Don't Get Sore ...

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <4071EC48.E033BCE4 RemoveThis @alcyone.com>,
Erik Max Francis <max RemoveThis @alcyone.com> writes:

 >Ken wrote:
 >
  >>But if someone really wants something read and discussed by people
  >>most interested in that subject, posting it in an appropriate NG
  >>seems
  >>like a good idea ( even if it's not compulsory).
 >
 >That is precisely the point. A specific technical concept is being
 >discussed here, which in addition to not being particularly
 >on-topic for
 >this newsgroup, has newsgroups which were very specifically created >for
 >the purpose of discussing it.

Incinerating nuclear waste in the Sun (to my knowledge)
does not occur today. Discussing it is within the bounds
of science fiction. ABIA and ABLN are newsgroups that
discuss science fiction. You are overly argumentative.

 >As such there's a reality check not happening here. People like
 >Richard
 >Ballard and "LV Poker Player" have been pontificating on random
 >thoughts
 >at different times, but have been making major technical mistakes,
 >most
 >of which are going unnoticed because the rest of the readership lacks
 >the technical skills (or energy) to analyze what's being proposed.
 >
 >It's not just that the ideas are not really on-topic for this
 >newsgroup;
 >it's that if the ideas were being posted in an appropriate place,
 >they'd
 >get direct and pointed criticism that would show the ideas are
 >fundamentally flawed. Instead they feel free to dismiss the few
 >appropriate objections and go on thinking that they're on to
 >something.
 >
 >Posting in sci.space.tech, or other appropriate forums, would give
 >them
 >feedback that they need in order to stay grounded in reality. The
 >staunch refusal to move the thread to a more appropriate place --
 >Ballard is still individually posting to two alt.books.* groups -- is
 >setting things up so that they don't have to hear technical
 >objections,
 >and so they can go on feeling that they're right. I don't know
 >whether
 >this is stubbornness on their part or deliberately misdirection,
 >but it
 >doesn't help either newsgroup, the posters of the ideas, or the
 >general
 >readership who are reading these completely flawed concepts and not
 >seeing complete analysis.

I don't tell you where to post.
Don't tell me where to post. I am on topic.

 >--
 > __ Erik Max Francis && max RemoveThis @alcyone.com
<font color=purple> >&& <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.alcyone.com/max/</font" target="_blank">http://www.alcyone.com/max/</font</a>>
 >/ \ San Jose, CA, USA

You have chosen _not_ to comment about my statement
that an affordable ion propulsion system would make
feasible incinerating nuclear waste in the Sun.

Anywhere an energy differential exists (the illuminated
side of a capsule versus the dark side of a capsule) there
is the potential of an energy source. As you approach
the Sun, photon density increases (inverse square law)
and increasing energy amounts are available. And
gravity also operates by inverse square law -- gravity
will prevent photon pressure from 'blowing a capsule away'.

The Sun's energy could be harnessed to drive an ionic
retrorocket, permitting a capsule carrying nuclear waste
to spiral inward to incinerate in the Sun.

This is very high level, but it contains no fuel expenditure
limits. And if we're going to incinerate a capsule, the schedule
is not critical.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: From ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040405194712.17759.00000767 DeleteThis @mb-m03.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer DeleteThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

  >>From: Erik Max Francis
 >
  >>setting things up so that they don't have to hear technical
  >>objections,
  >>and so they can go on feeling that they're right. I don't know
  >>whether
  >>this is stubbornness on their part or deliberately misdirection,
 >
 >Looks like stubbornness on Ballard's part.

I don't tell you where to post.

To my knowledge terrestrial nuclear waste is _not_ being
incinerated in the Sun -- that makes the discussion
science fiction. ABIA and ABLN are science fiction newsgroups,
and the discussion is on topic.

Don't tell me where to post.

 >As for me, thanks to others on
 >sci.physics pointing out how orbital mechanics works, I realized
 >my erroneous
 >assumption (that we would be making a soft landing on the sun).
 >It seems to me
 >that if you were half as smart as you seem to think you are, you
 >would have
 >seen this as soon as I started posting about escape velocities
 >and that it was
 >the same delta v up as down. Hell, I still don't know all THAT
 >much about
 >orbital mechanics, but I know more than I did a few days ago,
 >and I was able to
 >figure out where I had gone astray.
 >
 >Besides, the only REAL point in the discussion is that it takes
 >a hell of a lot
 >of delta v to get to the sun, hard or soft landing.

You have chosen _not_ to comment about my statement
that an affordable ion propulsion system would make
feasible incinerating nuclear waste in the Sun.

Anywhere an energy differential exists (the illuminated
side of a capsule versus the dark side of a capsule) there
is the potential of an energy source. As you approach
the Sun, photon density increases (inverse square law)
and increasing energy amounts are available. And
gravity also operates by inverse square law -- gravity
will prevent photon pressure from 'blowing a capsule away'.

The Sun's energy could be harnessed to drive an ionic
retrorocket, permitting a capsule carrying nuclear waste
to spiral inward to incinerate in the Sun.

This is very high level, but it contains no fuel expenditure
limits. And if we're going to incinerate a capsule, the schedule
is not critical.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

Richard Ballard wrote:

 > You have chosen _not_ to comment about my statement
 > that an affordable ion propulsion system would make
 > feasible incinerating nuclear waste in the Sun.

It doesn't matter what reaction drive is used to do the job, the
deltavee required is still the same.

--
__ Erik Max Francis && max.DeleteThis@alcyone.com && <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.alcyone.com/max/" target="_blank">http://www.alcyone.com/max/</a>
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
\__/ Don't ever get discouraged / There's always / A better day
-- TLC<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

 >From: rball84213

 >You have chosen _not_ to comment about my statement
 >that an affordable ion propulsion system would make
 >feasible incinerating nuclear waste in the Sun.

Actually, I did. I pointed out that even with the efficiency of ion
propulsion, most of your vehicle would have to be fuel, due to the huge delta v
needed. You dismissed this as "junking up science with numbers and
calculations" or something like that. Ok, so I junked up science by pointing
out the delta v (and therefore fuel) needed.

I also pointed out that this has nothing to do with the tremendous expense of
the Earth launch into space initially needed. You have consistently ignored
this too.

Have you bothered calculating how much nuclear waste we have, how much a
typical booster can carry, dividing this to find out how many launches would be
needed, the approximate cost of each launch, and therefore an approximation of
how much your program would cost? Have you compared this to our federal
budget?

--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

 >From: rball84213

 >And with respect to the issue of nuclear waste disposal,
 >before the problem is solved (it isn't, and it has been
 >studied for twenty years) the United States will have
 >spent $1,000 for _each United States household_ solving
 >the problem. For all practical purposes that $1,000 sits
 >atop your electric bill (capital investment) like a vulture.
 >IMO this problem's cost makes the discussion productive
 >and important.

As I just asked in another post, have you bothered to even approximate how much
your idea would increase this cost?

   >>>... which our atmosphere protects us
   >>>from, so a little of our nuclear waste isn't going to matter much.
   >>>We're
   >>>orbiting a thermonuclear explosion so huge its gravity holds its
   >>>matter
   >>>together. _nuclear waste in space does not matter_.
  >>
  >>I have tried to explain this, but according to him this is just
  >>a handwaving
  >>dismissal of the problem.
 >
 >Obviously you never were a member of the Boy Scouts.
 >In the Boy Scouts they taught us to clean up our own
 >messes, not to leave them for another to blunder into
 >at some future date. I don't burn Amazon rain forests,
 >either.

You positively delight in utterly idiotic analogies that have nothing
whatsoever to do with the issue at hand, don't you?

--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: From ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040406121844.12493.00000819 RemoveThis @mb-m16.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer RemoveThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
  >>You have chosen _not_ to comment about my statement
  >>that an affordable ion propulsion system would make
  >>feasible incinerating nuclear waste in the Sun.
 >
 >Actually, I did. I pointed out that even with the efficiency of ion
 >propulsion, most of your vehicle would have to be fuel, due to
 >the huge delta v
 >needed. You dismissed this as "junking up science with numbers and
 >calculations" or something like that. Ok, so I junked up science
 >by pointing
 >out the delta v (and therefore fuel) needed.

Like all rocket engines, ion propulsion engines operate by
conservation of momentum. Throw something forward, you get
pushed backward.

Ion propulsion systems (which to my knowledge have not been
implemented) operate by imparting an electric charge to
particles (mass) and then electrically repelling those
charged particles. In a ion retrorocket, the escaping
particles' forward momentum would impart a backwards force
to the capsule, reducing its velocity. Continuous braking
force applied to a capsule orbiting the Sun will cause the
capsule to spiral inward, and eventually to incinerate.

Ion propulsion systems are categorized as weak -- low force.
Obviously we want to save ion mass, so to make this concept
practical, we would have to engineer an improved ion retrorocket
configuration that used relatively few _extremely_ high velocity
particles. That solves the fuel expenditure problem (and it
sounds like a weak particle beam weapon -- no problem in
open space).

As I pointed out in my earlier message, the photon density
difference between the front (illuminated) capsule side and
back (dark) capsule side provides an energy differential
that can energize an electric power source for the ion retrorocket.
We are _not_ dependent upon a drum beating rabbit for electrical
power -- the Sun's light powers the ion retrorocket. And gravity
(also inverse square law) more than compensates for outward photon
push as the capsule slowly spirals ever closer to the Sun.

This is an engineering problem, not a feasibility problem.

 >I also pointed out that this has nothing to do with the tremendous
 >expense of
 >the Earth launch into space initially needed. You have
 >consistently ignored
 >this too.

Earlier you were giving me a ration because you claimed
what I proposed was impossible -- it is possible. Now
you are giving me a ration about the cost of Earth launch.
Propose a less expense alternative that completely removes
nuclear waste. Are you volunteering to store nuclear waste
in your neighbors' and your basements? On the Moon? Mars?
A big asteroid?

 >Have you bothered calculating how much nuclear waste we have,
 >how much a
 >typical booster can carry, dividing this to find out how many
 >launches would be
 >needed, the approximate cost of each launch, and therefore an
 >approximation
 >of how much your program would cost? Have you compared this
 >to our federal budget?

I find Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's novel "Lucifer's Hammer"
interesting. I am sure you know that "Lucifer's Hammer" discusses
the societal effect after Earth is hit by a substantial meteor
shower. What is the effect? Infrastructure is disrupted, wide
area commerce is disrupted, energy supplies are disrupted
and people make due with local resources. In short, people
are poor and they cope.

As energy prices continue rising, I believe that electricity
generation by nuclear energy will become increasingly
attractive. That will increase the quantity of nuclear waste
produced and the _annual cost_ of dealing with that waste --
recurring overhead expense. Increased cost means less
discretionary resources -- we get poorer because of rising
energy costs.

Bituminous coal (the anthracite coal is gone) also can be
used to produce electricity. Bituminous coal technology
and its costs are well understood.

I have addressed this on the science fiction level. If
they are interested, the experts can address this on the
engineering level. I have shown feasibility and I have
no mission to show affordability.

Either way, the problem will not just go away. Apparently
after twenty years' study we have _not_ selected an 'optimal'
storage strategy (loosepack versus densepack) for nuclear waste,
and coal electric generating plants are (being?) mothballed.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: From ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040406122042.12493.00000820.TakeThisOut@mb-m16.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer.TakeThisOut@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

  >>And with respect to the issue of nuclear waste disposal,
  >>before the problem is solved (it isn't, and it has been
  >>studied for twenty years) the United States will have
  >>spent $1,000 for _each United States household_ solving
  >>the problem. For all practical purposes that $1,000 sits
  >>atop your electric bill (capital investment) like a vulture.
  >>IMO this problem's cost makes the discussion productive
  >>and important.
 >
 >As I just asked in another post, have you bothered to even
 >approximate how much
 >your idea would increase this cost?

My example shows that we are playing with big dollars,
and that a wonderful idea could net big savings.
I also have shown feasibility. I have not addressed
affordability, but this is science fiction -- ain't it?

   >>>>... which our atmosphere protects us
   >>>>from, so a little of our nuclear waste isn't going to matter much.
   >>>>We're
   >>>>orbiting a thermonuclear explosion so huge its gravity holds its
   >>>>matter
   >>>>together. _nuclear waste in space does not matter_.
   >>>
   >>>I have tried to explain this, but according to him this is just
   >>>a handwaving
   >>>dismissal of the problem.
  >>
  >>Obviously you never were a member of the Boy Scouts.
  >>In the Boy Scouts they taught us to clean up our own
  >>messes, not to leave them for another to blunder into
  >>at some future date. I don't burn Amazon rain forests,
  >>either.
 >
 >You positively delight in utterly idiotic analogies that have
 >nothing
 >whatsoever to do with the issue at hand, don't you?

Given the nuclear waste storage solution has been studied
for twenty years, and an 'optimal' (loosepack versus densepack)
solution has not been selected, I believe the 'clean up our own
messes' analogy is appropriate. And a sufficient quantity of
nuclear waste gives nasty burns. (Ref: Any biography of
Marie Curie.)

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

   >>>And with respect to the issue of nuclear waste disposal,
   >>>before the problem is solved (it isn't, and it has been
   >>>studied for twenty years) the United States will have
   >>>spent $1,000 for _each United States household_ solving
   >>>the problem. For all practical purposes that $1,000 sits
   >>>atop your electric bill (capital investment) like a vulture.
   >>>IMO this problem's cost makes the discussion productive
   >>>and important.
  >>
  >>As I just asked in another post, have you bothered to even
  >>approximate how much
  >>your idea would increase this cost?
 >
 >My example shows that we are playing with big dollars,
 >and that a wonderful idea could net big savings.
 >I also have shown feasibility. I have not addressed
 >affordability, but this is science fiction -- ain't it?

Something that is not science fiction is that we just might want this stuff
later, and might be sorry we shot it into the sun, even if launch costs come
down enough to make this feasible. Remember my example that gasoline was once
discarded because it was too explosive and dangerous for any practical use?

   >>>Obviously you never were a member of the Boy Scouts.
   >>>In the Boy Scouts they taught us to clean up our own
   >>>messes, not to leave them for another to blunder into
   >>>at some future date. I don't burn Amazon rain forests,
   >>>either.
  >>
  >>You positively delight in utterly idiotic analogies that have
  >>nothing
  >>whatsoever to do with the issue at hand, don't you?
 >
 >Given the nuclear waste storage solution has been studied
 >for twenty years, and an 'optimal' (loosepack versus densepack)
 >solution has not been selected, I believe the 'clean up our own
 >messes' analogy is appropriate. And a sufficient quantity of
 >nuclear waste gives nasty burns. (Ref: Any biography of
 >Marie Curie.)

Just like walking around on the moon during a solar flare. Just a handwaving
dismissal of the problem, right?

Worrying about radiation in space is about like worrying about putting water
into an ocean.

--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

 >From: rball84213

 >Ion propulsion systems (which to my knowledge have not been
 >implemented)

Your knowlege is once again incomplete (so what else is new?)
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.boeing.com/ids/edd/ep.html" target="_blank">http://www.boeing.com/ids/edd/ep.html</a> and
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/index.html" target="_blank">http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/index.html</a> and
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/index.html" target="_blank">http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/index.html</a> and
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/ionpropfaq.html" target="_blank">http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/ionpropfaq.html</a>

 >Ion propulsion systems (which to my knowledge have not been
 >implemented) operate by imparting an electric charge to
 >particles (mass) and then electrically repelling those
 >charged particles. In a ion retrorocket, the escaping
 >particles' forward momentum would impart a backwards force
 >to the capsule, reducing its velocity. Continuous braking
 >force applied to a capsule orbiting the Sun will cause the
 >capsule to spiral inward, and eventually to incinerate.

Agreed. When we try to point out just how much propellant will be needed, even
in an efficient ion drive system, you just shrug this off.

 >Ion propulsion systems are categorized as weak -- low force.
 >Obviously we want to save ion mass, so to make this concept
 >practical, we would have to engineer an improved ion retrorocket
 >configuration that used relatively few _extremely_ high velocity
 >particles. That solves the fuel expenditure problem (and it
 >sounds like a weak particle beam weapon -- no problem in
 >open space).

Even if you are shooting stuff out at near the speed of light, you will need a
large amount in order to do that 50 km/s velocity change needed. We have some
ideas on how this might work, but nothing actually built the way we do with ion
drives.

  >>I also pointed out that this has nothing to do with the tremendous
  >>expense of
  >>the Earth launch into space initially needed. You have
  >>consistently ignored
  >>this too.
 >
 >Earlier you were giving me a ration because you claimed
 >what I proposed was impossible -- it is possible.

Quote any of my posts where I called it "impossible."

 > Now
 >you are giving me a ration about the cost of Earth launch.

Precisely. What I have been attempting to point out all along.

 >Propose a less expense alternative that completely removes
 >nuclear waste.

I'm not the one who wants to completely remove nuclear waste. I think it is a
lousy idea even fi we do figure out a way to do so economically. Put it into
orbit where we can retrieve if later if we want that "gasoline." Yes, we make
sure the orbit is high enough that it will not decay during the life of the
universe, or maybe we put it into lunar orbit, but don't throw it away.

Oh yeah, that might contaminate our precious bodily fluids, or create nuclear
space junk. Right. Besides, won't this contaminate the sun? We don't want to
do that, do we?

 >As energy prices continue rising, I believe that electricity
 >generation by nuclear energy will become increasingly
 >attractive. That will increase the quantity of nuclear waste
 >produced and the _annual cost_ of dealing with that waste --
 >recurring overhead expense. Increased cost means less
 >discretionary resources -- we get poorer because of rising
 >energy costs.

Instead of the thousands and thousands of launches your program needs (and the
trillions of dollars) let's use a sensible number of launches and a sensible
budget to build solar power satellites. <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.ssi.org/sps.html" target="_blank">http://www.ssi.org/sps.html</a>

 >I have addressed this on the science fiction level. If
 >they are interested, the experts can address this on the
 >engineering level. I have shown feasibility and I have
 >no mission to show affordability.

Affordability is part of the feasibility of any idea. If we cannot afford it,
we are not going to do it, no matter what the engineering aspects are.

 >Either way, the problem will not just go away. Apparently
 >after twenty years' study we have _not_ selected an 'optimal'
 >storage strategy (loosepack versus densepack) for nuclear waste,
 >and coal electric generating plants are (being?) mothballed.

Yucca mountain.

--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

Darren J Longhorn wrote:

 > On 30 Mar 2004 10:02:31 GMT, rball84213 RemoveThis @aol.com (Richard Ballard)
 > wrote:
 >
 >
  >>I originally asked this question because IMO economics will
  >>force tight quarters on a hu/manned Martian mission. My
  >>initial impression is/was that public opinion believes we will
  >>build the USS Enterprise to go to Mars. IMO the implementation
  >>will resemble Apollo more than it resembles $tar Trek.
 >
 >
 > But what you don't seem to accept is that there may be a middle way.
 > It may well resemble Apollo more than Star Trek, but (IMO) it will
 > resemble Skylab/ISS/MIR even more so.
 >
 >


The damn thing will likely be the size of a rail car.

Ballard seems to _want_ controversy, but doesn't want to actually _know_
what he is talking about.

If the trip is set up to be sized like an Apollo mission capsule then it
is a non-starter. We'll (humans) just have to wait until we can do a
better job.

A coupe of fundamental questions are floating around a thread of this
nature.

- Is it a good idea to put people in space/ on the Moon?

You know what? That's enough of a question right there.


TBerk<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040406152542.17857.00000795 DeleteThis @mb-m21.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer DeleteThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

   >>>>And with respect to the issue of nuclear waste disposal,
   >>>>before the problem is solved (it isn't, and it has been
   >>>>studied for twenty years) the United States will have
   >>>>spent $1,000 for _each United States household_ solving
   >>>>the problem. For all practical purposes that $1,000 sits
   >>>>atop your electric bill (capital investment) like a vulture.
   >>>>IMO this problem's cost makes the discussion productive
   >>>>and important.
   >>>
   >>>As I just asked in another post, have you bothered to even
   >>>approximate how much
   >>>your idea would increase this cost?
  >>
  >>My example shows that we are playing with big dollars,
  >>and that a wonderful idea could net big savings.
  >>I also have shown feasibility. I have not addressed
  >>affordability, but this is science fiction -- ain't it?
 >
 >Something that is not science fiction is that we just might
 >want this stuff
 >later, and might be sorry we shot it into the sun, even if
 >launch costs come
 >down enough to make this feasible. Remember my example that
 >gasoline was
 >once discarded because it was too explosive and dangerous for
 >any practical use?

Prior to the invention of the gasoline powered internal combustion
engine (an engineering problem) there was no safe way to utilize
volitile gasoline's energy. Example: Olympic runner Glenn
Cunningham was burned severely in his youth when he mistook
gasoline for kerosene and attempted to light a wood stove
in a schoolhouse. Remember kerosene lantern techology --
they didn't use gasoline.

My understanding is that plutonium harvested from nuclear
waste is both _extremely_ toxic and also is dangerous
from a _terrorism_ point of view. I understand the general
concensus is _not_ to reprocess nuclear wastes to recycle
fissionable materials. Of course, we are not (yet)
freezing in the dark.

Nevertheless, were fissionable materials to be recycled
from nuclear waste, the remaining debris still presents a
storage/disposal problem -- recycling is _not_ 100 percent
efficient and some radioactivity remains in the waste.
I do _not_ know if additional hazardous wastes (e.g.,
contamination of solvents) are created during the nuclear
waste recycling process.

   >>>>Obviously you never were a member of the Boy Scouts.
   >>>>In the Boy Scouts they taught us to clean up our own
   >>>>messes, not to leave them for another to blunder into
   >>>>at some future date. I don't burn Amazon rain forests,
   >>>>either.
   >>>
   >>>You positively delight in utterly idiotic analogies that have
   >>>nothing
   >>>whatsoever to do with the issue at hand, don't you?
  >>
  >>Given the nuclear waste storage solution has been studied
  >>for twenty years, and an 'optimal' (loosepack versus densepack)
  >>solution has not been selected, I believe the 'clean up our own
  >>messes' analogy is appropriate. And a sufficient quantity of
  >>nuclear waste gives nasty burns. (Ref: Any biography of
  >>Marie Curie.)
 >
 >Just like walking around on the moon during a solar flare.
 >Just a handwaving
 >dismissal of the problem, right?

I am an old amateur radio operator, and I know that Sun storms
(which disrupt the Earth's ionosphere and terrestrial RF
communications, not to mention inducing voltages across
terrestrial long lines) are predictable _months in advance_.
In an earlier message I already commented that most people
are smart enough to avoid cloudbursts.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040406154748.17857.00000796.RemoveThis@mb-m21.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer.RemoveThis@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

  >>From: rball84213
 >
  >>Ion propulsion systems (which to my knowledge have not been
  >>implemented)
 >
 >Your knowlege is once again incomplete (so what else is new?)
<RB snipped URLs>
 >
  >>Ion propulsion systems (which to my knowledge have not been
  >>implemented) operate by imparting an electric charge to
  >>particles (mass) and then electrically repelling those
  >>charged particles. In a ion retrorocket, the escaping
  >>particles' forward momentum would impart a backwards force
  >>to the capsule, reducing its velocity. Continuous braking
  >>force applied to a capsule orbiting the Sun will cause the
  >>capsule to spiral inward, and eventually to incinerate.
 >
 >Agreed. When we try to point out just how much propellant
 >will be needed,
 >even in an efficient ion drive system, you just shrug this off.

Then we need ion retrorockets with greater 'fuel' efficiency.
(I am proposing ion retrorockets energized by incident energy
from the Sun, but I acknowledge the need for some mass
consumption in creating ions.) This is an engineering problem --
delta (m*v) = F delta t.

  >>Ion propulsion systems are categorized as weak -- low force.
  >>Obviously we want to save ion mass, so to make this concept
  >>practical, we would have to engineer an improved ion retrorocket
  >>configuration that used relatively few _extremely_ high velocity
  >>particles. That solves the fuel expenditure problem (and it
  >>sounds like a weak particle beam weapon -- no problem in
  >>open space).
 >
 >Even if you are shooting stuff out at near the speed of light,
 >you will need a
 >large amount in order to do that 50 km/s velocity change needed.
 >We have some
 >ideas on how this might work, but nothing actually built the way
 >we do with ion drives.

This is a 'not mature technology' engineering problem.

   >>>I also pointed out that this has nothing to do with the tremendous
   >>>expense of
   >>>the Earth launch into space initially needed. You have
   >>>consistently ignored
   >>>this too.
  >>
  >>Earlier you were giving me a ration because you claimed
  >>what I proposed was impossible -- it is possible.
 >
 >Quote any of my posts where I called it "impossible."

"Too much delta v required yadda yadda yadda."

  >>Now you are giving me a ration about the cost of Earth launch.
 >
 >Precisely. What I have been attempting to point out all along.

This is a 'not mature technology' engineering problem.
Science addresses feasibility. Engineering addresses
affordable and maintainable implementation.

  >>Propose a less expense alternative that completely removes
  >>nuclear waste.
 >
 >I'm not the one who wants to completely remove nuclear waste.
 >I think it is a
 >lousy idea even fi we do figure out a way to do so economically.
 >Put it into
 >orbit where we can retrieve if later if we want that "gasoline."
 >Yes, we make
 >sure the orbit is high enough that it will not decay during the
 >life of the
 >universe, or maybe we put it into lunar orbit, but don't throw
 >it away.

Earlier you were complaining about the sheer volume of
nuclear waste and the cost of launching it. Now you
propose launching it into orbit for later retrieval.

Prior to the invention of the gasoline powered internal combustion
engine (an engineering problem) there was no safe way to utilize
volitile gasoline's energy. Example: Olympic runner Glenn
Cunningham was burned severely in his youth when he mistook
gasoline for kerosene and attempted to light a wood stove
in a schoolhouse. Remember kerosene lantern techology --
they didn't use gasoline.

My understanding is that plutonium harvested from nuclear
waste is both _extremely_ toxic and also is dangerous
from a _terrorism_ point of view. I understand the general
concensus is _not_ to reprocess nuclear wastes to recycle
fissionable materials. Of course, we are not (yet)
freezing in the dark.

Nevertheless, were fissionable materials to be recycled
from nuclear waste, the remaining debris still presents a
storage/disposal problem -- recycling is _not_ 100 percent
efficient and some radioactivity remains in the waste.
I do _not_ know if additional hazardous wastes (e.g.,
contamination of solvents) are created during the nuclear
waste recycling process.

 >Oh yeah, that might contaminate our precious bodily fluids,
 >or create nuclear
 >space junk. Right. Besides, won't this contaminate the sun?
 >We don't want
 >to do that, do we?

"Precious bodily fluids"? Did you just view the film
"Dr. Strangelove"? (Do you like word games?) Who was
your favorite actor: Peter Sellers or Slim Pickens?

IMO deliberately creating orbiting spacejunk is _not_
responsible policy. If you did not dispose of your
household garbage properly, your competency would
be questioned.

As to your concern about contaminating the Sun, the Sun
is a thermonuclear fusion furnace. There is no danger
of contaminating the Sun. [Of course, if you launch
a hu/manned mission to the Sun's surface to touch down
at night you might encounter problems. (ROTFLMAO!)]

  >>As energy prices continue rising, I believe that electricity
  >>generation by nuclear energy will become increasingly
  >>attractive. That will increase the quantity of nuclear waste
  >>produced and the _annual cost_ of dealing with that waste --
  >>recurring overhead expense. Increased cost means less
  >>discretionary resources -- we get poorer because of rising
  >>energy costs.
 >
 >Instead of the thousands and thousands of launches your program
 >needs (and the
 >trillions of dollars) let's use a sensible number of launches
 >and a sensible
 >budget to build solar power satellites.
<RB snipped URL>

IMO desert energy farms are a better concept. Unused desert
acreage is inexpensive and plentiful. The energy farm can
employ eutectic salt thermal storage to store excess energy,
can help support daytime terrestrial electric peak needs directly,
and can draw stored heat from eutectic storage at night. The
system might be photovoltaic, a heliotrope (reflected sunlight
converted to heat), or both. And it is (less expensive and)
easier to build and maintain systems that are located on the
terrestrial surface.

  >>I have addressed this on the science fiction level. If
  >>they are interested, the experts can address this on the
  >>engineering level. I have shown feasibility and I have
  >>no mission to show affordability.
 >
 >Affordability is part of the feasibility of any idea. If we
 >cannot afford it,
 >we are not going to do it, no matter what the engineering
 >aspects are.

Feasibility is a scientific concern. Affordability is an
engineering concern. This is one significant difference
between science and engineering. For example, science
seldom addresses _maintainability_.

  >>Either way, the problem will not just go away. Apparently
  >>after twenty years' study we have _not_ selected an 'optimal'
  >>storage strategy (loosepack versus densepack) for nuclear waste,
  >>and coal electric generating plants are (being?) mothballed.

BTW, while some electric generating plants were mothballed
(local examples), many coal burning electric generating plants
were converted to fuel oil or natural gas fuel usage, _not_
mothballed. Presumably these fuel oil and natural gas fueled
electric generating plants could be returned to bituminous coal
fueled usage if necessary.

 >Yucca mountain.

IMO the ever increasing volume of nuclear waste might
FORCE a densepack solution. We'll keep dropping the
waste down the hole while scientists keep studying and
drawing salaries. Eventually the hole will fill completely.
That implements densepack without a scientific decision.

I am not qualified to provide nuclear engineering opinions,
but I understand generic engineering, generic economics
and human nature.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

Question: why did you bring up anthracite coal, and why do you believe it
is gone?

As I understand from (from a discussion of the Anthracite Coal strikes
of the early 1900s in one of my American History classes) Anthracite Coal
is found primarily in Western Pennsylvania and it was used at the time
mainly for heating homes because it was more cleanly burning than
bituminous coal.

The specialized usefulness of anthracite coal seem to suggest anthracite
coal would cost more than bituminious coal, since anthracite coal could
heat homes and bituminous couldn't. Therefore, it would be less likely
to be used in coal power plants, as bituminous is cheaper. Power plants
can counter the dirty burning of the bituminous coal, power plants by
adding filters to their air output, and by taking other measures which are
less feasible in homes. Actually, in the earlier years of coal power, plants
may not have bothered to filter out the impurities caused by burning of
bituminous coal.

That's the logical basis for my question. Please provide backing for your
statement that all anthracite coal is gone, and explain why you mentioned
anthracite coal in connection with coal power plants.

On 6 Apr 2004, Richard Ballard wrote:

 >
 > Bituminous coal (the anthracite coal is gone) also can be
 > used to produce electricity. Bituminous coal technology
 > and its costs are well understood.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ...