to why they believe we should phase out not only nuclear power, but "all things nuclear". I quote from the page:
quote:
Nuclear power plants are, next to nuclear warheads themselves, the most dangerous devices that man has ever created. Their construction and proliferation is the most irresponsible, in fact the most criminal, act ever to have taken place on this planet ."
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/...

Here's a press release from Greenpeace, applauding themselves for their attempts to block nuclear fuel shipments:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nuctra...

Here's another, where Greenpeace condemns Russia for allowing nuclear waste shipments:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nucwas...

Here's another, of Greenpeace activists trying to shut down a Dutch nuclear power plant:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nucrea...

Another, on Greenpeace's efforts to block US and British nuclear fuel reprocessing:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nucrep...

Here's one of Greenpeace protestors forcibly occupying a French nuclear power plant:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nucrep...

Greenpeace calling for Denmark to shut down its nuclear power plant:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nucrea...

Greenpeace activists in Turkey arrested for protesting nuclear power:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nucrea...

Another, of their attempts to shut down all nuclear plants in Ukraine:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nucrea...

Greenpeace activists board nuclear waste ship in Panama:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nuctra...

Greenpeace blocks nuclear fuel shipment from Germany:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nuctra...

There are more, literally hundreds more. Greenpeace is squarely against nuclear power, and all things nuclear. This is not open to dispute.


RE: very cool
By maven81 on 1/8/2008 5:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
What does it matter how greenpeace feels about anything? In the US they don't have the kind of power needed to actually change policy any more then the animal rights people can stop the use of fur.
The very limited use of nuclear power can be explained without any of this. Put it simply, the government has spent decades "educating" the general public that nuclear = bad! People don't understand it, and fear it. Ask anyone if they would be ok with a nuclear power plant in their home town and I guarantee they would freak out. The media has taken this and sensationalized it to hell and back. Now just the mention of nuclear power has visions of mushroom clouds or chernoble in people's heads.
It's an educational issue, not an environmental one. I'm willing to bet that if a city actually wanted to build a power plant and provided the funds, there's nothing green peace or anyone else could do about it.

Now on to the other strange things you said... yes some crazies whine about Radioisotope Generators, but that's only because NASA are a bunch of wimps and actually let them. Imagine if someone tried to argue with the military saying they could not build a nuclear carrier! NASA doesn't understand PR, or even how to make what they do sound exciting and useful. Which is why the Russians and ESA are going to beat them to Europa even though I know for a fact NASA was working on a similar mission.
And I'd like to see some proof that this project Orion in the 60s was anything more then a concept... You're acting like they were ready to launch a working prototype, which is ludicrous. The other big idea at the time was ION drive by the way... and we actually have it... but it's not exactly replacing chemical propulsion is it? Because it's much harder in practice...


RE: very cool
By maven81 on 1/8/2008 5:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
I just realized that the general public's fear of nuclear anything has already been discussed in the posts below. Sorry, didn't mean to steal anyone's thunder.


RE: very cool
By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/8/2008 6:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
BURN!


RE: very cool
By Keeir on 1/8/2008 4:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
No offense, but as recently as 2006, there was still the significant bias within most enviromental groups against nuclear anything

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

I agree. Most enivormental groups stance on nuclear power is changing because it is one of the few forms of power generation that does not result in huge costs or large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.

However, it still exists (Dec 2007)

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/...

my favorite qoute

"Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants."


RE: very cool
By retrospooty on 1/8/2008 2:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
"I just don't understand where this collective imagination comes from that blames poor (comparatively) environmentalist groups for the lack of use of nuclear technology rather than the governments and corporations that are supposed to be developing it"

You haven't had much dealings with Masher and Fitcamaro have you? They pretty much blame anything and everything they don't like on any given issue to this imaginary coagulation of left wing nutjobs they have in thier heads (Hippies, environmentalists, anti nuke protesters, anti-war protesters , democrats, its all the same exact thing to them). Typical right wing mentality. throw all your hate into one simpe bucket and label away...


RE: very cool
By Chudilo on 1/8/2008 1:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear powered cars? Get your facts straight. Fuel cells maybe subatomic, but there is no nuclear reaction going on anywhere in the process.
As far as atomic energy is concerned. It may be viable, but not the way we're doing it now. Maybe it'll take a helium 3 Isotope that they supposedly found on mars to create a stable cold fusion reactor on earth or in a spaceship to make Atomic energy safe.

We may be able to protect ourselves while a particular plant is in operation, but what happens after that. You can never decommission /dismantle a plant that has been started. The only thing you can do is dig a huge hole underneath it and drop it in, effecting most of the subterranean waters and processes that would normally be going on there. In addition even though we can enclose the nuclear reactor to the best of our knowledge while in operation, that knowledge is still limited to what has happened in the past. And while historically it seems like a safe bet, it can never be a 100% safe thing.

Lets for example take Chernobyl. Many fail-safes were in place. Everything was supposed to be up to "Code", it only took a stress test and an arrogant goal oriented idiot(or team of idiots) to override all the safeties in order to cause a major accident that rendered 1091sq miles of prime land unusable for the next 500 years. Just FYI Rhode Island is 1,212 Sq miles). And that land housed at least 1 city and numerous towns with factories and collective farms.

US electricity grid may be very good, but remember the big Northeast blackout ja few years ago. and the California blackouts. which proves that it isn't perfect, someone somewhere will eventually make a bad decision and it will cause major irreversible repercussions. You do not want that to happen with a nuclear plant.


RE: very cool
By Chudilo on 1/8/2008 2:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Correction Helium 3 isotope was found on the moon , not Mars


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 2:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "Maybe it'll take a helium 3 Isotope that they supposedly found on mars to create a stable cold fusion reactor "

He-3 is found on the moon, not Mars...and it would be useful for hot fusion, not cold.

> "You can never decommission /dismantle a plant that has been started"

On the contrary, over 350 nuclear reactors to date have been decommissioned. Many have been fully dismantled, with the site cleaned up, landscaped, and no traces of radioactivity left behind.

> "Lets for example take Chernobyl"

Chernobyl was a 'positive-void' RBMK reactor, an unsafe design the Western World rejected in the 1950s. No such reactors were built outside the Soviet Union.

In the US, commercial nuclear power has racked up several thousand reactor-years of operation, without one single fatality. And these are with reactor designs from the 1960s. We have far safer, cleaner, more advanced designs on the books.


RE: very cool
By Darkskypoet on 1/8/2008 2:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
Also, Chernobyl accident occurred because the operators took the fail safes OFFLINE, yes, they ran dangerous tests and turned the safety mechanisms off. Dumb people can screw anything up.

Further, the big bad decision you speak of :"someone somewhere will eventually make a bad decision and it will cause major irreversible repercussions. You do not want that to happen with a nuclear plant." can happen, with anything. However, utilizing dirty coal plants (cleaner techs are always coming on line) represents a bad decision as well. On a smaller scale perhaps, but it represents a constantly reoccuring bad decision that overtime contributes a hell of a lot of damage to the same surrounding ecosystem. Further, heavy metal contamination from Coal plants is a fact, and does quite a bit more damage then a properly operating Nuclear reactor.

The problem, is that because Nuclear power has been relegated to a no go in so many jurisdictions by (imho) misguided environmental concerns, the advancements that could have been made with it have also been lost.

Fire was once a supremely dangerous thing in all forms, mankind probably burnt themselves silly first learning how to utilize it properly. Accidents still happen on a routine enough basis if you increase the sample size to include all of humanity... However, had we decided screw that, its bad for us, would we ever have gotten out of the stone age?

Miniaturization, new materials tech, etc can do wonders for fission reactions. I believe the Japanese are well ahead of us on these fronts in relation to nuclear technology. Because of this, I believe they ill have some of the most advanced, and smallest nuclear plants in existence.

If we look at electric cars, powered by the base line electrical capacity produced via nuclear power, then we have an indirect nuclear propulsion of motor vehicles. Much like in Nuke subs, ships, etc. Also, much the same as Diesel generators powering diesel locomotives, subs, etc. The only difference is the generation, and usage are separated by many hundreds, or thousands of miles.

If we plan to have cleaner skies, (not wading into the CO2 good bad argument here) and less heavy metal accumulation in the general dispersion area of coal fired plants, then nuclear is the way to go. For if we apply our lessons learned, and fund it; economies of scale, and increased emphasis on R&D will solve cost and other problems in due time.

Slowly killing ones self is no different then quickly ending it all... Both are bad decisions. However if the chance is 99.99% that continuing common practices will drop heavy metals all over our planet surface, and only 0.00001% (or less) of a catastrophic nuclear event, I would say lets go with the less certain risk of damage and death.


RE: very cool
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 1/10/2008 8:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
We DON'T have nuclear power plants because of the environmentalist lobbies. Now that is a for sure fact. That is why we are so heavy into fossil fuels still. Granted, there were some accidents (Chernobyl) but the Russians don't even shield the reactors in their own nuclear subs, so why would they build a safe power plant. 3 Mile Island was a non-event.


RE: very cool
By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/8/2008 2:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
Our satellites which go beyond our planet and moon usually house plutonium for electric generation by the seebeck effect(RTGs). They may also use RHUs which provide heat The voyager probes housed such technology, as does the cassini probe (in fact it has the largest amount of plutonium ever put into space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini-Huygens#Pluto...
Even with that technology, there is a bit of cause of concern. With crash tests in excess of 120 mph on solid rock, RTGs release radiation (albeit close to impact site), and when subject to shrapnel tests from large plates they fail as well. Russian units have not faired as well as the US versions.
Nuclear propulsion is a broad term...

Nuclear reactors can power ion engines... but the shielding requirements- ionic, radioactively, and thermally make the technology unwanted by many. (used while in space anyway)

Nuclear thermal rockets have shown promise in the past. Solid designs require high temperatures and work much the same as standard chemical rockets, liquid core versions give more thrust, but the exhaust is radioactive. Gas version provide something in the middle- but are rather complex- require manipulation magnetic fields around a gaseous core of fissionable material. A historical look at the projects I believe you speak of reveal unsafe operation: KIWI A was damaged by vibrations, as was KIWI A', and KIWI A3 was damaged by corrosion. All in the B line were damaged to hydrogen leakage, virbation, and finally a cooling system malfunction. Only the KIWI B4E was successful. The Phoebus testing ended up with only one rocket- the 2A meeting thrust requirements. Further success in run-times with restarts and good power levels were achieved with the NRX tests.
But through all the NERVA tests, hydrogen corrosion was never completely solved. Vibration was a big problem in the KIWI tests. Either problems would have resulted in failure without notice, launches from earth presented environmental dangers, and electrical propulsion (these were all thermal) works better in space for those long-lived missions in the solar system.
The nuclear pulse engines would reign fallout on the test site, along with EMPs.

Overall, the best hope for the safest use of these technologies didn't die in the 60's, it died a few years ago...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus

The problem isn't really environmentalists, but more the public. There is little interest in going elsewhere (Mars) by the general public, because they have no idea about the useful advances designed and given to the public as a result since the space program in the 60's. People know next to nothing about nuclear technology, and keywords carry a heavy negative connotation. In fact, in the food industry, a proposed change would be for irradiation of food to be called "cold pasteurization." People fear irradiation and won't eat the foods if they know, but pasteurization is a known process (in terms of acceptance- the average joe still has no clue about what is going on). People would stop using slews of things around them if they realized radiation was involved. Anything industrial having to do with a width- paper milling, coatings, all use radiation to test for thickness, and self-correction. Most all sterile medical equipment- band-aids included are sterilized by irradiation. Put a badge about that on a band-aid brand commercial and see how sales do... The reason being the only other methods to sterilize things involve chemical treatment, pressure, and/or heat. All of which either take more time, or alter a product. Irradiation doesn't. Blame your dumbass neighbors who claims there are "chemicals" in everything making people unhealthy. Yeh buddy, we'll start by taking chemicals out of you...


RE: very cool
By FITCamaro on 1/8/2008 3:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and keywords carry a heavy negative connotation


Who do you think put that heavy negative connotation in the public's head?


RE: very cool
By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/8/2008 3:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think you give too much credit to the people you dislike.
I think large media coverage, presented by faces with the same level of intelligence as an average American did it. Goodness- the way news stations get about snow and weather in general- I don't know how these average people don't live in fear.
Then they actually get an expert on, and pigeon-hole them in admitting some .000001% chance of calamity, without explaining the whole .000001% part. And editing- I blame editing too.

And if you can't except this as a valid, and more likely reason... and state how the media is all liberalized (without looking at FOX, and other media), then we depart our debate and you can keep you magnificent foil-cap on.

This has been my problem with conspiracy theorists (not calling you one- but it abides by many shared rules to what others have posted about your beliefs). At every end they place too much stock in the same system of people that poke around finding ways to screw up most things. Sure, I believe some of the theories, but to accept every one of them on a notion that there is some group of people masked in darkness like the evil empire or something... is you choice of course, but one I only accept as comical at best.


RE: very cool
By saiga6360 on 1/8/2008 3:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
I would guess, Chernobyl comes to an average person's mind when you ask them about nuclear power. Real events tend to resonate.

The Simpsons maybe. Ridiculous TV fodder has that effect as well.


RE: very cool
By Screwballl on 1/8/2008 3:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad a simple event such as build the unmanned craft on earth, transport the nuclear material into space, assemble nuclear material with craft and let it launch from space, that way if there is an accident, there is minimal impact on human life... but they say even one life is not worth it so there is no pleasing those types.


RE: very cool
By JohnnyCNote on 1/8/2008 6:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China or Russia perhaps...both seem considerably more practical when it comes to such matters.


I guess you haven't heard of Chernobyl, Semipalatinsk, Tomsk 7, or any other of the many examples of Russian practicality. I suppose you'd expect Vladimir Putin to be more "practical" in such matters? Maybe you'd want to take this up with the girl in this picture:

http://www.pixelpress.org/chernobyl/screen5.html , or this one:

http://www.pixelpress.org/chernobyl/screen11.html

or this:

http://www.pixelpress.org/chernobyl/screen12.html .

Shall I go on? Who knows what we'll find in China as the country continues to open up. Of course, they're so well known for their strong support of worker safety . . .


RE: very cool
By Omega215D on 1/8/2008 10:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
"All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there."


Well...
By isorfir on 1/8/2008 11:31:20 AM , Rating: 3
My religion doesn’t allow me to accept life anywhere other than earth. Too bad America isn’t launching this program, ‘cause then I’d lobby to end it and probably (unfortunately) win. Godless ruskies…




RE: Well...
By ajfink on 1/8/2008 11:50:23 AM , Rating: 2
Hehe, tongue-in-cheek.

I see what you did there.


RE: Well...
By kyp275 on 1/8/2008 11:51:02 AM , Rating: 1
ignorance/10

Besides, if you truly believe in whatever it is you believe in, why would you even care if others are searching for life outside of Earth? afraid they'd prove you wrong?


RE: Well...
By DFranch on 1/8/2008 12:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sarcasm, ever heard of it.


RE: Well...
By 16nm on 1/8/2008 1:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
No, what is sarcasm?


RE: Well...
By onwisconsin on 1/11/2008 1:13:14 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I've never heard of it either

(that was sarcasm)


RE: Well...
By sxr7171 on 1/8/2008 12:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
You couldn't see the sarcasm in his post?


RE: Well...
By kyp275 on 1/8/2008 1:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
sorry, my sarcasm detector was malfunctioning due to a broken flux capacitor :P


RE: Well...
By isorfir on 1/8/2008 1:05:16 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry, my religion doesn’t allow my ignorance to be divided, only multiplied.


RE: Well...
By retrospooty on 1/8/2008 1:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
LOL - sarcasm appreciated, but lost on many.

I for one cant wait until we finally find life elsewhere and put an end to the whole "god delusion" that holds us all back. Only then we can move forward as a society.


RE: Well...
By MrHanson on 1/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Well...
By retrospooty on 1/8/2008 3:37:29 PM , Rating: 1
Nowhere did I say the universe has no purpose, nor did I say we evolved "minddlessly". I do believe in intelligent design, and obviously that someone or thing with a far greater intelligence than our own designed life. I just want to get past the whole "creationism" thing, which is obviously hogwash. I should have used the word "creationism", not "god".

Once you understand the full scope (at least humankind's scientific knowledge to date) of evolution, DNA, Geology, and astronomy, and many other disciplines, the idea of evolution, and how it actually happened on Earth is far more a miracle than to simply think that some guy up in the clouds zapped us into existence 7000 years ago.


RE: Well...
By Crystalysis on 1/10/2008 2:59:45 PM , Rating: 1
Interesting. Almost makes me afraid to attempt to counter the arguments you've made here.

I tend to describe myself, IMHO, much like Elli from Contact.

I suppose I'm just a godless math-head who believes in no intelligent design or purpose.


Wow... Just Like the Movie! (Almost)
By Dabruuzer on 1/8/2008 2:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I am old, but does anyone else remember the movie, "2010: The Year We Make Contact"? Came out in 1984, and was a sequel to the original "2001: A Space Odyssey". In it, there was a joint mission between the Russians and Americans to get to Europa to investigate a strange "monolith" that was detected hovering above that moon. It turned out they found primitive life under the ice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010:_The_Year_We_Mak...




RE: Wow... Just Like the Movie! (Almost)
By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/8/2008 3:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
That movie was horrible. It'd be like a sequel to full metal... Stanley Kubrick didn't do the movie- it had the guy from jaws. Following standard 1980's protocol it revolved around US-USSR relations and pitted them against each other. Plus it had crappy music. Someone came back from the dead... And the impossible happened. The movie wasn't edgy or scary or even on the edge of cinematic genius like 2001. It was poo


By Dabruuzer on 1/8/2008 7:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
No argument there. Just drawing a parallel (albeit a thin one). :)


RE: Wow... Just Like the Movie! (Almost)
By Anonymous Freak on 1/9/2008 1:28:05 AM , Rating: 3
The book was way better than the movie. But even the book deals with the Cold War.

2061 was even better, and in it, Russia DOES INDEED land on Europa!

That was my first thought when I read the title. I instantly thought of 2061 .

There were four books, 2001 , 2010 , 2061 , and 3001 . Ironically, the BOOK 2010 is a sequel to the MOVIE 2001 , not the book 2001 . Clarke decided he liked how the movie came out better than the novelization, so he went with the movie as the 'source'. 2001 was written in parallel with the screenplay for the movie in 1967. 2010 was written in 1984, with the movie adapted afterward. 2061 was written in 1987. Clarke has said that he was originally going to wait for results of the Galileo probe before writing the next Odyssey novel, but the Challenger accident caused him to move it up, and his inspiration for writing 2061 was the impending arrival of Halley's Comet. Finally, 3001 was written in 1997, and the story re-writes quite a bit of the history of the previous three books. (For example, the events of 2001 take place in the 2030s in this book, and the events of the later books are pushed back accordingly.)


RE: Wow... Just Like the Movie! (Almost)
By Ajax9000 on 1/9/2008 1:57:00 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
2061 was even better, ...

You beat me to mentioning 2061, but ...

IMHO 2061 was shite. It actually turned me off bothering to read 3001. :-)

I just couldn't get over the stupidity of the central theme of the book -- that aliens powerful enough to create the monolith and use it to add sufficent mass to Jupiter to turn it into a second sun would carelessly fail to do the sums for the extra mass right such that Lucifer fades too fast. This leads to the further small crime of junking the epilogue of 2010.


By Symmetriad on 1/9/2008 12:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
Just be thankful you didn't read 3001. Even as a teenager, it felt both terribly amateurish and dumb, and there hardly seemed to be any point to it that I can remember. The only things that I remember clearly are the giant ship-launching ring around earth built from the giant diamond ejected from Jupiter's core, and that we hacked the freaking monoliths. It was just an awful book.


By SiliconAddict on 1/8/2008 5:01:31 PM , Rating: 4
I read: Russians to search Europe for life forms.
And was sort of WTF? o.O *shakes head* More caffeine stat!




By zinfamous on 1/8/2008 7:20:59 PM , Rating: 3
lol. exactly what I read. was thinking: "here come the tanks..."


That would make my day
By Ihmemies on 1/8/2008 7:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
It would be worth seeing these eco hippie's reaction if all nuclear power was replaced with traditional fossil fuels - oil and coal.

There is currently no real alternative for nuclear power, so we might as well use it and not make it unneccessarily hard. I'm sure lots of more people have died to fossil fuel emissions than because of Tshernobyl meltdown.

Reducing energy consiumption is pure utopia in the world we live. It simply isn't going to happen until it is the very last choice.




"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki