NASA's "Prometheus" program in jeopardy.

[TheCaptain]

Why doesn't someone over at NASA just try to create an self-contained region of subspace time, and call it a Zero Point Module in hallmark of its sci-fi roots?

Capt

[helio9]

Most reasonable people realize that there is no real reason why nuclear reactors in space would be dangerous. Miniturization isn't a problem, its common on nuclear subs and Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. And these are both designed to withstand torpedo hits, so shaking isnt a problem either.

What is? Many, many people have very little knowledge, and very little desire to gain that knowledge. To them, nuclear = Churnobyl. Thats it, thats all they see. I get that that event was horrible and that the effect are still being felt, but it CAN'T happen again. Reactors nowadays are designed so that it simply cannot occur. But because of that, the stigma won't go away.

[SmallTimePerson]

Why doesn't someone over at NASA just try to create an self-contained region of subspace time, and call it a Zero Point Module in hallmark of its sci-fi roots?

Capt

cause anybody that values their scientific reputation won't believe in it.
But im a believer...
try this out zpenergy

[TheCaptain]

cause anybody that values their scientific reputation won't believe in it.
But im a believer...
try this out zpenergy

lol meant it as a joke (lame as it was), if ya didn't get that

But the site is interesting, thou some things there are a little... out there. Though, God bless those labcoat boys and gals off if they do off a ZPM-esque device, I'll be one of the first hollering in support of em gettin a Nobel

Capt

[SmallTimePerson]

lol meant it as a joke (lame as it was), if ya didn't get that

But the site is interesting, thou some things there are a little... out there. Though, God bless those labcoat boys and gals off if they do off a ZPM-esque device, I'll be one of the first hollering in support of em gettin a Nobel

Capt

its quite easy to make, zpe, just the hard part is extracting it
i think any1 who makes it will have an instant nobel

[Gate_traveler]

This is a great thread, and i have a few takes on this subject thatt i have debated for a few years with freinds.

Nuclear power on the whole is the power source of the futrue IMO. Its clean, effcient, and relatively cheep. Alot of envronmentalists happen to bring up the worst case scenarios, and tend to be doomsayers. Im not an expert or anyhting but anytime there has been a problem or a possible problem im pretty sure they fix it. Every year they make improvements. I beleive that the root of the issue falls down to the fossil fuel industry, its one of the most powerful organisations in the world. Nuclear power is a threat to their profits, so i think they fuel the flames so to speak of anything that will make nuclear power look bad. I also truly beleive that why they havent seriously developed hybrid cars untill now, the US as a whole demanded something be done about energy costs. I fell if there were more nuclear plants just in america alone it would save consumers billions of dollars a year, and create a better more efficient power grid (less blackouts).

As far as nuclear power in space, there is no real argument that will convince me that we shouldnt do it, i mean no one is going to develop a reactor for space and cut corners. I think a lot of people are looking back to past fears and dwelling on them. It has ben stated several times earlier in this thread that in space who cares if it blew up, i seriously doubt that if it did blow up it would harm the planet, there are far worse things out there that occur naturaly. I seriously feel that developing nuclear powered probes and ships would actually save money in the future, as nuclear powered probes and ships have a far longer operational life and hence are more useful and can do more work.

Basically the whole problem is if we dont actively make things and improve them along the way we are holding ourselves back as a civilization as a whole, not just in the us. this applies to more then just nuclear power, however its a big part of it. If we do not start making a more profound presence in space soon it could possibly be the downfall of the planet. In closing no matter what we do the time to start acting is now, there are many things that could occur naturaly that would have cataclismic effects, supervocanic eruptions, asteroids hitting the planet, even the poles shifting. Where else is there to go but to space? Starting now will dramatically improve our survival of any event that would harm us as a race on a global scale. thats just my opinion i could be wrong.

[helio9]

Basically the whole problem is if we dont actively make things and improve them along the way we are holding ourselves back as a civilization as a whole, not just in the us.

Thats very, very true, however people argue that that money should instead be spent...feeding people, providing health care, etc. And lets be honest, this stuff isn't exactly cheap. A Nuclear powered shuttle type craft could easily cost 100B (as estimated) by the time all the technologies are developped, not exactly chump change.

While I agree that these project do benefit society as a whole, and that they should be undertaken, there must be a balance.

[Gate_traveler]

Hey, thanks for agreeing with me there, but i want to make sure im understood.

i am just pointing out my take as a whole. i understand that it takes a lot of money and that you have to balance with everyhting else you have to deal with on a gloabl scale. However i think a lot of things are held back simply by people not understading or misinformation. its been said several times that if you can show a report in the positive of something you can dig up something on the same issue that says the oppisite. mt whole point is that using this type of energy is not going to harm the environment of space were something to go wrong.

bascially if we dont activly start pretty soon it will just take that much longer. but i dont want to see us do something with reckless abandon either.

[LtColCarter]

But what if something goes wrong? There's no guarantee that it wont, accidents happen whether you like them or not, better safe than sorry.

Ummm...we do have nuclear subs in our oceans. If something goes wrong....I'd prefer it to be in space instead of in our oceans!

[NowIWillDestroyAbydos]

I posted a link to animation for Prometheus here on GW forum. I'll look for it and then I'll post it here.

[Insolent_Tauri]

If only we had Cold Fusion...that would pwn so hard..

Okay...

Fission produces less energy than Fusion but takes in less as well.

Also, NASA had planned on using a prototype nuclear fusion reactor that used plasma as a propulsion. I don't know if they did it, but that would pwn too.

A good power plant on earth would be:

A fission plant and a fusion plant. The fusion plant fuses the Deutrium into Helium then the helium is pushed through turbines into the fission plant (creating electricity by pushing the turbine along the way) then the fission plant seperates the helium back into deutrium which is then put into the fusion reactor and done again. And then, bam..infinite energy. (To an extent. When hydrogen fuses, it loses some of it's mass which is converted into energy so this process would only work a few times.)

The cool thing is...I will be working at NASA after college. Hurrah for knowing someone on the inside..

EDIT:

Actually, we (the U.S.) lost two subs while Russia lost seven.

EDIT2:

Pollute space? Not possible as everything will eventually be recycled by a passing galaxy or star. No such thing as polluting the unpollutable. How would putting out some radiation be harmful when there are black holes and neutron stars that shoot jets of gamma rays, the most deadly form of radiation?

Okay, Myst_Lore, I'm first going to give you a choice. Please admit to one of the following:
1) You were joking.
2) You don't know the details of fission and would like to learn
3) You're a st00pid n00b who needs to STFU.

If 1, then heh, that's a good one. If 3, then STFU.

But if 2... well, here goes.

In short, you can't have self-sustaining fission with atoms lighter than iron. Also, you can't have self-sustaining fusion with atoms heavier than iron. And iron itself...well, you can't do anything with iron.

So, you can't have self-sustaining fission with light atoms, because when they fiss they take in more energy than they put out. Similarly, the reason that you can't fuse atoms heavier than iron is because to do so makes them both extremely unstable, and the binding energy required to fuse them is far higher than what it might release when fused.

That's the basics. Maybe I'll add more details if I get around to busting out my high school physics book. (Yes, I kept it. I'm a nerd. Sue me. =P)

*EDIT*
Oh, and I stand corrected about the number of US subs lost. What was the other one?

[NowIWillDestroyAbydos]

Here's the Link I told you about
http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/videos.cfm

[Myst_Lore]

SmallTimePerson:

I am getting a job there because I am a good friend of someone who works there thus increasing my chances.

InsolentTauri:

I'll go with 2, I haven't done much research on Fission, other than what I've read about it. My bad.

[SmallTimePerson]

i found this whilst doing an assignment on Russia. It is of a russian spacecraft that maybe one day used with europe.
kliper

[helio9]

I wonder...wouldn't it be nice if they decided to power the ISS with a nuclear powerplant module? That way, they'd already be developing a space version of a reactor and dealing with whatever issues that may bring with it, without haveing to immediately deal with survivng re-entry.