🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov5.005936.9684@reed.edu> reeder@reed.edu (P. Douglas Reeder) writes:
>In article <Bx4o8E.Ax4@alsvid.une.edu.au> rbyrnes@alsvid.une.edu.au (Rod Byrnes) writes:
>:Any other ideas are also eagerly accepted. One reply mentioned in a humorous
>:fashion the use of a nuclear reactor. I guess this is a totally ridiculous
>:line of approach, but to be honest, I don't really know what the state of the
>:art in nuclear power involves. 
>
>Nuclear power is a good choice for power in space.  According to the
>  [ stuff deleted ]
>Generator (RTG)."  For terrestrial uses, I doubt nuclear is a viable
>choice, for the same reasons we don't have nuclear powered cars.



And for those of you who don't know, the reason is that you either
need a very LARGE vehicle (to isolate the reactor physically) or a
great deal of shielding, which starts a vicious circle of increasing
the size and weight -> needing more power -> larger reactor ->
more radiation -> more shielding -> and so on.  Curiously, this 
ends up being much like the first case (a large vehicle), although
not quite so large.  This is why nuclear power has been practical
for submarines (and surface seagoing vessels, too, although not
much has been done), since they can be quite large and still be
useful.  As far as land vehicles are concerned, one could
certainly envision a huge vehicle to traverse deserts and tundra,
where there are minimal obstacles to avoid and relatively little
interaction with human settlements, but first there would have
to be a practical need for such a vehicle.




-- 
Tom Collins                               tom.collins@ee.gatech.edu
Georgia Institute of Technology           (404) 894-2509
400 Tenth St. NW, CRB 384
Atlanta, GA  30332-0540