els@pur-phy.UUCP (Eric Strobel) (08/16/84)
In a recent article it was mentioned (sorry, I didn't save the article)
that even though NERVA-type nuclear rockets are feasible and economical,
they are somehow illegal. Could someone post something more specific
about that?? Maybe we can find out whose bright idea it was to strip us
of this technology, and then we can perform a retroactive abortion on him!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message from the mental maze that calls itself:
ERIC STROBEL
UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:els
INTERNET: els @ pur-phy.UUCPmcgeer%ucbchip%Berkeley@sri-unix.UUCP (08/19/84)
From: Rick McGeer (on an h19-u) <mcgeer%ucbchip@Berkeley> If I am not mistaken, the space treaty bans nuclear explosions in space. Whether this provision includes NERVA-type rockets, I don't know. It certainly bans Project Orion. Rick.
els@pur-phy.UUCP (Eric Strobel) (08/20/84)
Who said anything about nuclear explosions??? NERVA was to use a reactor
to have fuel burn, achieving an exhaust temperature much higher than ordinary
rockets, thus giving a larger specific impulse. I don't remember the details
and I hope that someone might post a brief summary of the NERVA project and
the alleged illegality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message from the mental maze that calls itself:
ERIC STROBEL
UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:els
INTERNET: els @ pur-phy.UUCPmcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley@sri-unix.UUCP (08/24/84)
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley> Who said anything about nuclear explosions??? NERVA was to use a reactor to have fuel burn, achieving an exhaust temperature much higher than ordinary rockets, thus giving a larger specific impulse. That's why the legality of NERVA is questionable. Project Orion, which does (did?) involve nuclear explosions, is clearly illegal. I understand that the treaty language is sufficiently vague that nuclear reactors, as well as explosions, may be illegal. Rick.
US.MJM%CU20B%COLUMBIA@sri-unix.UUCP (08/24/84)
From: Martin J Mahoney <US.MJM%CU20B@COLUMBIA> Nuclear reactors are probably not illegal. Remember a few years back when the Russian satalite crashed in the northern part of Canada, the satalite had a nuclear reactor and it was feared that the fuel would not burn up compleatly on re-entry and it might contanimate its landing zone. At the time it was stated that most of the Russian satalites used nuclear reactors for their power because they do not have the capability to use solar power as the US does. Martin J. Mahoney Columbia University Center for Computing Activities ------- -------
cmaz504@ut-ngp.UUCP (08/25/84)
If nuclear reactors are illegal in space why do some of the Soviet satellites use them? Wasn't the one that came down in Canada nuclear powered?
mcgeer%ucbkim%Berkeley@sri-unix.UUCP (08/27/84)
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley> You are, of course, correct, espescially since it's a point of pride to the Soviets that they've never *explicitly* violated any treaty that they've signed. So why are NERVA's at least dubious? Anybody? Rick.
Ellis@YALE.ARPA (08/28/84)
From: John R Ellis <Ellis@YALE.ARPA>
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
You are, of course, correct, espescially since it's a point of pride
to the Soviets that they've never *explicitly* violated any treaty
that they've signed.
Sigh. I suppose by your definition the Soviets never "explicitly" violated
the Helsinki agreements?
-------mcgeer%ucbkim%Berkeley@sri-unix.UUCP (08/28/84)
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley> Ahem. I don't like them any better than you do; I never said they never violated the *spirit* of the accords that they sign, merely that their spokesmen have pointed out, ad nauseam, that the Soviet Union has never explicitly, clearly, violated the *letter* of an agreement that they've signed. This is a considerable point of pride with the Soviet government. Rick.
karn@mouton.UUCP (08/30/84)
Another reason why the Russians like nuclear reactors so much for their spacecraft is that you can generate enormous amounts of power in a small space, unlike solar cells. This comes in handy for high powered active radars which scan the oceans for things like American navy ships. Phil
dhp@ihnp3.UUCP (Douglas H. Price) (08/31/84)
My understanding was that the NERVA program was cancelled for political rather than technical reasons. Even though it was primarily intended for use outside of the atmosphere, the idea of having to blow up a rocket on a launch abort with a BIG nuclear reactor aboard was just a little too much for average, faint-hearted politician to take. This is also the reason you don't see much serious discussion about disposing of nuclear wastes in space (aside from cost considerations). NERVA is probably the most cost-effective/time-effective kind of space propulsion within the technical means today, but I bet you won't see it fly in our lifetime; politics, anti-nuke reactionaries, and crippling international treaties will see to that. -- Douglas H. Price Analysts International Corp. @ AT&T Bell Laboratories ..!ihnp4!ihnp3!dhp