Would you feel safer if we created muclear reactors within rockets where on signs of problem would l

aunch it far away?

Power reactors are extremely large machines containing several hundred tonnes of uranium dioxide and hundreds of tonnes of water. Even if all the support structure and equipment was excluded it's not practical to launch that into space. Also it would probably be even more dangerous because there is a chance the rocket could fail.

well and what is producing a bunch of electricity on a rocket supposed to do exactly?

Generally in space one needs THRUST not POWER to move oneself. just FYI

To what end? Having a bunch of reactors floating around in space? Or is it implied that the energy generated would be beamed to Earth based receptors via microwaves? In case of the latter, I'm not sure I would feel too safe knowing that all that energy is beaming to a spot on Earth. Probably asking for more trouble than it's worth.

By the way, you have a lot of strange ideas. Have you considered going to engineering school to refine these ideas and make something of them? Has anything you've posted on ATS come to fruition yet?

Yes. I would feel much safer. Good point you bring up. I wonder why they haven't brought this to the old JPL/NASA table already. It makes perfect sense. Using 20th century rocket science even, you can engineer multiple solid fuel rockets to be attacked to a platform, use a nano-polymer (possibly carbon nano-tubes?) to replace the concrete, and everything else so that the only heavy thing on the reactor platform is the ore itself. In case there was a nuclear event, just press a button, and it sends the entire nuclear reactor platform into orbit, and away from the earth utilizing the necessary amount of said attached rockets to this platform. The only problem I see, is the concrete dome replacement, and stability of launching a rectangle shaped platform without some sort of complex gyroscopic stabilizing device which would also add weight, and then the energy transfer to fuel the gyro motors would entail large and very heavy batteries for the flight stabilization, because it's not just a cone/rod shape going up, it's a large rectangular platform going up. There are a few minor engineering obstacles that to be overcome, but other than that, it's possible, so in adding that, yes. I would feel much more safe if we had the ability to launch anything potentially deadly straight up into space. Maybe we can put our nuclear reactors in space, and have a really long tether that was coated with a polymer acrylic/ceramic resin to withstand friction in the atmosphere, have it dangle from space, then as it drags across the globe, have it run against a track that would attract the current, store and disperse it. If we can do this, then we won't have to worry about the little engineering feat back on earth needed to launch our reactors into space. You are right, miniaturizing the reactors is key to safety, if we make them smaller, we can just put a reactor in a rocket, and shoot it right out of the dang earth's orbit. Good idea!

reply to post by ZeroReady


I've read a little about this and did not think it was large; the part that was threatening if was to become as that. But if it is; then there sould be ways that it could be maybe split into many smaller portions as then it could be launched into outer space and I am sure that there would be less of a threat then. I don't know; it was just an idea and I get many of them; constaintly. I cannot be expected to always be sure on facts and figures and I am only sharing my thoughts in effort to entertain and maybe broaden our thinkings.

reply to post by MichelJCardin


I've always wondered why they don't shoot all the spent fuel into space.

Apart from the risk of the rocket not making it out of the atmosphere.

I'm thinking of Star Trek when the warp drive would fail and they would eject it into space.
Is that basically what you're saying?
What if the reactors were built with some kind of system where upon a probable meltdown the dangerous parts could be lowered deep underground?

reply to post by tlasalt


the government has mag prop so there would be no danger on doing that but its to right so why do it the gunpowder might cost more lol then putting it in a mountain anyways maybe someone else said no like the grays well never know remember that movie

reply to post by 2PLUS2IS22
That is exactly what I'm talking about; if someone posts an idea; there always may have a chance that one of us knows exactly what we are talking about and we may with less time spent apon issues or subject learn more. Cheers.

And on that of the problem with prepultion; maybe use the reactor's overheating's cooling with water to do so. Just a thought of course.
Funny how I post these at times and they instead of sci and tech end up here.LOL go figure.

reply to post by C0bzz


OMG i would actually feel great if they had Mucleur weapons..I would muck and duver for safety..lol

reply to post by tlasalt
Just like how nuclear power itself has been working out in some cases recently - it's a great idea *in theory*.

If we were in deep space on a space station or some such, I would be much more comfortable with the idea, but as you mentioned rocket failures, yeah...having a lot of nuclear material falling back to earth and dispersing over wide (and possibly heavily-populated) areas just terrifies me to think about.

In a perfect scenario where nothing would ever go wrong, nuclear power is fantastic...unfortunately we don't have that, and the downsides are quite significant. What do you really do with something that will be radioactive for thousands or millions of years? We're just going to keep piling it up somewhere and hope for the best, egads...