Negr, explain Chernobyl and refute Nuke asteroid defense.

[TteFAboB]

Chernobyl was a primitive plant, built on a rush with structural failures on the project, below the high ethical standards of the Soviet Union, supervised by a political agent who was not an expert in nuclear energy, and to say the least, wasn't the brightest of the Soviet agents.
Oh my... Please, don't speak about the things you TOTALLY misunderstand, ok?

We need a nuclear arsenal to fire on Asteroids in the event of an emergency
:rotfl: Too much Hollywood. Movies are not the best source of political views ant tech info.

Welcome, please teach me.

So we go.
I don't know (though I guess ;)) where you've got that Chernobyl was built in a hurry and with many faults. Fot its time, it was the most modern of its kind. The nuclear energy plant is not a "khruschovka" (a typical 5-story flea-pit), power plant is a strategic point. The best proof of it - blocks were operable until Dec 2000 without any faults.
The brag about "evil and fool soviet agents" I reject as an... errr... Let's call it "propaganda aftermath", ok? ;)
Though, it's true, that the main reason of accident was a "human factor" - a chain of critical errors.
It was an experiment - a test of capabilities of reactor maintenance gizmoes. If you want, I'll try to explain it in details - though I'm not sure that my English is that good for such specific tech info. So, it was an object of this experiment - to bring reactor to nearly critical conditions. Maybe, the idea of this experiment itself was a fatal mistake. But, I repeat, the goal and means of it was so specific, that no any dumb "agent" could even imagine it. It was planned and conducted by a professional reactor crew. Though, anyway, those people made a series of errors bringing things out of control.

Oh, and about asteroids.
It's a good idea, yeah... But it's very hollywoodic in its contemporary status. When a new asteroid heading to Earth detected, many words about "anti-space defence" being spoken. But NOTHING is done.
First, there are no need to possess such many WHs to strike asteroids only. Few of WHs are enough. Much more can be produced relatively quickly if needed - asteroid can be detected months and years before it strikes the Earth.
Second - is guidance system. Ballistic missiles are desighned to fly relatively low. I don't believe they can precisely hit an asteroid in far space. In near space, the hit can be fatal for both - asteroid and Earth itself. Earth possess space missiles, which can hit asteroid, comet or anything you like. So, we need those civilian general-purpose rockets and few warheads, which can be quicly mounted to a rocket.
Now, the question: for what the hell we have all those ICBMs, SLBMs and so on - if the only reason to have this arsenal (as you say) - is to shot down asteroids?

[joea]

Some good points Negr, I have mixed feelings about nuclear power. Probably stupid to bring a reactor to critical for a saftey test. I agree 100% about the asteroids. :yep:

The big tragedy about Chernobyl was the aftermath, the USSR kept silent for a long time (not that other governments are also not guilty of covering mistakes) until I think it was in Sweden that the radioactivity was detected. I had a former professor back in Canada (of Ukrainian origin himself) who was in Kiev at the time and heard nothing when he was there, for only a few days but still.

[Konovalov]

Some good points Negr, I have mixed feelings about nuclear power. Probably stupid to bring a reactor to critical for a saftey test. I agree 100% about the asteroids. :yep:

Agree also. I did hear recently about the idea of changing the path/orbit of the asteroid in such a way that it obviously would miss earth but also not come back to bite us years and years later. It did not involve trying to hit it with nuclear missiles or along those lines. Anyway at the moment if we find ourselves in the sights of one there probably won't be much we can do.

[fire-fox]

i think the thing with Chernobyl was that thay where only ment to bring the reacter to blarblar% of full power but the manigment said go to 100% saw that thay could show off to moscow and that thay brout the reacter to 100% too fast corsing the reacter to "runaway" but by the time the dissisian to drop the carban cooling rodes was taken, thayed worped and wouldn't fully contan the reactsion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident

you mite alsow checkout

http://www.chernobyl.co.uk

[fire-fox]

as for the nuke Vs rock's

as space is a vacume IE no (or very minisquele amounts of particules) in this vacume then its my GESS that a nuke would have to be inbedded in to the taget rock or lomp of STUFF, to have any effect at all. this will NOT need a bunch of nuti-go-lucky oil riggers :D but a ICBM(s) or simmeler type of missle(s) with a penetrater type noses to be used to bast the think offcorse.

[micky1up]

they didnt bring the reactor online for a safey test they where testing if the could draw power from the reactor when it was offline using the residule heat/steam going through the turbines so to do this they had to deactivate a good portion of the reactors saftey features this is why the accident happened

[fire-fox]

they didnt bring the reactor online for a safey test they where testing if the could draw power from the reactor when it was offline using the residule heat/steam going through the turbines so to do this they had to deactivate a good portion of the reactors saftey features this is why the accident happened

that is a safety test isnt it! ;) ok saw its a realy stupid one

[Kapitan]

chernobyl wasnt a new plant at the time of the diaster infact only reactor 4 was new and this is the reator that blew up.

the seveer pressure put on these engineers to meet deadlines ect was to great and cause the diaster, training was in some areas insufficent, but overly it was a stupid mistake to raise the control rods to try raise the power faster (just melt the boron liners) once the liners melt then you cant get the rods down causing a melt down.

the plan itself is very well build more so than british plants and features a unique design with good area to work in, but the draw back is when some thing goes wrong the back up of getting out fails (like a maze inside)

reactor 4 exploded causing part of the ukrain to be shut off for hundreds of years, in 2000 the plant was officaly shut down and decommissioned, after the disaster they kept the other three reactors working but now the entire plant is shut down.

the sarcophigus that is over reactor room4 is dissintergreating largely due to the haste in which it was built funds from all over the world have come in to re build the sarcophigus and will be done so using robot with aid from britain and america. total cost $700 million USD

a sad and stupid tragerdy

[Wim Libaers]

as for the nuke Vs rock's

as space is a vacume IE no (or very minisquele amounts of particules) in this vacume then its my GESS that a nuke would have to be inbedded in to the taget rock or lomp of STUFF, to have any effect at all. this will NOT need a bunch of nuti-go-lucky oil riggers :D but a ICBM(s) or simmeler type of missle(s) with a penetrater type noses to be used to bast the think offcorse.

Not necessarily. You just have to be close, so that enough radiation hits one side of the asteroid to heat it up and evaporate a surface layer. That will push the asteroid a bit and change it's course.

[Type XXIII]

However, inbedding the bomb will be more effective, as the energy will be more concentrated.

But we don't need atomic bombs to divert an asteroid. Other methods, such as conventional explosives, solar wind sail and mass driver can also be used. As of now, ABs is the simplest and most cost-effective method, but that is mainly because we have so many warheads lying around.

[TteFAboB]

Thanks Negr,

I guess time is a relative concept, what may seem like an eternity to you could be a hurry to me, of course, we are both ignoring the propaganda behind the construction of Chernobyl, but when I say "structural faults" I refer to the little things that allowed the chain reaction that led to the disaster to happen, little things that if built differently, could have prevented or halted the chain of events to happen, I could say the same about virtually any other structure that suffered a disaster, the WTC, NASA's Space Shuttle, the Titanic, etc.. Nuclear plants aren't built to get out of control, since the plant - "most modern of it's kind for the time" - failed to prevent a disaster, I consider it a failure, every other nuclear plant who managed to operate without accidents or catastrophies to this date can be considered successful, including the other Chernobyl "blocks", since they managed to prevent the same mistake from happening again.

"Evil and fool soviet agents" are your words, I said, not on plural, he wasn't the brightest expert on nuclear energy and was a "political agent", if the words Soviet, Political and Agent equal Evil and Fool to you, then I agree for the most part. :rotfl:

But the agent in question, certainly a foolish leader, was smart enough to join the party and gain his position at the plant, I don't think he was "evil", I think he was simply doing his job, a job he was unsuited for anyway, you are right when you say no "dumb" agent could've known what was going to happen, true, but he did made the wrong decisions, and there was no lack of capable men that in his shoes could've prevented the disaster from happening, by making the right decisions on time.

The professional reactor crew tried their best, but by the time they were in charge it was too late, the rescue teams also tried their best to put out the fire and save the victims, but their leadership also forgot to tell them it was helpless, it was no common fire, I share no sympathy for the dumb, fool, soviet agents in the positions of leadership responsable for all those deaths.

About the Asteroids, I guess with enough creativity we can think of a way to put them to good use, of course there are a number of factors to be considered, the size, density, composition and speed of the Asteroid among other things, anyway, yes, it's a good excuse to keep some nuclear arsenal, of course the real use of it is to keep the geopolitical system "stable", but it's a card you'll want to keep on your table considering the amount and variety of Asteroids out there, hopefully, they will never have to be used, it's good to keep the Aliens from invading too.

:arrgh!:

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/375/xenomorphjpgw300h1599rs.jpg

<...> when I say "structural faults" I refer to the little things that allowed the chain reaction that led to the disaster to happen, little things that if built differently, could have prevented or halted the chain of events to happen, I could say the same about virtually any other structure that suffered a disaster, the WTC, NASA's Space Shuttle, the Titanic, etc..
Chernobyl blocks were build with many different safety automatic systems. In 1986, the habit of destructive atomic power was already well-known. But nearly all (exept two) of those systems were switched off manually - to complete the test. Two left systems worked properly, but they controlled an action which was commenced manually few seconds before - by the operator who realized what's happening. Anyway, it was too late.
Experts say, that if even one more automatic safety system was on - the disaster would not happen.

***
And what abou the aliens - it's nice to have some defence system against 'em. But sometimes I think that it is the Man who is the most agressive being in inhabited space :lol:

[joea]

***
And what abou the aliens - it's nice to have some defence system against 'em. But sometimes I think that it is the Man who is the most agressive being in inhabited space :lol:

:rotfl:

[XabbaRus]

OK this is bugging me, use language properly.

"Structural faults" would refer to either A)Bad construction techniques and build quality. B)Flaws in the processes used to run whatever system.

You can't pick and choose.

Chernobyl, they cocked up. Ran an experiment that shouldn't have been run, the engineers in the reactor shouldn't have run it and I think they knew that.

What pisses me off about it all is that after Chernobyl western media lumped all the other reactors of that design together and call them unsafe. E.G. in Estonia I think there is a nuclear reactor that provides 80% of the contry's power. The EU wants it shut down (part of membership agreement) and the BBC went to pains to stress it was a Chernobyl type reactor.

Although I think Russia can still be a bit paranoid and this is from someone who has lived there and who is married to a Russian I do think the western media and the west in general like to find ways to make Russia look like the baddy. I think it is psychological inertia from the cold-war.
Sure after Chernobyl things were added to dumb ****s couldn't disable safety systems. Thing is the design wasn't flawed really.

[U-552Erich-Topp]

:) I wonder how many close calls we've had over here in our North American nuclear power stations as well?????????????????

[TteFAboB]

I never mastered the English language, I can roughly communicate in English, French and Spanish, but I am only able to fully express myself in Italian or Portuguese, you can pick and choose, and I'll write you the most beautifull and perfect piece of literature.

There may be structural faults in my language, both A and B, but that's because I simply do not have enough time to devote to it.

If you accept to disable your language safety systems, and promise you won't denounce me to the language NKVD, we can stick to the ideas found in between the lines.

You see, the idea is: Something that isn't built to explode and explodes is considered a failure in my book, something that is built to explode and doesn't explode is also a failure.

If you can reproduce the disaster in other nuclear facilities, those designs are a failure too, if you can't reproduce it, they're successfull.

That was the idea, that was my point, that was what led to my words.

For example, if the design of the Titanic was different so that it wouldn't sink under the same circumstances or if it wasn't commanded carelessly, I would consider it a successfull ship, and so on.

I had to base myself on the fact the RBMK reactor design is what allowed for the disaster to occur and also that there are different designs both old and new, that wouldn't allow the same chain of events to occur, not that the original RBMKs are isolated, there are some reactors elsewhere in the world that share some of the same faults, there's a reason why the RBMK's were improved and that's because they were unstable under the same circumstances that led to the disaster (the same test was executed before and the reactor behaved differently), if they were flawless as you say they wouldn't have had to go through so many improvements. But if a word game is what you want, I'd say:

The Chernobyl design was so good, but so good, that the reactor was so powerfull it just didn't want to stop generating energy.

If the British are willing to pay for the construction, I can offer a reactor design to Estonia that is safer than their RBMK, even with the many improvements, not that the same disaster would happen again, it's just that there are other designs easier to control, even if not as good propaganda tools as the first RBMKs were.

[tycho102]

Nuclear engineering has come a long way since the 50's and 60's. So has material science.

There is always a benefit, in running a nuclear reactor, when you can use un-enriched uranium. Enriching uranium-235, processing plutonium and uranium-233, all take just as much industrial organization as actually building and running the electrical grid itself. India is finding out about this, because they have vast stores of thorium, but lack the industrial infrastructure to process it into usable uranium.

The only reason why the majority of western nations use enriched uranium, instead of plutonium breeder reactors and core reprocessing, is because of a 1950's and 1960's anti-proliferation mentality. Back then, no one knew how to enrich or purify any of the fissionable metals, and as such, adopted a proprietary system. We'll sell you the stuff, but you can't have the source code.

The world has changed. North Korea and Pakistan changed it significantly when they were selling nuclear enrichment plans and the engineering details for building plutonium breeder reactors. The old methods of anti-proliferation no longer work, and in fact, now they work against us.

The technology is out there. It's like when years ago when you could just telnet into ARPAnet; no need for passwords, because people just didn't have modems (or computers) at that time. Now everyone has access to a modem, and everyone has access to nuclear technology. We try to keep tabs on the beryllium, and the aluminum tubes, but there are so many "dual uses" for things, it's impossible to keep track.






One critical thing to remember about Chernobyl:

The reactor engineer had gone home for the weekend. He wasn't "needed" because the test was being done on the turbine. In any "western" country, you'd have a team of reactor engineers on every single shift, not just one per plant...

[Excalibur Bane]

My logic is probably flawed along with my little knowledge of nuclear weapons and there general effects but from what I understand, if you used a modern day nucclear warhead, everything from detonation point outward is vaporized at the molecular level, out to quite a distance I would imagine. So, why divert the asteroid at all? A precise strike when it came into near Earth orbit would do the job quite nicely. If you send one missile at a time, you could calculate the time needed to assess the potential damage to the asteroid, then send another up and another and so on until there is nothing left of it that wouldn't be burned up in the atmosphere.

Then again, I'm probably wrong my studies were mostly of the effects of Hiroshima and that was more then a decade ago, plus it's 8 am and I haven't slept yet. So. :zzz:

Still, I always chuckled at that line in Deep Impact where Morgan Freeman is saying something like "Our nuclear strike has failed. Our 152 Titan missiles failed to change the course of the rogue asteroid." Phew. Yeah, and Elvis really isn't dead either. Stupid movie. I don't care what the hell a rock is made of or how fast it's going, it's gonna be space dust if I send 150 nukes at it. :D

Oh, well. Interesting topic nonetheless. I'd be more inclined to keep nukes around for plantary defense myself. Sooner or later, someone will take notice of us. Somehow, I don't think they'll want to be friends. Then we can world peace, and stop killing each other because we'll have a whole new bunch of people to kill! Woo hoo! :rock:

[tycho102]

Still, I always chuckled at that line in Deep Impact where Morgan Freeman is saying something like "Our nuclear strike has failed. Our 152 Titan missiles failed to change the course of the rogue asteroid." Phew. Yeah, and Elvis really isn't dead either. Stupid movie. I don't care what the hell a rock is made of or how fast it's going, it's gonna be space dust if I send 150 nukes at it.

It's been awhile since I've seen that movie. I think they had something like 5 years to alter the course of the asteroid. If it's too close, or moving too fast, it's completely possible for it to be too massive for a significant shift in trajectory.

It's far more probable for an solar orbiting asteroid to crash into Earth, than a non-orbiting asteroid. I don't remember exactly, but out near pluto, the limit is something like 9km/sec. Anything faster than that won't stay in orbit around Sol. Near Earth, it's much higher; Earth moves at about 30km/sec, so I'd guess the escape speed is 40km/sec. I forget how fast Voyager 2 is moving, but it's gotta be doing over 9km/sec, and it took over a decade to reach Neptune.



That had to have been a fast moving asteroid in that movie. Really fast. A non-orbiting asteroid. Definately a worst-case scenario.

[Excalibur Bane]

Yeah, it was about 2 years if I recall. They took a year to build that funky Messiah thing. The scientist was killed a year before they revealed it to the public. That baby was definately moving.

Still, I wondering how much our governments fund for asteroid watching. Hell, it was only last year I think that we had a near miss. 100,000 km or so as I recall. I remember reading a bit about it. heh. I doubt we'd even have much time to react anyway if something was coming that fast towards us. More so if it's just a really fast asteroid without any tail or anything else to distinguish it from the background space.

It was NASA itself that said at the turn of the century that it was a mathematical certainty that between 2000 and 2100 we would have some sort of impact. Hopefully we'll have some bad ass planetary defense grid between now and then to destroy it. All hail the rail gun :)
PAC would do the job nicely too. Of course we're still well awhile from actually building something like that. Last railgun they did build that I heard of was battleship mounted.

At any rate, there are much better alternatives then a planetary based arsenal of nuclear weapons to stop space threats. Countries just keep them around to make themselves feel secure because their neighbours have them.

It's too bad we didn't go with the US with that anti-missile defense system, I would have loved to see a big honking ass battery of missiles here in the capital. Be more interesting to look at then a crusty old paraliment :D

[TLAM Strike]

More so if it's just a really fast asteroid without any tail or anything else to distinguish it from the background space. Well A) A comet has a tail (and only when it approaches the sun otherwise it looks like Pluto) not an Asteroid and B) Wow that’s so analog, come in to the world of RADAR astronomy (not to be confused with RADIO astronomy). ;)

It's too bad we didn't go with the US with that anti-missile defense system, I would have loved to see a big honking ass battery of missiles here in the capital. Be more interesting to look at then a crusty old paraliment :D Reminds of a joke on 'The West Wing' when a newbie gets told there is a missile silo under the Rose Garden. :lol:

[Wim Libaers]

My logic is probably flawed along with my little knowledge of nuclear weapons and there general effects but from what I understand, if you used a modern day nucclear warhead, everything from detonation point outward is vaporized at the molecular level, out to quite a distance I would imagine.

That depends on what exactly is nearby. Organic materials, yes, but not everything. For example, a test with graphite-covered steel balls. A surface layer gets vaporized, and it is pushed away, but most of it remains intact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion#Background

[Excalibur Bane]

My logic is probably flawed along with my little knowledge of nuclear weapons and there general effects but from what I understand, if you used a modern day nucclear warhead, everything from detonation point outward is vaporized at the molecular level, out to quite a distance I would imagine.

That depends on what exactly is nearby. Organic materials, yes, but not everything. For example, a test with graphite-covered steel balls. A surface layer gets vaporized, and it is pushed away, but most of it remains intact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion#Background

Hmm. Well, I guess we'd really be in trouble if a giant pencil decided to come flying through the cosmos and impale the planet. :88)

[SUBMAN1]

A nuke against an asteroid in general is a VERY bad idea!!! See, this would 'maybe' work if the asteroid were a hard object, but since we recently landed probes on asteroids and have an idea about its general makeup, we know that this not only will not work, but you will probably make the situation much much WORSE!!!

Anyway, the one way to devert an asteroid of any significant size is to know about it long before hand - like a year, and be prepared for it. Then send a solar sail to collect solar radiation and focus that radiation to a tiny point - just like a magnafying glass, and this should slowly push the giant rock several thousand miles off Earths course given enough time.

-S

PS. Solar sails like I describe have actually been recently tested and fully deployed. I'll see if I can dig up some information on it. bb.

PPS. By the way, April 13th (Yes, it will be a Friday!), 2029 looks like the date of impact for 2004 MN4. It will be bad - a 1 in 40 chance of hitting the Earth.

[SUBMAN1]

Found a basic description of what I describe above:

One of his most interesting proposals is solar redirection. It envisions using sunlight to deflect asteroids and comets. A giant concave mirror made of ultrathin aluminum would be ferried to a point in space fairly close to the asteroid. The mirror would act as a solar collector, focusing sunlight on the asteroid with the help of a secondary mirror. The focused beam of light would heat a small spot on the asteroid and vaporized rock would shoot into space, pushing the asteroid in the opposite direction.

Unlike the schemes involving nuclear explosives, the solar collector would apply constant pressure to the asteroid rather than a single push. Melosh calculates that a mirror about 1/2 mile wide could deflect asteroids up to 2 miles in diameter if it operates for a year. The system would be even more effective against comets.


Another option:

There are more options for deflecting an asteroid or comet than for destroying one. If an asteroid is spotted years or decades before impact, mass ejection redirection could possibly push it to a safe trajectory by simply crashing an interceptor rocket into it. The impact would dig a crater in the asteroid's surface, blowing a large amount of material out into space. Obeying Newton's Third Law of Motion--every action must have an equal and opposite reaction--the asteroid would be pushed in the direction opposite to that of the blow-off material. It wouldn't be a strong push, but it would be enough to alter the asteroid's orbit so that it misses the Earth several years down the road.


Here is the bad idea associated with Nukes:

This approach won't work, however, if there's less advance warning. If it's a few months from Earth, it will need a much bigger push. Crashing a rocket into the object won't do it--only a nuclear explosion on the surface would blow off enough material. But such a move would be risky. The latest scientific evidence suggests that most asteroids and comets are quite fragile. Instead of deflecting the object, a surface explosion might fracture it into dozens of large pieces that could head toward Earth on the same trajectory as before. And some scientists believe that a shower of fair-sized chunks would be more devastating to Earth than if the original object were left alone.


Tungsten bullets:

Here's how it would work: Say an asteroid is racing toward Earth at a typical speed of 67,000 miles per hour. If a dense tungsten bullet hit the asteroid at that speed, it would dig a deep hole into the asteroid's surface, vaporizing itself in the process. If another tungsten bullet was following directly behind the first one, it would travel into the hole and dig a little deeper. And if a whole string of tungsten bullets were properly aligned, they'd drill a hole right through the asteroid.

Now imagine hundreds of thousands of tungsten bullets strung together by lightweight fiber to form a 3-dimensional lattice. If such a structure were deployed in front of a speeding asteroid, it would slice and dice the asteroid into small, harmless rocks. At the Livermore conference, this proposal came to be known as the kinetic-energy cookie cutter. It would work just as well on comets, which are believed to be made mostly of ice.

With the bullets weighing about 3/4 oz. each, a lattice containing several million of them could be launched into space using a heavy-lift rocket like the Russian Energia. Such a lattice would be big enough to pulverize the smaller asteroids and comets, those with diameters of about 600 ft.