RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,692
Posts: 5,430,997
Members: 24,829
Currently online: 451
Newest member: 713brianp27


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 30 2008, 01:48 AM   #1
TEH BABA
Commodore
 
TEH BABA's Avatar
 
Location: TEH BABA
Send a message via AIM to TEH BABA
Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

I say fuck to wacky enviromentalist we need a nuke ship in space.
__________________
Scientology made of fail and aids.
TEH BABA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2008, 01:54 AM   #2
SchwEnt
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

Nuclear reactor in a shuttle for...what?

Power for prolonged stays in orbit? Power for engines to send it somewhere?
Power for liftoff? Power for some other purpose while in orbit?

You just want a nuke ship in space or specifically on the shuttle?
SchwEnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2008, 02:45 AM   #3
Robert Maxwell
Not Your Toy
 
Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: A broken roof
View Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to Robert Maxwell
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

I'm sure a nuclear reactor would have worked out just great when the Challenger and Columbia blew up.
__________________
It's all false love and affection
I has a blag.
Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2008, 03:13 AM   #4
MarianLH
Fleet Captain
 
MarianLH's Avatar
 
Location: Lower decks
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

I, for one, certainly want to take nuclear policy advice from a guy who can't even manage to use a spacebar correctly.


Marian
__________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
--Bertrand Russell

Half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at.
--Jim McCarthy.
MarianLH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2008, 08:10 AM   #5
Zachary Smith
Vice Admiral
 
Zachary Smith's Avatar
 
Location: Lost somewhere in space
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

Now, now . . . He's got a point. If Challenger and/or Columbia would have had nuclear reactors on board, it would have said "fuck" to "wacky environmentalists" AND a hell of a lot of OTHER people too.
__________________
OHHhhhhh . . . the pain . . . the pain . . .

My favorite TV show is "Cool Hand Luke Skywalker--Texas Ranger". The best episode is the one where he fights Samantha's wacky Sith Lord Uncle, Darth Arthur . . ."
Zachary Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2008, 10:00 AM   #6
USS KG5
Vice Admiral
 
USS KG5's Avatar
 
Location: England's green and pleasant land.
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

Zachary Smith wrote: View Post
Now, now . . . He's got a point. If Challenger and/or Columbia would have had nuclear reactors on board, it would have said "fuck" to "wacky environmentalists" AND a hell of a lot of OTHER people too.
People in Florida though, so mostly very old - so it wouldn't have been THAT bad!
__________________
I believe in a better world, so I love Star Trek. I have to live in this one, so I love Battlestar Galactica.
USS KG5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2008, 01:11 PM   #7
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

T'Bonz lives there... I would watch your back for a while KG5 she might come after you... with a nuke..
__________________
"Sword is personal, brings slicing to a man, you getta that personal feedback, nuclear weapons?.. Meh, goes off big bang and you don't get any feeling.."
Santaman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2008, 02:44 PM   #8
USS KG5
Vice Admiral
 
USS KG5's Avatar
 
Location: England's green and pleasant land.
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

Santaman wrote: View Post
T'Bonz lives there... I would watch your back for a while KG5 she might come after you... with a nuke..
Lovely place Florida...
__________________
I believe in a better world, so I love Star Trek. I have to live in this one, so I love Battlestar Galactica.
USS KG5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2008, 08:21 PM   #9
JustAFriend
Commodore
 
Location: South Florida, USA
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

USS KG5 wrote: View Post
Zachary Smith wrote: View Post
Now, now . . . He's got a point. If Challenger and/or Columbia would have had nuclear reactors on board, it would have said "fuck" to "wacky environmentalists" AND a hell of a lot of OTHER people too.
People in Florida though, so mostly very old - so it wouldn't have been THAT bad!
Except that neither ship got back to Florida.... they broke up over the Southwest and mainly Texas.
JustAFriend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2008, 03:31 AM   #10
Rii
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Adelaide
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

Many satellites use Plutonium-based Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators to provide onboard power. The mass media somehow hasn't quite cottoned on to this yet.
Rii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2008, 04:49 AM   #11
Arrqh
Vice Admiral
 
View Arrqh's Twitter Profile
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

Rii wrote: View Post
Many satellites use Plutonium-based Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators to provide onboard power. The mass media somehow hasn't quite cottoned on to this yet.
Sure they have; there was a bit of a hooplah when Cassini was launched over this.
__________________
Don't you know? The chances of a random object being a scone are about one in six.
Arrqh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2008, 05:24 AM   #12
Non Sync
Captain
 
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

There's also a hugh difference between the 72lbs used by Cassini (the most launched to date) to power its electronics vs. what would be needed to lift the 2,237 ton shuttle plus payload (another 29 tons).
__________________
"You're gonna need a bigger boat"
Non Sync is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2008, 06:45 AM   #13
Mr. B
Vice Admiral
 
Mr. B's Avatar
 
Location: New Orleans
Send a message via ICQ to Mr. B Send a message via AIM to Mr. B Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Mr. B Send a message via Yahoo to Mr. B
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

...the same reason we aren't launching our nuclear waste into the sun
__________________
“Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities.”
-Oscar Wilde
Mr. B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2008, 10:12 PM   #14
TEH BABA
Commodore
 
TEH BABA's Avatar
 
Location: TEH BABA
Send a message via AIM to TEH BABA
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

Floridians won't know the difference it willb e hiroshima to them They'd be celebrating.
__________________
Scientology made of fail and aids.
TEH BABA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2008, 10:29 PM   #15
hofner
Commodore
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor

I'm not one much for stirring up controversy but this is too relevant to the discussion.

The Apollo 13 lunar module had an RTG containing 3.9 kg of plutonium that was intended to be left on the Moon to power the ALSEP. Well, as we all know things didn't go according to plan. The lunar module, with the RTG, ended up re-entering Earth's atmosphere over the Pacific. The RTG is supposed to be designed to survive re-entry so apparently it's still intact on the Pacific Ocean floor today. Last I heard it hasn't been recovered.

Robert
hofner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.