EVE Search - This cant end well.....

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

This cant end well.....

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jacob Mei Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.28 23:50:00 - [1] Russia's space agency is planning to build a new spaceship with a nuclear engine Didnt they do this in a movie once? On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod!
Orion Eridanus Dark Ashes	Posted - 2009.10.29 00:02:00 - [2] Whats wrong with ambition and progress? Originally by: Paulo Damarr That is a most Excellent Drake fitting, you are lucky to have survived.
MooKids Caldari Azure Twilight Engineering	Posted - 2009.10.29 00:20:00 - [3] Haven't there already been some nuclear satellites sent up? -------------------------------- CCP can patch away bugs, but they can't patch away stupidity.
Jacob Mei Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.29 00:23:00 - [4] Originally by: Orion Eridanus Whats wrong with ambition and progress? Plenty when its a nuclear powered spaceship. On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod!
Sazkyen	Posted - 2009.10.29 00:28:00 - [5] Although the concept was different, and disproportionate in scale, and it never came to realization due to immense costs involved, Project Orion (the old one, now the new) is still an interesting read. 60 years back.
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.10.29 00:36:00 - [6] That would have to be one hell of a small reactor, those things are heavy as ****. Though this makes me wonder, even though it would have a fission engine onboard would it not still need some type of method of propulsion?
Spaztick Terminal Impact Kairakau	Posted - 2009.10.29 00:37:00 - [7] No guys, because Chernobyl proved that nuclear energy is dangerous when used with old equipment, lazy personnel and no safety standards or regulations. The only solution is to ban any use of nuclear energy whatsoever. Instead we should be burning healthy, easy-to-use fossil fuels in our material engines, like petroleum and coal. Nuclear energy is a dead end anyway. This message brought to you by Exxon-Mobile: Understanding EnergyÖ
Orion Eridanus Dark Ashes	Posted - 2009.10.29 00:39:00 - [8] Originally by: MooKids Haven't there already been some nuclear satellites sent up? yes there have been a bunch, but not used as an engine Originally by: Paulo Damarr That is a most Excellent Drake fitting, you are lucky to have survived.
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.10.29 00:54:00 - [9] Originally by: Spaztick No guys, because Chernobyl proved that nuclear energy is dangerous when used with old equipment, lazy personnel and no safety standards or regulations. The only solution is to ban any use of nuclear energy whatsoever. Instead we should be burning healthy, easy-to-use fossil fuels in our material engines, like petroleum and coal. Nuclear energy is a dead end anyway. This message brought to you by Exxon-Mobile: Understanding EnergyÖ Not to mention pushing such reactors with dangerous tests for no such reason while all the above are happening... By a guy that survived a separate situation where there was a melt down.
Captian Conrad Minmatar Empyrean Warriors	Posted - 2009.10.29 01:03:00 - [10] Originally by: Orion Eridanus Whats wrong with ambition and progress? Zombie outbreak from Russha anyone?
Jacob Mei Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.29 01:17:00 - [11] Originally by: Spaztick No guys, because Chernobyl proved that nuclear energy is dangerous when used with old equipment, lazy personnel and no safety standards or regulations. The only solution is to ban any use of nuclear energy whatsoever. Instead we should be burning healthy, easy-to-use fossil fuels in our material engines, like petroleum and coal. Nuclear energy is a dead end anyway. This message brought to you by Exxon-Mobile: Understanding EnergyÖ Thats hardly what I meant, however given that spaceships have a tendency to have a huge debre field when they blow up on reentry do you really want a nuclear reactor flying up into space, back down to earth and orbiting the planet a few dozen to hundred times a mission? Chernobyl was a stationary installation, this would be mobile with the perfect vantage point to screw things up pretty good if something went wrong with the reactor. On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod!
Benco97 Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.29 01:22:00 - [12] Originally by: Jacob Mei this would be mobile with the perfect vantage point to screw things up pretty good if something went wrong with the reactor. I have to wonder, would you still have a problem with this whole thing if it was an american project instead of a Russian one? Originally by: P'uck You're a DUMBASS - bold italic underline at the VERY LEAST.
Orion Eridanus Dark Ashes	Posted - 2009.10.29 01:34:00 - [13] Chernobyl wasn't a melt down Originally by: Paulo Damarr That is a most Excellent Drake fitting, you are lucky to have survived.
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.10.29 01:35:00 - [14] Originally by: Jacob Mei Originally by: Spaztick No guys, because Chernobyl proved that nuclear energy is dangerous when used with old equipment, lazy personnel and no safety standards or regulations. The only solution is to ban any use of nuclear energy whatsoever. Instead we should be burning healthy, easy-to-use fossil fuels in our material engines, like petroleum and coal. Nuclear energy is a dead end anyway. This message brought to you by Exxon-Mobile: Understanding EnergyÖ Thats hardly what I meant, however given that spaceships have a tendency to have a huge debre field when they blow up on reentry do you really want a nuclear reactor flying up into space, back down to earth and orbiting the planet a few dozen to hundred times a mission? Chernobyl was a stationary installation, this would be mobile with the perfect vantage point to screw things up pretty good if something went wrong with the reactor. Would radioactive material not simply burn up on reentry? The only thing I would be worried about is it's emp effect, but I am assuming it is a pretty small reactor so it would have a small effective range(though I must admit I know little about this subject).
Jacob Mei Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.29 01:50:00 - [15] Originally by: Benco97 Originally by: Jacob Mei this would be mobile with the perfect vantage point to screw things up pretty good if something went wrong with the reactor. I have to wonder, would you still have a problem with this whole thing if it was an american project instead of a Russian one? Wow. You bet your ass I would have a problem with NASA trying to pull this sort of thing and would have a problem with any other nation that wanted to do the same. Humanity has only been sending things into orbit sence the 1950's and as history has shown, repeatedly, space programs have a tendency of the space craft blowing up, either on site or coming back. Recall Columbia? How big was that wreckage field? Imagine that with a healthy dose of radiation. On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod!
Orion Eridanus Dark Ashes	Posted - 2009.10.29 01:53:00 - [16] There have been signifigantly more successful launches and recoveries than there have been failures. Your post makes it seem like successful launches are a rare thing. Originally by: Paulo Damarr That is a most Excellent Drake fitting, you are lucky to have survived.
JordanParey Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.10.29 01:54:00 - [17] a much cooler thing that was scrapped... Nuclear Bomber.
Jacob Mei Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.29 02:04:00 - [18] Originally by: goodby4u The only thing I would be worried about is it's emp effect, but I am assuming it is a pretty small reactor so it would have a small effective range(though I must admit I know little about this subject). From wiki: Quote: The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400û500 km (250 to 312 miles) over Kansas would affect all of the continental U.S. And before its asked, thats roughly the same distance the space shuttle currently orbits the planet at. The article further goes on to say that 10 kilotons or less of weapons grade (not saying thats what would fuel this obviously) material would be all that is needed. Originally by: Orion Eridanus There have been signifigantly more successful launches and recoveries than there have been failures. Your post makes it seem like successful launches are a rare thing. Im not denying that its a rare event, but when it happens, it happens catasphroicly. It either works, or it blows up. On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod!
Orion Eridanus Dark Ashes	Posted - 2009.10.29 02:05:00 - [19] Jacob you should watch these videos, might answer some of your misconceptions on nuclear power, and radioactivity. Warning science heavy Nukes Radioactivity Radioactivity II Originally by: Paulo Damarr That is a most Excellent Drake fitting, you are lucky to have survived.
Draeca Red Federation	Posted - 2009.10.29 10:17:00 - [20] Sounds like a minmatar ship to me
Drunk Driver Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.10.29 13:47:00 - [21] The thrust from the nuclear rocket ship of doom will spread radioactive particles over half the globe! Also radiation from the orbiting reactor will fog medical X-rays! This is bad.
Thuranni Queens of the Stone Age Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.10.29 14:19:00 - [22] Originally by: Jacob Mei Originally by: Orion Eridanus Whats wrong with ambition and progress? Plenty when its a nuclear powered spaceship. What exactly is wrong with that? Or are you just one of those people that goes ape**** when they hear the word "nuclear"?
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.29 14:51:00 - [23] This concept is rather old, glad to see they are doing it finally tho! Go new space race! Go! New more efficient space engines is what we need to really start the space expansion. Old combustion engines is old. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.29 14:57:00 - [24] Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 29/10/2009 14:57:27 Originally by: Jacob Mei Originally by: Benco97 Originally by: Jacob Mei this would be mobile with the perfect vantage point to screw things up pretty good if something went wrong with the reactor. I have to wonder, would you still have a problem with this whole thing if it was an american project instead of a Russian one? Wow. You bet your ass I would have a problem with NASA trying to pull this sort of thing and would have a problem with any other nation that wanted to do the same. Humanity has only been sending things into orbit sence the 1950's and as history has shown, repeatedly, space programs have a tendency of the space craft blowing up, either on site or coming back. Recall Columbia? How big was that wreckage field? Imagine that with a healthy dose of radiation. Recall the mostly successful flight? You are fearmongering. You are misguided and uneducated on the subject as well. As for radiation, you make it out like everything is a Tsar Bomba, while its not. Heck, even the old space probes voyager is powerd by a nuke engine. Before you make absurd fear based comments, please do your homework! :) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Drunk Driver Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.10.29 15:23:00 - [25] Radiation particles from nuclear thrust will drop to the ground and burn their way to the center of the earth. This will release toxic fumes. Toxic is bad.
Karma Vortex Incorporated	Posted - 2009.10.29 16:57:00 - [26] Originally by: Orion Eridanus Edited by: Orion Eridanus on 29/10/2009 02:15:03 Jacob you should watch these videos, might answer some of your misconceptions on nuclear power, and radioactivity. Warning science heavy Nukes Radioactivity Radioactivity II Also Nuclear reactors don't blow up like nuclear missiles there wouldn't be an EMP from a nuclear reactor blowing up. In addition for a rocket to have a large debris field on the scale of Columbia it would have to blow up at an extremely high altitude. Any nuclear material that caught on fire would not be on fire long enough for it to still be on fire once it reached the ground where dust and smoke from the radioactive material would cause the real harm. A rocket blowing up at a lower altitude would create alarge debris field, but nowhere close to the Columbia Cool. Didn't know there were others around here that listening to Muller's classes =^_^= also, in the movie Deep Impact, there was a spaceship with an 'experimental' engine that used a nuclear blast for gain great acceleration very quickly...
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.10.29 17:14:00 - [27] I imagine that any spaceship installed nuclear reactor is going to be shielded and armored against an uncontrolled reentry to earth. Otherwise russia would be getting nagged to death by nuclear watchdog organizations and their attached governments. And yes we have been sending reactors into space for decades though they tend to be very small units that work off of thermocouples instead of the massive steam generators that are common in terrestrial reactors.
Atomos Darksun Randomness.	Posted - 2009.10.29 21:10:00 - [28] They're the only space agency in the world that is actually doing the right thing. Not a single other one is trying to develop something other than chemical rockets, easily one of the worst ideas concerning space travel ever. How we're still using it after 55 years never ceases to amaze me. Originally by: Amoxin My vent is talking to me in a devil voice... Linkification, Baby.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2009.10.29 21:21:00 - [29] Aren't the minmatar ships nukular (haha, Bushism!) powered? The ruskies are minmatar! Originally by: Hamshoe Don't **** down my back and tell me it's raining.
Eran Laude Gallente The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2009.10.29 21:28:00 - [30] TBFH, it was about time. NASA has been revamping the same 50s technology for it's entire existence. Hell, Constellation is a huge step backwards from the Shuttle - and costs huge amounts more! Nice one guys. Real smooth. We desperately need new propulsion technology, and currently by far the most promising future is in nuclear engines. I say go Russia! RKA put the first man in space and the first woman in space, Mir was the only really successful national space station . . . it's about time that Russia took the lead again. ----- Originally by: "CCP Whisper" Boo hoo. Cry some more.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.