1 posted on
10/28/2009 9:39:49 PM PDT by
bogusname
To: KevinDavis
2 posted on
10/28/2009 9:43:13 PM PDT by
Army Air Corps
(Four fried chickens and a coke)
To: bogusname
Is that the nuclear detonation idea, or something else entirely?
3 posted on
10/28/2009 9:44:52 PM PDT by
wastedyears
(Clyde Shelton is my hero.)
To: bogusname
In 1963, the United States developed the NERVA project.The goal of the NERVA program was to take the graphite-based nuclear reactor built at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) under the Rover program, which had begun in 1956, and create a functioning rocket engine.
4 posted on
10/28/2009 9:44:58 PM PDT by
ErnstStavroBlofeld
("We will either find a way, or make one."Hannibal/Carthaginian Military Commander)
To: bogusname
5 posted on
10/28/2009 9:45:38 PM PDT by
allmost
To: bogusname
6 posted on
10/28/2009 9:46:52 PM PDT by
ErnstStavroBlofeld
("We will either find a way, or make one."Hannibal/Carthaginian Military Commander)
To: bogusname
7 posted on
10/28/2009 9:49:07 PM PDT by
ErnstStavroBlofeld
("We will either find a way, or make one."Hannibal/Carthaginian Military Commander)
To: bogusname
Maybe the USA could use nukular for electricity for our new cars.
To: bogusname
KIWI Nuclear Powered Rocket Engines
10 posted on
10/28/2009 9:58:43 PM PDT by
Pontiac
(Your message here.)
To: bogusname
Comparison of the KIWI and Phoebus assemblies
12 posted on
10/28/2009 10:01:24 PM PDT by
Pontiac
(Your message here.)
To: bogusname
The report for years was that Russia tried this once before and many of their top scientists suddenly went missing after a rather big explosion.
13 posted on
10/28/2009 10:07:17 PM PDT by
org.whodat
(Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
To: bogusname
This had to be fun!
This KIWI-B type reactor was deliberately destroyed on January 1965 by subjecting it to a fast excursion (Prompt Criticality). This test was intended to confirm theoretical models of transient behaviour.
14 posted on
10/28/2009 10:10:01 PM PDT by
Pontiac
(Your message here.)
To: bogusname
A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.
We have been using technology to mitigate the dangers of Radioactive waste successfully for some time now. It just takes too long, and costs too much.
I don’t doubt that the entire Planet will using Nuclear energy, as we now do fossil fuels, within the next 50-100 years.
It really burns my biscuits that we aren’t leading the way into this age, the Europeans and Japanese are.
17 posted on
10/28/2009 10:18:06 PM PDT by
papasmurf
(RnVjayB5b3UsIDBiYW1hLCB5b3UgcGllY2Ugb2Ygc2hpdCBjb3dhcmQh)
To: KevinDavis
Hey Kev,
Heads up for a space ping.
22 posted on
10/28/2009 10:26:10 PM PDT by
Captain Beyond
(The Hammer of the gods! (Just a cool line from a Led Zep song))
To: bogusname; sonofstrangelove
Regardless of the available power, a rocket does not go anywhere without the high-velocity ejection (consumption) of
reaction mass.
Of course, the higher exhaust velocity you can achieve, the less reaction mass you have to expend...
Some nuke rocket proposals have considered using water as reaction mass. The old steam locomotives had water tanks sited every so far along the track to resupply the water they lost as steam. What does a nuclear powered rocketship do when it runs out of reaction mass?
23 posted on
10/28/2009 10:27:08 PM PDT by
TXnMA
("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
To: bogusname
Welcome to the 1960’s, Russia.
27 posted on
10/28/2009 10:53:56 PM PDT by
eclecticEel
(The Most High rules in the kingdom of men ... and sets over it the basest of men.)
To: bogusname
36 posted on
10/29/2009 3:50:29 AM PDT by
Bender2
("I've got a twisted sense of humor, and everything amuses me." RAH Beyond this Horizon)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
