4 ms·

If they're launching it over the ocean (they would be, if they were launching from Kennedy or Vandenberg) they could just say "YOLO" and let the reactor fall in

If they're launching it over the ocean (they would be, if they were launching from Kennedy or Vandenberg) they could just say "YOLO" and let the reactor fall into the ocean. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a nuclear reactor was dumped into the ocean (either by accident or deliberately.) It's obviously not a popular thing to do, but ocean water does provide a lot of shielding.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(1957_icebreaker)#Nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(1957_icebreaker)#Nuclea...

CydeWeys 6y ago
Doesn't solve the problem of it blowing up on the pad, or near the pad while still over land, or crashing into land. Rockets have gone the wrong way before and been intentionally self-exploded mid-air.
- catalogia 6y ago
  While true, a reactor blown up over land would also be simpler to clean up; while a reactor scattered over the ocean bed would be easier to leave in place.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    "Simpler" here is relative. It would probably still cost billions of dollars and would create enough of a PR disaster to permanently forestall an NTR from ever launching again.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dwheeler 6y ago
Water is incredibly good at radiation shielding. An awesome description of this is here: https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Water is not remotely as good as lead is by mass as a radiation shield. If you aren't already hauling many cubic meters of water for other reasons (and you wouldn't be), it absolutely wouldn't make sense to bring it along solely for that purpose. Water also has the severe problem of being liquid at habitable temperatures, so you either have to continuously spend energy to freeze it or deal with absolutely ruinous slosh. The linked article is talking about the radiation shielding properties of what essentially amounts to a large swimming pool's worth of water. You know how much that would weigh?? Water is not a good radiation shield, it's just cheap here on Earth, so we use large quantities of it in applications where weight doesn't matter.

CydeWeys 6y ago

Doesn't solve the problem of it blowing up on the pad, or near the pad while still over land, or crashing into land. Rockets have gone the wrong way before and been intentionally self-exploded mid-air.

catalogia 6y ago
While true, a reactor blown up over land would also be simpler to clean up; while a reactor scattered over the ocean bed would be easier to leave in place.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  "Simpler" here is relative. It would probably still cost billions of dollars and would create enough of a PR disaster to permanently forestall an NTR from ever launching again.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dwheeler 6y ago

Water is incredibly good at radiation shielding. An awesome description of this is here: https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

CydeWeys 6y ago
Water is not remotely as good as lead is by mass as a radiation shield. If you aren't already hauling many cubic meters of water for other reasons (and you wouldn't be), it absolutely wouldn't make sense to bring it along solely for that purpose. Water also has the severe problem of being liquid at habitable temperatures, so you either have to continuously spend energy to freeze it or deal with absolutely ruinous slosh. The linked article is talking about the radiation shielding properties of what essentially amounts to a large swimming pool's worth of water. You know how much that would weigh?? Water is not a good radiation shield, it's just cheap here on Earth, so we use large quantities of it in applications where weight doesn't matter.