U238 for Aerospace Propulsion (Traveling Wave Reactor)

[Frame Dragger]

Well, I'll take that as some comfort then.

 

[gronkulator]

What if your 747 crashes?

10-15 tons
I'm not sure that's fair. They were abandoned, doesn't mean they didn't work.
Yes, that's a problem. Doesn't mean the problem is intractable.

I doubt this is a show stopping problem any longer. Modern aircraft carry 70ton tanks and the Space Shuttle of all things.

he didn't say they didn't work. he said they JUST didn't work. that's a weasel word. it doesn't

have any meaning, it's an emotional cue for you to backpedal. "just" implies that his factoid is too simple or straightforward for him to bother explaining.

(like his emotional state: "TWR's are a nutty idea". this is a feeling, not a rational position.)

nuke aircraft engines worked.

ICBM's probably took the mission away from the hypothetical fission-powered strategic bombers.

backtracking on the thread, these puppies may be very good for unmanned deep space propulsion. ..

used to power a xenon or argon ion engine, and power the laser communications that will have to replace RF past about 20 or 30 AU due to bandwidth issues. (new horizons will take
9 mos for data return after a very brief flyby in 2015). and then theres' some powerful radars we'd like to fly for planetary science. like too see all those liquid water oceans, under hundreds of km of ice. that will take some juice.

hardest part is a robot that lasts 60 years.

 

[Astronuc]

"TWR's are a nutty idea" is a technically accurate statement. There was no emotion in my comment.

I heard through the grape vine that some new talent has reconfigured the original design. Apparently the new configuration looks more like a fast reactor.

Still if they want to achieve 20% or greater FIMA on a homogenous fuel material, they'll have some swelling problems.

 

[gronkulator]

"TWR's are a nutty idea" is a technically accurate statement. There was no emotion in my comment.

I heard through the grape vine that some new talent has reconfigured the original design. Apparently the new configuration looks more like a fast reactor.

Still if they want to achieve 20% or greater FIMA on a homogenous fuel material, they'll have some swelling problems.

technically accurate? only if you're trained in brain science, and have examined the person who had that idea in person. and those are both NO.

this isn't a psych forum anyway.

it's purely emotional, an ad hominem attack , and argument by intimidation.

from these technically accurate facts, i infer that you aren't up to speed on the engineering here. and definitely not the physics.

 

[mheslep]

, an ad hominem attack .

No, since if there's no 'man', there's no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" .

 

[gronkulator]

No, since if there's no 'man', there's no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" .

there is. it's the person who has the idea the poster attacks as "nutty".

unless you think ideas exist , disembodied, with no person to hold them? well, that would be silly.

if you want to have a latin lesson, start with prima facie, which addresses why the earlier statements are "technically factual". then please take the latin , existentialism, and psychiatry to the correct forum(s).

 

[mheslep]

there is. it's the person who has the idea the poster attacks as "nutty".

unless you think ideas exist , disembodied, with no person to hold them? well, that would be silly.

Nonsense. People and their ideas are not the same thing. Conflating the two leads to labelling criticism of any idea as ad hominem, and that is silly.

 

[gronkulator]

Nonsense. People and their ideas are not the same thing. Conflating the two leads to labelling criticism of any idea as ad hominem, and that is silly.

add straw man argument to the above. i conflated nothing.

my remark about the ad hominem attack was in response to one remark, not two. and if there was a "lead" around here somewhere, i didn't comment on it. must be another thread.

your argument is worse thaan extremely weak it is non-existent, and like the OP you apparently have to resort to off-topic attacks on people who disagree in order to compensate for inadequate knowledge of the topic.