Waverider fails 16 secs , faulty fin..

[aaron886]

I meant Vision aviation, or visionary aviation, or Visionary Aircraft Concepts

..sound it out.. you know, like back in grade school ;)

 

What language are y'all speaking down there in Texas these days? :noexpression:

 

 

...will try to use the technology for other means or be stuck basically

using a remote control plane that carries passengers?.

 

It will be a long time before anyone's even reasonably thinking about the use of hypersonic manned flight. 50, 100 years kind of long.

[MadMonkey]

What language are y'all speaking down there in Texas these days?

 

depends on where you're at partner..

 

 

 

It will be a long time before anyone's even reasonably thinking about the use of hypersonic manned flight. 50, 100 years kind of long.

 

never know what engineers & scientists are doing behind closed doors these days I'm sure they all don't openly talk about every project.. who knows they may already be close.

 

getting past radiation sickness is the big issue.. not means of getting into space. :smartass:

[marcos]

I've always wondered how taking a frozen inert gas into space under pressure, vaporizing it, passing it through a compressor driven by a nuclear reactor, heating it from that reactor and then passing it through free-spinning turbines, applying nuclear reheat and expanding it to vacuum would work as a means of space propulsion...

 

..but good luck getting anyone to sign off on putting a nuclear reactor into space.

[Speed]

I've always wondered how taking a frozen inert gas into space under pressure, vaporizing it, passing it through a compressor driven by a nuclear reactor, heating it from that reactor and then passing it through free-spinning turbines, applying nuclear reheat and expanding it to vacuum would work as a means of space propulsion...

 

..but good luck getting anyone to sign off on putting a nuclear reactor into space.

 

It is more hazardous to launch an Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) (such as what is powering Curosity, Cassini, and New Horizons) than it is to launch an actual nuclear reactor.

 

Why?

A nuclear reactor isn't dangerous until it begins to run. Plutonium, Uranium- even the fissile isotopes- they are not very dangerous. It's when the reactor starts running, and the short-half-life isotopes start building up- THAT is when a destruction of the reactor, and the dispersal of its contents, would be dangerous.

 

When they launch a reactor into space (and they WERE launched into space by both sides during the Cold War), do you think they have already started the reactor when the rocket is on the launch pad? NO. It's not started until it's safely on its way, in space.

 

Thus, using nuclear reactors would actually be an improvement over using RTGs- safer, and a whole lot more power.

 

And actually, NASA has been, within the last decade, been doing research on space-based nuclear reactors. The Jupiter Icy Moons Oribiter (JIMO) was a proposed mission to study Europa's oceans that was considered just a few years ago. It would have orbited Europa, using a power radar powered by a nuclear reactor to peer through the surface ice to see the probable ocean below. It's quite likely that it, or a mission very similar, will indeed fly one day.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Speed

[marcos]

It is more hazardous to launch an Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) (such as what is powering Curosity, Cassini, and New Horizons) than it is to launch an actual nuclear reactor.

 

Why?

A nuclear reactor isn't dangerous until it begins to run. Plutonium, Uranium- even the fissile isotopes- they are not very dangerous. It's when the reactor starts running, and the short-half-life isotopes start building up- THAT is when a destruction of the reactor, and the dispersal of its contents, would be dangerous.

 

When they launch a reactor into space (and they WERE launched into space by both sides during the Cold War), do you think they have already started the reactor when the rocket is on the launch pad? NO. It's not started until it's safely on its way, in space.

 

Thus, using nuclear reactors would actually be an improvement over using RTGs- safer, and a whole lot more power.

 

And actually, NASA has been, within the last decade, been doing research on space-based nuclear reactors. The Jupiter Icy Moons Oribiter (JIMO) was a proposed mission to study Europa's oceans that was considered just a few years ago. It would have orbited Europa, using a power radar powered by a nuclear reactor to peer through the surface ice to see the probable ocean below. It's quite likely that it, or a mission very similar, will indeed fly one day.

On reflection, I think you're right. It's just the waste that they won't launch into space in case the rocket explodes. Not that enriched uranium or plutonium on fire would be a great atmospheric additive either.

[Speed]

On reflection, I think you're right. It's just the waste that they won't launch into space in case the rocket explodes. Not that enriched uranium or plutonium on fire would be a great atmospheric additive either.

 

Probably no worse than mercury, the main danger is toxicity, I think:

[Pilotasso]

They launch them from isolated places and there are protocols in place for recovery of dangerous materials.

[Echo38]

When they launch a reactor into space (and they WERE launched into space by both sides during the Cold War)

 

Very, very interesting--do you have a source that you could recommend to me?

[Speed]

Very, very interesting--do you have a source that you could recommend to me?

 

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=nuclear+reactors+in+space

:P :thumbup:

 

Note that the only nuclear reactor in space disaster was caused by a Soviet satellite. They launched nuclear powered radar emitting satellites. Their satellites were designed to eject their spent reactor cores into a higher orbit before the rest of the satellite would re-enter. Unfortunately, one of these ejection processes failed, and spread radioactive debris over Canada.

 

Note that this kind of problem can only happen for Earth-orbiting satellites, not the nuclear reactors NASA would like to send on interplanetary missions.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Speed

[Echo38]

Why is this not common knowledge, when it appears to be freely available? Maybe I'm the one left out of the loop, but I get the feeling that if you asked almost anyone, "Hey, did you know that there've been a bunch of nuclear reactors orbiting Earth," they'd be surprised. (And yeah, it does seem a lot safer to have them out there than down here. [grin])