Negr, explain Chernobyl and refute Nuke asteroid defense.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by Negr

Oh my... Please, don't speak about the things you TOTALLY misunderstand, ok?

: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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

<...> 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

[joea]

Originally Posted by Negr

***
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

:rotfl: