[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] nuclear psub?
Here, Here. I agree. This is not even an issue until someone actually builds a nuclear sub. Gimme a break. The size and cost
would be beyond anyone of us...even for a super-simple to-the-point-of-being-hazardous nuclear sub. The only one here who
COULD pull it off is Carsten...Just kidding, by the way. (Note: I am also Flag-flying patriotic and a life NRA member). We
ALL have the right to talk about it...Just not the right to DO it.
Warren.
> 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
>
<< image001.gif >>
<< image001.gif >>
<< image001.gif >>
<< image001.gif >>
<< image001.gif >>
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze