David:
The US has already flown reactors and has flown many RTG’s. Protest do
typically occur at the launch site but are of course “outside the gates”.
Bill
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 4:48 PM David Spain <david.l.spain@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2019-08-29 5:18 PM, William Claybaugh wrote:
David:
In the US the launch of Special Nuclear Materials (all reactors, Pu
powered RTG’s) comes with a very expensive set of protocols regarding
storage. handling, and control but requires no political consensus at all.
The launch has to be authorized in writing by POTUS (typically a few days
before launch) but no other “political” action is involved.
As Henry observes, studies (public analysis can be found by Dr. Robert
Forward) indicate a technical consensus on starting reactors no lower than
600km and disposing at 1000km or higher. Practically, this appears to mean
starting at 1000km in case something goes wrong upon startup.
Bill
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the info. Good to know. I'm thinking more along the lines of
protesters and grand-standing politicians. The first time one of these
large reactors is sent aloft. The 10th time not so much...
Dave
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 2:13 PM David Spain <david.l.spain@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2019-08-29 4:07 PM, Henry Spencer wrote:
On the political side, having a satisfactory answer to the above question
is only the first step. :-) Most current thinking is in terms of "nuclear
safe" orbits, where you can abandon a hot reactor and have it stay up long
enough that most of the bad stuff has decayed before it reenters. There
hasn't been much thinking about the case where support infrastructure is
available to help deal with a failure, and so there is no well-defined
concept of what's "good enough".
Henry
On the political side, I'd love to see a consensus on a "nuclear safe"
orbit. Good luck finding one.
Dave
