[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] nuclear psub?
i think he means that since he suggested he might be doing something that
requires using WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM that might possibly be a threat to
national security... you know he might try to blow up chicago for all the
C.O. knows. or if terrorists got their hands on that... i doubt you would
want that to happen.
>From: "Gregory Snyder" <gsnyder@mn.rr.com>
>Reply-To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
>Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] nuclear psub?
>Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 16:35:26 -0600
>
>Hi Dale - Interesting Post.
>Just so I understand, you are a non-commissioned officer in the Army
>reserves and you have to report to your commander that you participate
>in a web page dedicated to discussing submarines for personal use, and
>one of the members commented that it is "disturbingly simple" to make a
>reactor.
>
>Am I to understand correctly that in your opinion ( and by inference,
>that of the Army), you now have to report Nero's comment to your C.O.?
>If this is the case, then two comments. 1> I join Nero in commenting
>that yes, given the amount of literature available in our public
>libraries and on the internet, It would be relatively easy to build a
>reactor in theory. And 2> As a republican voting, flag flying, NRA
>member, eagle scout - I think that your feeling a need to report these
>statements and your C.O.'s pretense to care would be a waste of our
>militaries time in a period when resources are limited enough, not to
>mention making me a little uncomfortable about infringements on our
>first amendment right to free speech and assembly (i.e. Virtual
>assembly).
>
>I hope that I misunderstood your comments.
>
>For the record, The only person I ever have to report to is my wife, who
>is convinced that the fiberglass hull in the garage will someday become
>a stylish flower planted. I show her pictures of Carsten's sub when she
>complains that it is hard for her to get her car in the garage next to
>the sub hull. Thanks Carsten!
>
>Best wishes for a New Year to all.
>Greg Snyder
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>[mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of Dale A. Raby
>Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 3:56 PM
>To: PSUBS.org mailing list
>Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] nuclear psub?
>
>Hey, now.... wouldn't that be cool. The reactors on board some of those
>old space probes launched in the sixties are still producing current
>from their thermocouples in atomic piles... tiny ones at that...after
>all these years.
>
>Here's the problem... such little reactors generally use weapons grade
>reaction mass... and even when they don't they are still carefully
>controlled by various government agencies. There is radiation shielding
>and all the danger from not containing the reaction properly.
>
>Then there is the problem with people like Saddam wanting to grab your
>sub for a source of fissionable material... oh, and did I mention this?
>I am a US Army Reserve NCO, and bound to report such things to my
>commander... though I suspect he'd get a good laugh out of this one.
>
>I find it interesting though that in the 40 odd years since the
>Nautilus, that there are still military submersibles being made with
>diesel/electric propulsion. Economies of scale, I'd guess.
>
>On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 14:59, Nero Wolfe wrote:
>I was at the University of Chicago today and i saw the monument to
>enrico firmi's CP-1. Chicago Pile 1 was a big pile of graphite and
>unenriched uranium... Litterally a pile. This got me thinking... A
>reactor is disturbingly simple. I think you know where I'm going on
>this.... The technology is simpler than cartsens boat...
>
>
>Dale A. Raby
>Editor/Publisher
>The Green Bay Web
>http://www.thegreenbayweb.com
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus