There is no word about radioactiv fall out, that not automaticly means there is none! It was an military project and these telling us most: mainly made for effeciency. They used uranium ammunition in wars, its ofcourse clean ! Its very clever for getting funding when they dont tell about radioactiviy or dangers. Think alone about the fact, that all KIWI tests was done behind big stone walls, with automatic support trains and distance-remote-controled.
So are you suggesting that KIWI was the subject of a military conspiracy/coverup, "because it was a military project"? :facepalm:
They are not morons. Believe it or not, they don't want the radioactivity either; the uranium in those DU rounds, is not highly radioactive... it is dangerous because it is actually a toxic metal.
Because EVERY fission reactor produces radioactiv end-products and contaminates its surrounding materials. If there is an explosion or accident, this materials gets free, flying around you! If you dont believe that, than be a test person for it! I will be the first person who visits you with an Geiger counter and i will pay you one million when i not find radioactivity at your body.
Yes, it is true that neutron radiation creates radioactivity in exposed materials due to transmutation.
This is however both not as intense, nor as spreadable in the environment as you assume. Remember those fuel elements I was talking about? Only a small amount of them is actual fuel and reaction products... most of it is containment and other stuff (like neutron reflectors or moderators or somesuch). And all that stuff, is the stuff that is designed to survive
inside a rocket engine. It's also the stuff you're talking about that gets transmuted. And the other parts of the engine, are also designed to be, well, rocket engine parts. They aren't going to spread into fine dust that coats a 500 kilometer radius.
In case you didn't notice, when rocket parts are
flying around you, you won't care if they're radioactive or not. Partially because you'll be
dead.
When we use nuclear thermal shuttles, we have to remove the produced radioactiv materials all times, to minimze the contamination, if accident or not. The fuels (uranium) ARE radiotiv before using inside the rocket too, so an accident would all times contaminate the envoirenment, sometimes stronger, sometimes lower.
Yeah, that's why you swap out the old fuel elements with new ones, so the waste can be processed and the fuel recycled.
The uranium itself is mildly radioactive, compared to the reaction products etc etc. So before activation, the nuclear reactor is quite mundane.
But it does not matter as much as you
assume. This is because nuclear reactors are not made of plasticene.
For the XR1, i did a calculation, i did not guess!!! Yes Shuttles density is most a payload bay, but XR1s's density is most a tank, because the crew section is only very small. Dont imagine it with flux generators or other toys, imagine it as an empty tank behind crew section! Then you get 32,8 mT. When its not enough for you, then we use just a bigger DG with a bigger tank. The Isp of 4500m/s is STS-value. So i cant find where there is the cheating part.
12-13-10 01:04
I would not call the crew section of the DG "very small". It is actually quite large.
Yes the XR1 is mostly a tank, and the shuttle is mostly a payload bay, but it ends up being quite similar... the volume taken up by payload bay and propellant tank is probably proportionally similar; indeed, the crew section is proportionally much larger than that of STS.
Also, do not accuse me of guessing. After modelling an internal fuel tank, to fit in the DG and presumably accomodate the other internals (engines, SCRAMs, hovers... wait...
why are there hover engines in a spaceplane?), and doing a density calculation, it turns out you can only carry 3.86 metric tons of LH2, and around 4.2 tons of slush H2.
So yeah... ain't gonna work. Unless you use a flux generator to compress it into neutron star material. :facepalm:
EDIT:
think it's also safe to assume that in a world with the infrastructure (and economic demand) that could realistically support this kind of craft, there'd already be a kind of "nuclear fire department" that could minimize the damage and distribute drugs to the people exposed in case there's some kind of accident - It's not set in stone how vulnerable to radiation people have to be.
Yeah, something like that already exists in some form, if we look at how NASA cleaned up the shuttle disasters, and various military activities... I would not be surprised if military efforts in such an event would be helpful.
Nevertheless I think that the potential for civillian harm can somewhat be overestimated, especially if launching over the ocean or unpopulated areas.
Even if were, you could still just hire some skilled PR firm and an army of lobbyists to fool people into thinking it's not dangerous and just something liberals made up to hurt business.
Which is fine until you get wikileaked.
