The nutty protestors

mlorrey · Jan 13, 2006

No, Mike, they haven't accepted that. They in particular are refusing any and all proposals that have other countries doing the fuel processing for them. If Iran were ONLY interested in the peaceful use of nuclear power for electric generation, then they should have no trouble with that. Instead, the fact they refuse such proposals in their entirety indicates that they are specifically interested in processing themselves in order to obtain enriched isotopes for nuclear weapons. There is NO OTHER REASON why they would make such demands. "peaceful use" is not a viable one.

tap_sa · Jan 13, 2006

"I'm sorry to see you siding with the conspiracy theorists against scientific ground truth. " That's a good one! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> "W said there were WMD's and there were not." This is a big problem. Not the fact that Iraq WMD suspicion turned out be false alarm, Saddam's regime was bad enough without them to warrant getting rid of him. The problem is that now every flowerchild will use this as an lame excuse to claim Iran WMD suspicions must also be wrong. I really, really wish it would be so but it is not unreasonable to expect otherwise.

nacnud · Jan 13, 2006

Serious, serious BS. You are conflicting with what the news is saying. Inspectors are going about their jobs in Iran. For the moment yes, but if Iran gets refered to the Security Council then the inspecters won't be able to do spot checks any more.

mikeemmert · Jan 13, 2006

Year after year, arms control inspectors toiled away. Year after year, Iraq applied for relief from sanctions and it was never granted. Iraq sent two million pages of documentation to the U.N. But never, never were the sanctions released. The Iraqi economy groaned, and then broke under the relentless attack. Finally, it broke. Still the Iraqis honored their treaty commitments. But still the sanctions pummeled the dinar. I DON'T BLAME SADDAM FOR KICKING THE INSPECTORS OUT That was the right thing to do. But we had to find that out in retrospect. Iran will draw on the experience of Iraq. This kind of manuevering by the State Department can only be evaluated in terms of the history of the Iraq conflict including the sanction years. Iran would be right to draw the conclusion that they will be subjected to permanent sanctions, never to be released.

mikeemmert · Jan 13, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"W said there were WMD's and there were not." This is a big problem.<hr /></blockquote> Well, yes, it is. I'm glad to see somebody admit it. I think criminal punishment for acting on the paranoid fantasies of a deserter who wished he had been a "hero" instead is the only solution. "Justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done." Do you realize at this point how important it is to throw these people in a cage with Koko? ~~Excuse me, Koko is too gentle. Sorry, Koko. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The problem is that now every flowerchild will use this as an lame excuse to claim Iran WMD suspicions must also be wrong. I really, really wish it would be so but it is not unreasonable to expect otherwise. <hr /></blockquote> You have got that exactly right. That's the way I see it. If Iran WMD suspicions come from W, they must be wrong. Any other conclusion, especially in the wake of 32,000 dead people, is not only unreasonable and illogical, it is criminal. W cannot be trusted. We have to find somebody who can be trusted. In addition to El-Baradei, we have to find new political leaders in this country. Kerry won't do, he got sucked in by the yellowcake forgeries too. It's two years to a Presidential election. But it's important to subject W to the humiliation of impeachment now. It is vital to the development of the history of the world. It must be seen that if you pretend you don't trust inspectors and go off and do whatever you're going to do anyway, that you will wind up in a cage with David Waters or Mohammed Salami.

najab · Jan 14, 2006

This is Missions and Launches, not Free Space.

vt_hokie · Jan 15, 2006

For the sake of objectivity, the risk is not zero, is it? What would happen if the launch vehicle exploded? Would there be any chance of radioactive material becoming uncontained?

thermionic · Jan 16, 2006

Today's CNN article stated that there was a 1/350 chance of plutonium release. That's much higher than I expected! Maybe 1/350 that the launch has an explosive failure and the intact canister canister is released... If this is true, I might join the protesters next time. Any comments on the accuracy of this number?

henryhallam · Jan 16, 2006

I found this PDF fact sheet on the mission website: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/overview/deis/NHPublicSafety.pdf which includes the 1 in 350 figure. To me it seems a bit ambiguous whether it means that is the chance of "the rocket explodes AND releases vapourised Pu" or "the chance that the rocket will explode and release the Pu capsule which may or may not remain intact" or "in the event that the rocket does explode, the chance that Pu will be released into the environment is 1/350" or something different altogther. My hunch is that it means "probability of l.v. exploding or being commanded to destruct" and that the chance of actual vapourised Pu release is unspecified. Perhaps there's a clearer explanation somewhere else?

mlorrey · Jan 16, 2006

Who told them these numbers? They are likely the odds of rocket failure. They cannot be accurate odds of RTG rupture, because US made RTGs of the current design generation, have never ruptured, despite three launch or other failures. The RTG is designed to survive a rocket failure intact without leakage, and high velocity tests have demonstrated this to be so, as have the two RTGs that have been recovered. The third lies under more than 14,000 feet of water deep in an oceanic trench, but sensors have not detected any leakage from that one, either.

n_kitson · Jan 16, 2006

I think CNN's article is a little imprecise. There appears to be a 1 in 350 chance that the launch vehicle will fail in a manner that results in the spacecraft plummeting to the ground. Once that happens, a number of other events need to happen to cause a disaster: - the fuel canister needs to rupture - the rupture needs to occur at an altitude high enough to distribute the plutonium wide enough to reach populous areas The odds of the above two happening is probably a lot lower than the launch vehicle failure odds. Also consider that if the fuel is dispersed wide enough to reach populous areas, then the concentration is low, as is the associated risk.

CalliArcale · Jan 16, 2006

That's basically what my reaction was when reading the article. I think the author misunderstood -- the odds of a catastrophic launch vehicle failure are not the same as the odds of a catastrophic launch vehicle failure which leads to rupture of the RTG. Those RTGs are very, very rugged. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

john_316 · Jan 17, 2006

As usual CNN has to go and support the far- (whatever direction) greenies with there bias reporting. I wonder how they are gonna take it when we use that there nuklar powered rockets to visit mars in 30 years... hehe yeeee hahhhhhhhh!!!!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

mikejz · Jan 17, 2006

I'm sorry, but Nasa has not had the best media startigy when it comes to this launch. The media is reporting the 1-in-350 odds over and over again.

CalliArcale · Jan 17, 2006

I think it's a genuine misunderstanding that's now been repeated enough times it's become fact in too many minds. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> That has a way of happening, I'm afraid. Sadly, I think the only thing NASA could've done to prevent that would have been to dumb down their status reports. Instead of quoting the launch vehicle's failure rate and then going on to describe risk of release in the event of a catastrophic failure followed by risk of illness in the event of a release, they should've just given the risk of release and left it at that. Evidently, the general media does not have adequate listening comprehension to grasp that they were giving three separate statistics. You get good reporting from an outfit like SPACE.com or SpaceFlightNow.com or another aerospace-oriented agency, but it's pretty hit-or-miss from the broader agencies like CNN and AP. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

thermionic · Jan 19, 2006

Today's CNN article made us all very much safer: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />In an environmental impact statement NASA was required to file before making final flight plans, the space agency indicated that a 1-in-620 chance exists of an accident on liftoff that would release plutonium into the environment. As a worst-case scenario, NASA estimated the chances at "1 in 1.4 million to 1 in 18 million" that an "extremely unlikely launch area accident" could release up to 2 percent, or about half a pound, of the plutonium on board the spacecraft.<hr /></blockquote> So 'release of plutonium into the environment' seems to include releasing the intact cannister.

spacester · Jan 19, 2006

It would appear that CNN's writer not only has a subscription to Aviation Week, but depends on that publication to sort out all the icky math stuff. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Jan 19, 2006

These days in an age when Government info is hard to trust, I found my answer in the different approaches to the plutonium problem: NASA approach: Information resulting from years of actual testing experience with the hardware used to encase the plutonium. Testing such as actually hurling the cannisters into concrete simulating the worst case scenarios, a launch pad explosion. Gagnon: People walking around with signs reading "Keep space radiation free" and "Keep Jupiter radiation free". These signs I actually saw on local TV at the time of the Galileo launch. Despite my own misgivings about Government in general: NASA 1. Gagnon 0. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

henryhallam · Jan 19, 2006

"Keep Jupiter radiation free" HAHAHA brilliant. That would make a good subtle satiric T-shirt.

mlorrey · Jan 20, 2006

Very nice. "Keep space radiation free". Gagnon must have an anti-luddite erisian infiltrator doing his signs for him, that is just too hilarious. Reminds me of a friends T-shirt that says "Mutants for Nukes"...

CalliArcale · Jan 20, 2006

I love it. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> It is hard to believe the unintended comedy that Gagnon produces, but it's a bit like watching an MST3K episode. Sometimes people are a lot funnier when they're trying to be serious. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

tap_sa · Jan 20, 2006

Here's a thought I got reading news of these nutjobs protesting the New Horizons mission; their cluelessness is hilarious, and annoying, but it might also be an asset. It appears that most of the people waving banners know jack about actual nuclear technology. Tell them about RHU, RTG, NTR, BNPR or a full blown reactor and all they they 'understand' is that there's something nu-cle-ar going on, and of course everything that's nuclear can go off like Hiroshima. So, it doesn't matter whether you send just an RHU or real reactor, the pea-brains protest with same fervent, which seems to be dwindling down to about 30 protestors and half of them kids. This should be good news for future NTR/space reactor plans. We tend to think that surely sending an actual reactor or NTR would raise much more objections and protests, but what if that's just because we know the technical differences. A real reactor is more risky than, say, an RTG, but people who know these things are a minority. Ordinary people don't know the difference so a real space reactor would recieve the same treatment as RTG, a few grannies scaring their grandkids with BS so that these cry on news.

henryhallam · Jan 20, 2006

I think that the important of public opinion tends to be significantly overrated in terms of its impact on projects. I think the main obstacle to NTR etc is really funding, because it WOULD be expensive to develop. If the funds are made available I doubt a few hippies would actually be able to stop it. Politicians aren't necessarily as stupid as one might think!

qso1 · Jan 21, 2006

I agree a few protesters won't have much impact. If we go forward with a human Mars mission and a nuclear propelled craft is chosen to get the crew to Mars, there still could be a major public outcry. After all, the NTR would have to be taken to orbit. Of course, NTR technology should actually be safer on the ground and going up than plutonium for RTGs. I have not seen any technical issues addressed as to how potentially dangerous taking nuclear propulsion components to LEO might be. But at the heart of NTR is a core of uranium rods much like a commercial reactor. I'm less sure about a nuclear electric system such as one based on VASIMR but from what I've read of VASIMR, this tech could actually be safer to send to orbit than NTR. Neither would be required to be powered during the transport to orbit on a chem powered LV so there would be little radiation if any, even in an accident. Still, I suspect there will be protesters. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

CalliArcale · Jan 23, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Of course, NTR technology should actually be safer on the ground and going up than plutonium for RTGs. <hr /></blockquote> That's debatable. The RTGs are very rugged, and designed to endure reentry intact. Their lack of moving parts makes that a lot easier. It should be doable, though. My main concern would be making sure the exhaust remains "clean" even in the event of an accident. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

The nutty protestors

mlorrey

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

nacnud

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

najab

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

thermionic

Guest

henryhallam

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

n_kitson

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

john_316

Guest

mikejz

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

thermionic

Guest

spacester

Guest

qso1

Guest

henryhallam

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

henryhallam

Guest

qso1

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page