Ultra Safe Nuclear Technologies Delivers Advanced Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Design To NASA

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: LookingAtMars

""Ultra Safe Nuclear Technologies""

What could possibly go wrong?

Something claims to be "Ultra-Safe" I'm apt to ponder why??? LoL

Honestly why dont we have a giant rail gun that can launch a ship? I bet if we built one a mile or two long and had it slowly angle up towards space towards the end for minimal G impact it could work.

IMO that is probably the BEST way to do it

I for one hope that NASA never listens to these people, they clearly haven't thought things through. How dare they be so brazen, suggesting this nonsense to NASA! They should've asked the experts on ATS here first! These guys are pathetic.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Honestly why dont we have a giant rail gun that can launch a ship? I bet if we built one a mile or two long and had it slowly angle up towards space towards the end for minimal G impact it could work.

IMO that is probably the BEST way to do it

Please ... just read what you wrote and then do some quick research on the internet to see why this is ridiculous.

How many G would the vehicle need to be launched at, without any propulsion, in order to leave orbit, at such a low angle? You do know gravity is stronger the closer we are to the ground? The initial launch would kill the astronauts, They'd never survive.

How is the vehicle going to maneuver in orbit? Mini rail guns in space?

This engine is an improvement but not the breakthrough that it is hyped up to be. This is one part of the rocket system. Most engineers have tunnel vision.

Hay look, we built this nice new engine that could get us to Mars. I wonder how we are going to build a water tank the size of a supertanker in orbit and fill it? Without all that water, it won't have enough hydrogen to stop it at Mars.

The “ceramic pellets” is a great idea. The problem is manufacturing enough for propulsion before they go bad (most pebble reactors face this issue. The effort to make fuel is a major expense. The thorium reactor in Norway, Thor Energy, is testing this right now as small modular reactor design. They are in round two of three [iirc] 5 year runs!). The issue is an engineering one, so it will be sorted out but I doubt it will be soon.

And there is a company already trying to make fusion thrust/engines. I have issues with expelling usable energy out a chamber instead of using it to the max for energy production, why not make the craft electric and not expel anything out??

But we are dealing with ideas who’s time has passed. A fusion ship in outer space weighs the same as a Yugo car!! So why not?

Expelling chemicals or radiation is the exact same dumb idea that has all these dumb ass car and trucks polluting not only our atmosphere but our society (DJT apologist in 3... 2... )

The past is behind us if we only spend our time, now, to not make the same mistakes.

Oh well. Most naked monkeys on the surface would rather hurl feceses at each other (dumb smart phone doesn’t even recognize that word! Ah, progress!’) than keep us from spoiling space like we have done to this planet.

What is the price of a couple more years preventing the pollution of space??

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

than keep us from spoiling space like we have done to this planet.

Too late

We have trashed low Earth orbit all the way out to geosynchronous orbit and beyond. Renenber a fleck of paint can go though your space suit and you. A speck not much bigger can put a hole in your ship.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Interesting

a reply to: andy06shake

That'd be my concern as well. Still reading the links. My question would be if theres an explosion prior to leaving Earth orbit thats quite some radioactive pollution scattered everywhere

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Suppose it would depend on the altitude of the exploding vehicle regarding fallout produced.

Nothing that we have created that can achieve Low Earth Orbit is "Ultra-Safe" through, and when you pair the words with "Nuclear Material" eyebrows get raised somewhat imho.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

than keep us from spoiling space like we have done to this planet.

Too late

We have trashed low Earth orbit all the way out to geosynchronous orbit and beyond. Renenber a fleck of paint can go though your space suit and you. A speck not much bigger can put a hole in your ship.

One day a butt load of money will be made bringing all that "trash" back down to Earth.

It's a lot closer than the nearest asteroid.

If you have the money to mine low earth orbit. You should be able to make the money to mine an asteroid.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Why bring it down? Recycle all that dead stuff in orbit to make useful things like structural parts for space stations and ships. It will only take small heard ships to track and capture each chunk. This brings us back to the engine. Ether they are too weak to be practical for this use, ion drive, or use too much fuel, everything else. A recycling / fabrication unit in orbit is relatively simple once the material can be captured effectively.

spam

originally posted by: Fazar

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Why did you include spam in your quote of another member?