After a $49.99 per kilo cargo lift to orbit…

ConversesScience!

Afegeix-te a LibraryThing per participar.

After a $49.99 per kilo cargo lift to orbit…

Aquest tema està marcat com "inactiu": L'últim missatge és de fa més de 90 dies. Podeu revifar-lo enviant una resposta.

1vy0123
des. 31, 2015, 9:56 pm

how much is the rest of the way to the center of the Sun by express post and what is the cheapest delivery option? What are the safety precautions to dump the 9 million bags of contaminated Fukushima that way? Is this possible or as unviable as shipping ice cubes from Mars to Earth to put in whiskey?

2stellarexplorer
gen. 1, 2016, 3:57 am

Wondering where the $49.99 figure comes from?

Apart from the cost, it could get messy if there were a malfunction on the way to orbit...

3vy0123
gen. 1, 2016, 6:13 am

There was an Ars Technica story suggesting present price of $50,000 per kilo may drop to $50. They were joking no doubt. Nuclear material is shipped over seas. Sending that up should be manageable using human rated safe mechanism to remove the payload from the doomed rocket ship. Retrieve and relaunch. In the event of malfunction it wouldn't be worse in effect than test bombing sites and accidents.

4dukedom_enough
gen. 1, 2016, 8:45 am

>3 vy0123: I hope they were joking. This wouldn't be the first time the feasibility of launch cost reduction has been overestimated, and 1970's NASA was only looking for a 10x cost reduction.

5drneutron
gen. 1, 2016, 11:19 am

It's actually much harder than most realize to send something into the Sun. Solar Probe Plus is using a Delta IV Heavy plus a solid rocket motor third stage and 7 Venus gravity assists to get within 4 million miles of the Sun. Launch cost for 685 kg into this orbit is a bit less than $400M (US).

You have to shed lots of angular momentum, which takes lots of energy. The only way to do it now is with big rockets. solar sail and ion propulsion systems aren't viable yet, but could be at some point in the future, I suppose.

6DugsBooks
gen. 3, 2016, 10:20 pm

I took an "environmental geology" course way back in the 1970's that focused on the disposal of nuclear waste. The prof had to run around the country burrowing in government records in order to come up with the data for the course - like number of "vitrified stainless steel canisters " {how the most highly radioactive waste was contained} that were produced each year, radioactive isotopes present & quantity, temperatures reached during decay, half lives of isotopes & estimates of how long they have to be contained etc.

>2 stellarexplorer: stellar got it right about the "malfunctions" , One of the calculations we ran though was how much damage a cask would do if released in the environment. As I remember just a couple with the contents spread about evenly could take out continent sized areas if I am not mistaken - but none the less very scary numbers. An oceanography course explained why geologic subduction zones, which should be the ultimate answer, were a no go. They take forever to "subduct" and the canisters would rupture.

All that being said I think we still have a couple of nuclear bombs near the coast of North Carolina where they were dropped by accident way back when. Last I heard the bombs are still there but way deep in mud. ;-)

Aha, found a couple of links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5906826/when-we-lost-an-unexploded-nuclear-bomb-off-the-c...

7stellarexplorer
gen. 4, 2016, 3:18 am

>6 DugsBooks: struck in that Wikipedia link by this description of the still-buried bomb:

"the size of each bomb was more than 250 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb, and large enough to have a 100% kill zone of seventeen miles. Each bomb would exceed the yield of all munitions (outside of testing) ever detonated in the history of the world by TNT, gunpowder, conventional bombs, and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts combined."

8bernsad
gen. 4, 2016, 3:59 am

>7 stellarexplorer: Is thaaat all? Ppppfffft! You should see the one I made out in the shed.

9vy0123
gen. 4, 2016, 6:16 am

An underground nuclear waste dump in an area called West Lake has a slow burning underground fire headed its way, perhaps reaching it in years or decades. The waste management company, New Republic, plans to shield the nuclear waste from the fire using an underground containment wall. A similar idea, an ice wall, was planned for Fukushima but last I read in the newspaper the wall wasn't working.

10DugsBooks
Editat: gen. 4, 2016, 4:27 pm

> 7 I would definitely be able to see the flash from my house, it is that close!

::edit with bombs that size several hundred miles away is close!! IMOHO::

11Cynfelyn
gen. 4, 2016, 5:14 pm

>7 stellarexplorer: "large enough to have a 100% kill zone of seventeen miles"

Do you suppose they mean a zone with a radius of 17 miles, a diameter of 17 miles, or 17 square miles?

12daschaich
gen. 4, 2016, 9:34 pm

13vy0123
gen. 4, 2016, 11:06 pm

William James Perry suggested a nightmare scenario where bad actors have stashed away six nuclear weapons. Letting one off to kill 80,000 and a leader in an instant they demand ransom for the rest. A worse case is a G20 or COP21 on leaders and hangers-on.

14vy0123
gen. 4, 2016, 11:25 pm

#5

What are the discounts on the price tag of that $500K per kg orbit assuming the SpaceX model scales and is reliable 100%, and is there a wider margin of safety for a first stage rocket to slowly glide down to dock in flight on a chase plane and land like the space shuttle used to?

15dukedom_enough
gen. 5, 2016, 11:27 am

>14 vy0123: Is that idea of docking to a chase plane actually being proposed by anyone? I can see pilots - and insurance companies - seriously disliking such a scheme.

Remember, the space shuttle was a reusable system also - space shuttle main engines and solid rocket booster, plus the orbiter itself. Yet costs were high. Spaceflight is a hard problem.

16stellarexplorer
Editat: gen. 5, 2016, 2:41 pm

>15 dukedom_enough: And the expectation for the Space Shuttle was a failure rate of (depending on who you listen to) somewhere around one flight in a hundred. Maybe you can tolerate one loss of shuttle and crew per a hundred, but what's the acceptable failure rate when carrying large quantities of nuclear waste?

17vy0123
Editat: gen. 6, 2016, 8:18 am

#16 A human rated safe rocket carrying nuclear waste to a no return destination is safer than the multiplicity of nuclear weapons.1979 had a 3am moment when the computers were warning of 200 nuclear missiles from Russia to USA.

#15 I forget the name but their is an Airbus partnership concept design to fly back the rocket engine without the towering fuel bottle which seems a stunted wasteful idea. A non starter.

The docking idea would have the Falcon rocket sweep out wings like a glider and keep circling safely over the ocean. A powered chase plane piloted at a safe distance like a drone mates with it in the air and the rocket goes the rest of the way back to base on piggyback like how the space shuttle took a ride on a Boeing. I don't know if this idea has been proposed. I asked about it before SpaceX nailed their first landing. The problem with that is there's no second chances and doesn't take advantage of knowing how to land a plane which has matured over 100 years.

18stellarexplorer
gen. 6, 2016, 12:17 am

>17 vy0123: But no one is suggesting that pointing thousands of nuclear warheads at each other was a particularly safe or prudent thing to do either.

19dukedom_enough
gen. 6, 2016, 1:13 pm

>18 stellarexplorer: Well, during the 1960s-1980s there were many influential people in the US political establishment who strongly opposed arms control deals, preferring to keep the weapons. And there still are a great many of them ready for use.

20dukedom_enough
gen. 6, 2016, 1:17 pm

Interestingly, today's XKCD is on point:

21vy0123
Editat: gen. 6, 2016, 8:37 pm

The stock price of U.S. gun manufacturers are up six fold since 2011.

Attitudes surveyed in the 50s.

22stellarexplorer
gen. 7, 2016, 1:45 am

>19 dukedom_enough: I should have been clearer. No one in this thread is arguing that it is safe and wise to point thousands of thermonuclear warheads at each other. Therefore, it's not a point that is pertinent to the comparative safety of sending nuclear waste into space. Of course you will get some people in support of the most absurd propositions. Which doesn't in itself lend them any credence.

23dukedom_enough
gen. 7, 2016, 5:39 am

OK; I apologize for the unsympathetic reading.

24stellarexplorer
gen. 7, 2016, 4:05 pm

No problem. Thanks for the XKCD - very on point!

25vy0123
Editat: gen. 19, 2016, 3:03 pm



A fully fueled up proposed SLS rocket starting not from the ground up but at 300 km up Earth orbit, how far can it go and still be able to enter a new orbit or return?

A: I guess the Kerbal Space Program can simulate an answer to that question.

26DugsBooks
gen. 20, 2016, 4:52 pm

Nice graph >25 vy0123: , I did not realize the Oort cloud was considered interstellar space.

27vy0123
gen. 21, 2016, 3:49 pm

#27 Apparently the Oort cloud stretches a third of the way to the nearest star. The journey takes 80 myriad years relative to the orbit of Planet 9/X which is 2 myriad years.

On the table below, accident number 30 was carrying four h-bombs when it crashed 48 years ago and 24/7 flights of nuclear weapons stopped.

28vy0123
gen. 23, 2016, 4:15 am

2008, 2014 were the last time nuclear weapon stuffups happened.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/23/world/human-error-damaged-nuclear-mi...

29vy0123
gen. 27, 2016, 9:49 pm



The largest galaxy we know of.

30stellarexplorer
gen. 28, 2016, 11:40 am

I'd heard that, but the graphic is cool!

31vy0123
gen. 28, 2016, 8:34 pm



The solar system as a plate is tilted 60° from our galaxy's plane.

32vy0123
gen. 29, 2016, 5:12 pm

Babylon was 60 miles south from Baghdad, Iraq.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2016-01/29/content_23302282.htm

Apunta-t'hi per poder publicar