just lost faith in humanity

[HolgerDK]

Read my second post, and secondly, they would.

In sustained flight it would be impossible to prevent radiation poisoning. It would literally poison the air from where it flew.

None of the nuclear engines designed in the USA has been designed to burn any nuclear fuel and/or waste the way chemical rockets do - because that's not how any energy gets released in nuclear fission.

[I Push Buttons]

How many are we talking about in the air? 19,000 planes in the air at peak times. If we went forward, we would be back to square one, and behind what we are now.

What happens if they crash or get shot down? We looking at serious environmental impacts? I don't know, because nuclear powered planes are fucking crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%...93boron_fusion

It doesn't use the same material. Current nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons use fissile material to create either controlled (reactors) or uncontrolled (weapons) nuclear fission... Even thermonuclear weapons, which rely on nuclear fusion to create a more powerful explosion, rely on nuclear fission super heating hydrogen into plasma to create nuclear fusion.

This and other similar proposed fusion reactions don't rely on fissile material or release energy as neutrons.

[Jokerfiend]

None of the nuclear engines designed in the USA has been designed to burn any nuclear fuel and/or waste the way chemical rockets do - because that's not how any energy gets released in nuclear fission.

You cannot stop Neutrons form escaping, hence why the plan was abandoned. It caused the lead and surrounding metal to because brittle and violate. Thus Neutron Decay. Over the course of time, you couldn't stop the planes from producing a toxic environment, through direct radiation poisoning of the air.

Now imagine 19,000 planes producing even 1% of the normal output of a reactor, daily. Over the course of years, or even decades. You have a fucking catastrophe.

30% of the Sun is reflected back into space, by the Earth. If all planes released 1% of a reactor, daily, how much radiation is being released by 19,000 planes? 1 plane, not so much. 10 planes, not so much. 100, 1000, 10000?

Yeah, while the math is good for 1 and 1 plane only, there isn't a large scale setting about environmental impact, because it's fucking crazy to have nuclear planes in the air.

- - - Updated - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%...93boron_fusion

It doesn't use the same material. Current nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons use fissile material to create either controlled (reactors) or uncontrolled (weapons) nuclear fission... Even thermonuclear weapons, which rely on nuclear fusion to create a more powerful explosion, rely on nuclear fission super heating hydrogen into plasma to create nuclear fusion.

This and other similar proposed fusion reactions don't rely on fissile material or release energy as neutrons.

So what happens if birds fly into the direct path of released waste?

There are so many variables... it isn't worth the risk. Secondly, I don't believe in the use of nuclear subs, but that is another debate.

[chazus]

Yeah, while the math is good for 1 and 1 plane only, there isn't a large scale setting about environmental impact, because it's fucking crazy to have nuclear planes in the air.

Not only that (since nuclear planes WERE tested, as the above links show, and were a terrible idea), that's also taking into account that planes operate within the atmosphere. Even space stations and satellites operate within the earth's magnetic field, which dissipates a great deal of harmful radiation.

As soon as you leave the magnetic envelope of the earth (which is exactly what the ultimate goal was, nuclear liftoff or not), there is nothing protecting you from gamma radiation from a nuclear source, even if it's well shielded, if there is any point that is not (lets say, the port needed to provide thrust), it would create a massive problem.

The entire reason nuclear weapons in space were banned by pretty much every agency ever in the world, is because it would cause worldwide satellite failure. Everyone loses, every time.

[Jokerfiend]

None of the nuclear engines designed in the USA has been designed to burn any nuclear fuel and/or waste the way chemical rockets do - because that's not how any energy gets released in nuclear fission.

Most laser fusion systems produce radiation in the form of fast-moving neutrons that requires heavy shielding and degrades the walls of the fusion reactor.[1]

This from the Wiki article you posted. And the exact reason, why these planes will not see the light of day, currently.

[I Push Buttons]

You cannot stop Neutrons form escaping, hence why the plan was abandoned. It caused the lead and surrounding metal to because brittle and violate. Thus Neutron Decay. Over the course of time, you couldn't stop the planes from producing a toxic environment, through direct radiation poisoning of the air.

Now imagine 19,000 planes producing even 1% of the normal output of a reactor, daily. Over the course of years, or even decades. You have a fucking catastrophe.

30% of the Sun is reflected back into space, by the Earth. If all planes released 1% of a reactor, daily, how much radiation is being released by 19,000 planes? 1 plane, not so much. 10 planes, not so much. 100, 1000, 10000?

Yeah, while the math is good for 1 and 1 plane only, there isn't a large scale setting about environmental impact, because it's fucking crazy to have nuclear planes in the air.

- - - Updated - - -



So what happens if birds fly into the direct path of released waste?

There are so many variables... it isn't worth the risk. Secondly, I don't believe in the use of nuclear subs, but that is another debate.

You do realize we have detonated thousands of nuclear weapons on this planet, all of which release copious amounts of neutrons... We have literally designed and tested so called "neutron bombs" that are intended not to be explosively destructive, simply release ridiculous levels of neutrons and wipe out a population while leaving the infrastructure in tact...

And the Earth is bombared in radiation all day every day, and while diminished by our magnetic field, can still be damaging.

AND most of us here are advocating the use of this tech for space travel... Not travel on Earth.

- - - Updated - - -

Most laser fusion systems produce radiation in the form of fast-moving neutrons that requires heavy shielding and degrades the walls of the fusion reactor.[1]

This from the Wiki article you posted. And the exact reason, why these planes will not see the light of day, currently.

"uses one laser to create a boron-11 plasma and another to create a stream of protons that smash into the plasma, producing slow-moving helium particles but no neutrons'

That isn't there as a warning or a drawback... It is there to illustrate why that type of reaction is promising because it doesn't suffer from the same drawback as others.

[chazus]

You do realize we have detonated thousands of nuclear weapons on this planet, all of which release copious amounts of neutrons...

Actually, they dont. Nuclear weapons (That we traditionally use) produce relatively low amounts of neutron radiation. It is absorbed by the casing as part of the detonation process. They're made that way. They want boom, not radiation.

We have literally designed and tested so called "neutron bombs" that are intended not to be explosively destructive, simply release ridiculous levels of neutrons and wipe out a population while leaving the infrastructure in tact...

And they're not used for a very specific reason. I think like... five or so tests have ever been done, and each time the government doing the testing went "Oh holy fuck lets never do that again" or another country detected it and went "oh holy fuck never do that again"

And the Earth is bombared in radiation all day every day, and while diminished by our magnetic field, can still be damaging.

No, it isn't. Our atmosphere and magnetic field (these are two very exclusive things) diminish a HUGE amount of radiation we recieve from outside sources.

AND most of us here are advocating the use of this tech for space travel... Not travel on Earth.

Space travel with this tech would be substantially worse. Exponentially.

A nuclear powered plane flying around inside the atmosphere is ridiculously safer than one flying around space (ignoring obvious aspects of planes in space)

[Jokerfiend]

You do realize we have detonated thousands of nuclear weapons on this planet, all of which release copious amounts of neutrons... We have literally designed and tested so called "neutron bombs" that are intended not to be explosively destructive, simply release ridiculous levels of neutrons and wipe out a population while leaving the infrastructure in tact...

And the Earth is bombared in radiation all day every day, and while diminished by our magnetic field, can still be damaging.

AND most of us here are advocating the use of this tech for space travel... Not travel on Earth.

- - - Updated - - -



"uses one laser to create a boron-11 plasma and another to create a stream of protons that smash into the plasma, producing slow-moving helium particles but no neutrons'

That isn't there as a warning or a drawback... It is there to illustrate why that type of reaction is promising because it doesn't suffer from the same drawback as others.

While I agree, your article is countering itself.

I understand what you are saying, but like I said, I know little. Chazus does though, and for space travel I can see it happening, as a possibility. For Intra-Earth, in which it was designed, no fucking way. To many variables.

Then again, as Chazus says, you cannot dissipate the radiation in space. Thus it doesn't matter for space travel, nor Earth travel.

Again, I said I know little on the subject, fight me is fighting google and 15 minutes of research.

[chazus]

The most probable case of a 'nuclear power source' would be launching a stable material into space (via elevator or some other non-thrust method), manufacturing a useful casing in space dock, and using that to power a battery, which in turn could be used to power a thrust system of some sort, where the fissile material is never exposed, ever, and also removing the lifting from atmosphere aspect out.

It would still be hugely dangerous if damaged (which happens to EVERYTHING in space, pretty much).

But, we're looking at... 100+ years of development. This is like, orbital ring or stanford torus level technology that is still 95% fiction.

Ooooooooooor

We could deem it 'too ambitious to be attempted' and work on other projects that have a clear and understood path of progression to useful and manageable results.

[Deleted]

THIS is what made you lose faith in humanity?

[Afrospinach]

Its not.

This type of nuclear reactor burned cleanly (released very little radiation). A normal nuclear reactor releases large amounts of neutrons/radiation which creates heat, which boils water to create steam, which spins a turbine and generates electricity. This type of nuclear reaction (the process and machinery involved) could convert the energy of the reaction directly into electric current and released very little (less than 1% of normal) neutrons while simultaneously using the process to generate thrust when used in a rocket with far less fuel (meaning less weight).

Ah yes, I was thinking of these things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket

[btorz]

space travel isn't viable anyway, the distances are too large and even light speed which cannot be reached is far too slow in relation to human life cycles.

[Acelius]

space travel isn't viable anyway, the distances are too large and even light speed which cannot be reached is far too slow in relation to human life cycles.

We better discover and harness wormholes soon.

[Granyala]

Yes we have tech... great.

There still isn't much of interest out there.

W/O FTL travel (1000-2000x c(vac) at least) we are and forever will be limited to our tiny solar system.