6418 posts • joined Wednesday 10th June 2009 19:28 GMT
- ← Prev
- Next →
Some notes on the ORNL Molten Salt *Breeder* reactor and chemcial plant. study
Oak Ridge worked up a design for a 1GW molten salt *breeder* in the early 1970s. The report is archived at http://www.moltensalt.org/references/static/downloads/pdf/index.html ORNL-4812. "development status of molten-salt breeder reactors" I've skimmed it.
The Bismuth separation process allows 1 salt mixture to hold both U233 and Thorium to act as both the core and the blanket provided the moderator layout is properly chosen.. This makes *all* of the MSRE experience applicable and the Bismuth process a real game changer.
Flow through the reactor core was 55000 gallons per minute, *but* the flow through the processing plant is 1 (US) gallon per minute. Whole inventory cycles through reprocessing every 10 days.
Fissile Uranium inventory is listed as 1500Kg.
Thorium inventory is 68000Kg
Fuel doubling time is 19yrs.
Graphite parts need replacing every 4 years if Graphite properties *no* better than those in the MSRE are available (Graphite or reinforced carbon carbon is now used in aircraft brake linings. I suspect some grade have *much* better properties)
Some processing tanks were expected to made of graphite.
Processing plant input was at 1050F/566c which is output temperature from the core.
Bismuth cycle operates at 500-700c and its MP is 271c
Heat transfer from reactor is to a sodium/Potassium fluoride mix then steam generation at 3500psi (modern approaches talk about driving a gas turbine using hot Helium or Nitrogen).
The chemical cycle works a series of swaps between the reactor salt, Bismuth and a Lithium Chloride/Bromide mix, preceeded by spraying the reactor salt mix with Fluorine to salt out 99% of the Uranium.
The structure where this happens is kept cold enough to leave a layer of metal fluorides on the metal surface, hence a "Frozen" flourinator.
Fluorinator (ORNL spelling) is 8" dia x 15' high. Protactinium column is 3" dia and 15 ' high.
The rare earth columns are 7" to 13" in dia. *None* of these is particularly large WRT the bulk chemicals industry. Note they would all need radiation shielding so the layout would not be as compact as you might hope, but we are not talking a warehouse sized structure either.
Graphite to survive in the reactor without replacement would have to resist damage at a total fluence of 3x10^23 neutrons per cm^2 (described as roughly 10x what available grades could survive in 1970)and a gas permeability of < 3x10^-8 cm^2/sec of STP He, implying pores of c10nm dia, requiring at least a surface layer of fine grained graphite.
This is a *landmark* study from people who had spent a *lot* of effort (its > 400 pages long). Sadly a follow up document from ORNL "molten salt reactor technology gaps" keeps coming up "Forbidden" and should make *very* interesting reading to see how people's views have changed in 40 years.
These do not sound like show stoppers to me. Experience of Kr and Xe stripping was that the process was straightforward. The protactinium separation column is not huge, nor are the rare earth metals (IIRC you'd need 3 for 2+,3+ and 4+ oxidation states) You're looking at a 2 storey building, but provide you don't have shielding *between* the colums perhaps quite a small 2 storey building.
Possibly the *big* disappointment was the 19 years to double the fuel inventory. Note that implies *no* more U233 available from outside, which is unrealistic. OTOH the ability to operate both as a regular and as a breeder seems to be a very *practical* benefit avoiding a bet you whole operation on weather you need one or other type, especially as so far the answer has been we need *no* breeders at this time.
"You can't possibly argue it on aesthetics. Cooling towers are uglier than your mum."
I quite like the shape. They same quite graceful. But they could do with a paint job.
"Cooling towers are uglier than your mum."
This I'm not so sure about.
"A thorium-u233 makes roughly the same quantities of waste as a "classic" u 238-Pu239/240 cycle - thorium protagonists have a nasty habit of failing to compare like with like - they compare a "once through" cycle for uranium fuelled plant with a recycling-based approach for the thorium plant."
What *kind* of molten salt reactor are you talking about?
Molten salt fueled/cooled or molten salt moderated? AFAIK the Gen IV "Molten Salt" proposal just uses a molten salt as a coolant with all the usual paraphernalia of a conventional reactor.
I'll declare my hand - I think the Thorium-U233 cycle has potential
I'm glad you made that clear. It's pretty well hidden otherwise.
Let's be clear - making a thorium cycle work is hard, even if you use a throrium cycle in "conventional" (and that's stretching the normal use of the word) fast reactors.
True. The MSRE did *not* incorporate breeding of Thorium.
"More usually, the enthusiasts go further - they argue for a cycle based on thermal breeding in a molten-salt system."
Not to do so eliminates some of the *key* advantages of a molten salt reactor (IE one where the salt is both coolant and *fuel*).
"The neutron economy of such a system is utterly marginal - a 1% variation in the ability to extract fission products from the salt makes the difference between it producing surplus fuel, and needing continual top-ups."
The key one of which seems to be Xe135. The ability to purge the reactor of this was *the* key reason for designing a molten salt reactor (as part of the nuclear powered bomber programme) in the first place. And AFAIK the MSRE did *not* require top ups of Uranium. However as it did not including the breeding function this merely says a non breeder can be designed well enough *not* to need a top up.
"Worse, making a molten salt system works requires, a large scale and complex chemical processing plant to be added on to a reactor. A Molten Salt Breeder Reactor (MSBR) won't work if you let just a few percent of the siffion products (like Xenon) stay in the fuel - you need 95% plus efficient extraction on every circuit of the fuel."
I looked for "siffion" products but found nothing so I'll assume you mean fission products.
MSRE indicated both Xe and Kr poisons could be efficiently stripped by spraying the salt in a small chamber with an atmosphere of Helium. Both came *readily* out of the salt mix for later absorption onto carbon bed filters to be retained till their decay products could be released into the atmosphere.
" Worse, you HAVE to get out 90% or more of the intermediate between thorium and uranium on every cycle - protactinium. And to get that out will involve delights like passing 800C flouride-uranium salts through a column of molten bismuth, then extracting the protactinium frojm the bismuth somehow."
AFAIK already worked out. The description I'm aware of was a 1GW station would need A 4m (14 feet) high column. my experience of the chemical industry is that a 14 foot high column at probably a few atm (I'd expect it to operate near the same pressure as the core) is not *that* big a deal *despite* the temperature, which I would expect to be *lower* than the core in any case. This hardly compare to reactors for Ammonia or Nitric acid, typically running at 300-400atm, c300c and maybe 8-12 feet wide and 50-100feet high.
"Here's one for the enthusiasts - once the uranium is "bred" in the fuel/salt mixture (and leaving aside the delights of managing two such circuits, one for the fuel, and one for the breeder blanket), you have to get it out."
This *is* a reasonable concern and something which has not been demonstrated.Its complexity is the reason the MSRE did not include the breeding process. *However* the separation process is *well* understood using a combination of adding fluorine and distillation, *provided* you do have 2 separate circuits. The unavailability of a material with sufficient hot strength and chemical and radiation resistance at the preferred temperature was what stopped the MSRE testing this. Metallurgy has improved a bit in 40 years.
" And to do that, you have to bubble fluorine - that well known non-reactive and benign gas - through that same 800C molten uranium salt, then capture the resulting uranium hexaflouride. "Hex" is not only "hot" both thermally, and radiologically, but it's venomously corrosive - the separation membranes in enrichment plants have to be made of pure (99.9% plus) nickel to withstand it, and even then last only a few years."
As you point out this is *known* technology from the Uranium enrichment industry. Agressive certainly but *well* within the state of the art. Note also the "freeze valves" developed for MSRE would allow parallel processing columns (if needed) to be isolated for maintenance and replacement
And yes, it has virtues - thorium abundance, and potentially, it can be "drained down" in an accident. Bit that still means you have to remove decay heat from a couple of thousand tonnes of fuel mixture (more than in a conventional reactor), and have secure cooling and storage for the chemical plant and fission product inventory.
I'd doubt that. The MSRE salt mix density was 2300 Kg/m^3. Given that's lower than Aluminum and the *entire* volume of the MSRE (with no space taken up by the actual graphite moderator) would come to about 5500 Kg, with a maximum thermal output of 8MW I'd say 100x bigger would give c550 tonnes, so a 1GW (common size of power plant) reactor would have to be *very* badly designed to need more than a 1000 tonnes of salt .
As I said, it might have potential - but compared to something like a lead-cooled fast reactor, which have already been built in considerable numbers - the Soviets used them to power the "Alfa" class subs - doesn it look like an obvious route? Hardly...
You are aware that the design you're describing actually uses a lead/*bismuth* alloy?
It's major features being an ability to operate with natural convection in a "stealth" mode which is handy on a naval submarine. and will fail "badly" if the coolant freezes in the tubes.It's got *all* the issues conventional reactors have with fuel element design/certifcation and Xe135 and Kr reactor poisons, *without* the ability to irradiate decay products to *much* shorter lived elements, possibly *the* key benefit of this design if you want to have a nuclear fuel *cycle* instead of the burn/store arrangements most countries seem to have at present.
On the subject of the Alpha reactors for re-processing didn't the USSR just *dump* the cores at the end of life?
I'm not arguing, merely commenting that the phrase "Molten salt reactor" if used loosely has more than 1 meaning.
In case you haven't seen it this is the description of the work written by one of the team shortly after the MSRE. worth reading for the good, the bad and the could have been better.
"My Brothers-in-Law, both doctors, have been making this point for bloody years. It's all very well going private for elective surgery, but if you've got something seriously wrong with you, all they'll do is pay to use the NHS's resources to fix you anyway."
And in the case of BUPA if they f**k up your operation they'll dump you back at the nearest NHS hospital and won't pay a penny to any work they have to do.
At least that was their position some time ago. I'd *love* to know if they still play that game.
Joking aside you make some valid points.
"They've been stagnating for coming on 30 years now. That tech hasn't much improved and hasn't become more reliable and hasn't made flying to space all that easier."
Actually it has not been *seriously* updated since it was designed. There have been individual *subsystem* tweaks (some pretty expensive) but the *real* game changers need wholesale changes, a budget to make them and a management prepared to take the *risk* that they *might* fail (although there is a *lot* than can be done to dry run those changes before being actioned). Possibly the *biggest* issue was they'd have to certify the design from scratch again.
" The fscking blue prints aren't even in metric."
And (certainly for the main engines) they still *are* blueprints (and microfiche). No neat CAD files that can be piped into a CFD programme to test out improvements.
"The poor things should've been put out of our misery 20 years back"
NASA has tried this on *several* occasions. Their last serious outing was in the early 90s and called the X33. It transferred $1.1Bn to LockMart and resulted in *no* flight vehicle.
LockMart had an expendable rocket business and made *much* bigger investment promises (concerning the planned "commercial" vehicle that would have been *derived* from X33) than its competitors, who would have become *new* competitors had they won.
It hoovered up the cash and, eliminated any *real* competition so that 20 years later it still launches payloads on very expensive expendable rockets. "So sorry. Who knew how hard it would be to do? Come back when you've got a bit more money to try again"
Right out of the Dick Jones management play book.
"Where is the replacement shuttle?"
"One with less parts, if that's the way to make it more reliable, cheaper, and quicker to run again."
That's certainly *one* of the ways to do it. There are at least *several* NASA studies on how to make a better shuttle, or even how to just re-implement the *architecture* better. Cutting down the number of separate fluids (and grades of fluid) would also help a lot.
" Recall that this vehicle was to be re-usable. It is, after a fashion. "
Refurbishable is *much* nearer the mark. Reusable sort of implies a wipe down and refilling the tanks (on the current design there are around 60 of them, many doing non obvious things).
"It's not efficient, not economical, not easy to launch, and a whole host of other things it also isn't. "Useful", for one.
Actually it has its uses. It is the only *US* vehicle *allowed* to carry crew to the ISS, and it's full payload of c55 000lb is at the *top* end of launch vehicles.
"_The Spirit of St. Louis_ did a, for that time, unimaginably big thing. But you can't run an airline service with it."
"Poor counters to the observation that we're still stuck with the "we can go into space with a lot of trouble, maybe, if the celestial AND earthly weather's just right" age and -mindset."
Note that is a US centric mind set. The Russians have launched in near gales. BTW despite it's c$6Bn price tag the Shuttle is not certified for instrument landings so it's not just *perfect* weather at Kennedy for the takeoff, it's also perfect weather at the *emergency* landing sites and Kennedy in case anything goes wrong. It's gotten a bit better about high altitude winds (they can hit 100Knots) due to revised control constants uploaded to the flight software about 2 hrs before flight.
NASA has been traditionally about 2 things. Performance uber alles and being both customer *and* major contractor. This has lead to designs that are *fragile* (especially when some of their suppliers don't deliver on their specs, as happened with both SSME and the solid fuel boosters on the Shuttle) and designs chopped and changed to meet the (set yearly) NASA budget, stretching out say a 3 yr programme to a 5 yr programme.
"As the odds would inexplicably have it, I am one of the seven billion odd minus 7 other people."
Only if you assume that the only way in to space is on a vehicle designed and partly built by the US government. That position is no longer true.
You're quite correct if you think that most of the "reasons" why space travel is *so* expensive sound like excuses it's because they *are*.
There has been *very* little competition in space launch. Note BTW that *no* existing US supplier has looked at offering transport to the ISS. Only the Russians (who needed the money) did not see anything *inherently* bad about the idea of space tourism.
It has taken a complete outsider from the hotel business (Robert Bigelow) to actually start *building* an orbital hotel, having acquired the core technology from NASA, who (along with Big Aerospace) managed to do *nothing* with it.
For a country that prides itself on being a classless society the US has probably the *most* elitist (and not in a good way) space programme on Earth.
That is *starting* to change.
Some parts of NASA are helping. Some parts (with substantial Congressional and Senate assistance) are (how to put this delicately) not.
Americans in space does not *have* to mean NASA, ex-test pilot or PhD.
Space is a place, not a programme.
Sell the product, design it later
Collect revenue $$
Think about the security aspects later.
Now how many *other* PD's have this hardware this badly configured?
TBF We will have to see if they behave like a *responsible* company (issue advisory notices/upgrades) or play CMA and go "It's all in your mind. I can't year you. Lalalalalalalal"
But so far....
10 *years* of commercially available robots
I know they are quite specialized and each do 1 job but this company has been accumulating 10 years of experience in their design (which seems like it could do with some improvement) and operations.
Does anyone get a sense that what is needed is some kind of "core" package (motors, sensors, battery, etc) with a replaceable section to handle *specific* tasks?
I note the wheels *might* be an issue here given the radically different surfaces they are operating over.
But still. An impressive example of how the "future" can sneak up on you.
Hosting an anti-corruption blog on an ISP in the *country* you are blogging about
Is quite risky.
*Especially* if you blogging about corruption amongst that countries police and security services.
There are *no* exceptions to this rule.
I can't believe I missed the Rep Senator for Utah.
Home state of Thikol, the maker of the Shuttle SRBs and just about the worst location to set up a factory to produce a *large* solid fueled booster rocket *unless* you plan to launch on site.
His rabid support for the SLS and "Libety" concepts has been especially unimpressive.
No suggestion of a reasoned debate here.
More the Mayor in Robocop (without a request for a car that has really sh***y gas mileage).
A full blown pacifier ejection event in progress.
The Augustine commission noted that to carry out the Shrubs plan to return to the moon would take a *real* increase in the NASA budget (excluding inflation) of 50%. Their message to the Senate and the Congress was If you want to do this give them the *real* money necessary to do it or stop forcing them to look at it and keep working on it.
American readers might like to contact their relevant representatives (particularly their Congress people) and ask them why they are forcing NASA to continue to develop Ares (roughly 75% of the original budget) when they were asked *not* to by the president.
The Matt Bryant situation
Sadly the Reg does not support a kill file.
My intuition is we are dealing either with a troll or someone who's mental state (for whatever reason) leaves them blind to any argument on reasonable behavior or common humanity.
Feeding time is over. Do not feed.
"the territory of Northern Ireland was under British law UK Parliamentary control before the start of "the troubles" and remained so after the 1998 Agreement"
No. Roughly 1922-1972 Northern Ireland *was* a devolved government run from Stormont Castle, with a "Governor" rather more like Honk Kong but the people retained the right to elect MP's to the House of Commons. This was suspended in 1972 and direct rule from Westminster instituted. Rule from Stormont was re-instituted under different rules from 1998 onward.
"A simple comparison shows the Brits "won" as they restored order and prevented control of Northern Ireland falling into Southern Irish hands, whilst the IRA definately had to abandon their priciple objective "
Wrong. The Sein Fein still want a united Ireland. They have accepted that the merger would only happen if the *majority* on *both* sides of the border want it. BTW the referendum for the 1998 agreement took place on *both* sides of the border between NI and the Republic.
"That is much more relevant to the arguments saying that every Gitmo detainee will become a "dedicated terrorists" that will never accept defeat."
Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
MP's tipped off to hashish use by "Spc. Justin Stoner,"
Gotta love that.
Their other behavior was rather less amusing.
BTW is'nt access to Sky's EPG the same issue as access to BBC Canvas EPG?
I think they might be related.
Remeber it's not the *application* that matters
It's what's on the computer *running* the app that can discovered or trashed once an outsider has gained access. That would be the *minimum* damage that could be done. If they can down load stuff or upload your files it's *much* worse
TBF maybe the company has never had a bug reported to them in this way and responded badly.
OTOH maybe others *have* tried to report bugs (and there fixes) to them and been dealt with the same way and have stopped *bothering* to help them.
Fail because in business you can *never* have too many helpful friends and they seem to have managed to turn a friend into at best someone who will not *bother* reporting any more bugs to them or (worse case) someone who is actively hostile toward them.
Poor management response. V. poor.
Cranky to the last.
Just one more reason for a unified fuel cell/APU/OMS/RCS system. Ideally running on propellant grade LO2/LH2.
Neither *need* a working heater. They will happily boil due to the warmth of the surrounding structure.
I hope *all* designers of future space transport are taking notes.
Not a good result, but *hopefully* a wakeup call to Amazon.
Change management is *tricky*.
Testing an upgrade/configuration plan *before* you do it might be a good idea.
Manual changes are error prone.
Customers who designed *proper* architectures did not fall over.
This might *seem* to put some blame on the customers but part of why MS stays in business is the way it looks after the *non* tech savvy customers. How much it saves them from their *own* ignorance and unwillingness to learn about the stuff they use.
I hope Amazon learn a *lot* from this failure. Offering near mainframe levels of reliability is hard. Especially at a price in a competitive market. I suspect they will loose customers from this event.
It's a matter of customer *trust*. Time will tell how much they have lost.
"forcibly sterilise the entire population of the world,"
The device for this is largish nuclear weapon with a Cobalt casing detonated in the jetstream.
I read about it at my HS in a book written in the late 50s.
IIRC it was estimated it would take 4.5 days to circle the Earth and Co60 has a half life of 5.4 years.
Co60 is a gamma ray emitter used to sterilize potatoes. It's effect on higher life forms was expected to be equally shriveling.
They called it a doomsday device.
I think you can see why.
the rocket may be on its's way
I don't think the current Falcon 9 has the grunt to get a big enough lander to lunar orbit but it's successor the Falcon 9 Heavy should be.
Now if they are willing to take the gamble and be on board for the first launch they would probably save themselves *quite* a bit of cash. Elon Musk has said they have no primary payload at the moment...............
"years with full stripdown service with some renewal after 10 years) at 30-40% efficiency then their payback is pretty bloody crap. "
The Register has mentioned before that large wind generation companies work on the basis that a windmill will generate power 26% of the time (30% offshore)
However at least 1 site listed in an Andrew Orlwoski article was 1 wind mill showing 5% (roughly 19days a year) operating time.
The actual *electrical* generator is something like 96% efficient (when it's working of course).
A *full* accounting on "Green" energy would need to factor in *all* carbon emissions from the supply chain (For example until a few weeks ago *all* current UK windmill towers were made in China) *and* the carbon footprint of the *backup* system that will have to step in.
connecting ATM's to the internet
Oh yes. What could *possibly* go wrong with that idea?
I wonder how much Netware specific code exists
As in "Netware Loadable Modules" running apps on the Server.
It's all about the API.
IIRC Novell said they were preserving the API's but the underlying sofware was shifting to Linux.
So dead or simply evolving?
Always had a soft spot for them against MS. I like to think of them as the Utah Saints.
The result of multiple "Business friendly" administrations
A Supreme court that will be *very* sympathetic to their PoV.
Not *actually* corrupt you understand.
Just *very* sympathetic.
And it would seem inconsistent (State Vs Federal looses when *not* in the interests of business, but wins when it is).
"Openreach exists to allow rival operators access to BT's infrastructure as part of an agreement with Ofcom. I would not be at all surprised if BT eventually spins Openreach off as a separate company (think National Grid for telecommunications)."
That should happened *long* ago.
As a division the sense that BT gets just that *little* bit better service when it's got its ISP hat on is hard to get rid of.
Note that Skye has *no* ducts of it's own.
So this is a win win for them.
Sink a bit of money in this "trial" (while BT prices real landline based competitors out, which seem to be the thrust of their competitors argument about access charges).
Get browny points off BT.
Stuff Virginmedia. Interesting point that in fact this is "Virgin" in name only, like their mobile service someone else does the *actual* work.
They've heard of it.
Good icons are *tough* but I have a few ideas.
Most of them should be *timeless*. XX is good/XX is bad. Well there are *plenty* of people who divide opinions like that. The saints/sinners list changes over time (Larry Ellison and Peter Norton would probably be on it and might still deserve to be) .but the fact they divide peoples *opinions* on them *never* changes.
I'm not sure how to handle this one but perhaps a general "Halo" and "Horns with trident" pair (with who should be wearing them depending on what the stories about) might do it.
Question mark for "I don't get what the poster/author is trying to say or why"
Gimp mask from Pulp Fiction for both "you're a total fanbois" and their account/website/company has been pwnd and is completely under outside control. Either you're a gimp or you've been gimped.
I'd like something a bit more timeless than the Paris Hilton one but I'm not sure who. They'd have to be well know for being vacuous on both sides of the Atlantic. Marilyn Monroe perhaps?
Marie Antoniete with "Let them eat cake" has the right tone but might be a bit high brow.
Remember *Nothing* dates faster than ideas about the future.
I'm thinking something a bit more general purpose.
1) Total fanbois *completely* under the control of Apple/Google/Linux/Microsoft/etc
2)User/site/company totally pwnd by virus/worm attack.
I give you the Gimp face mask from Pulp Fiction.
Stood the test of time.
Leaves people in no doubt what you think of them.
Note this is £50m on 3 *months* business
That's better than 43% profit margin.
The book "Fabless semiconductor implementation" by Kumar indicates that a profit margin of 30-50% is usual in this industry. So a bit above the industry mean.
Tesco do about 6% while there competitors in the rest of Europe do about 5% for comparison.
I *like* ARM.
But I just wish there were more companies *like* it rather that it seeming to be the *sole* successful example of a *lasting* and growing UK wafererless fab. Zetex got bought by Diodes In of Texas some time back so I don't think there are *any* UK owned wafer fab operations *left* in the UK.*
*But I'd happily be proven wrong.
Good point on drone comm links
The US thought that John Afghan could *never* read their drones video feeds.
Turns out they were wrong.
Taking over control is *probably* too hard, *jamming* them (so it goes into some kind of safe mode, whatever that is) should *certainly* be possible.
They've been getting *more* autonomous (I think takeoff is now a canned procedure in some of them) but good enough to continue an attack *without* direct commands?
I think the force mix *should* be mostly drones. But humans in the loop and sometimes in the air give the *most* flexibility.
"To open up the frontier the government, decades later, invested in the railroads which provided frequent, reliable, and sustainable round trip capacity."
I'm not sure the US Gov actually *invested* in the building of the railroads.
AFAIK they made land grants to deal with the *route* but otherwise the railroads were *privately* financed. I recall that it was the ownership of this transport network by a *very* few large families (Van der Bilts and Rockerfellers?) that meant they could dictate prices for things like transporting oil. Sure they'd *let* competitors transport their goods, but at rates which were extortionate, slowly strangling the competition.
IIRC it was one of the triggers for the first anti trust/monopoly laws being enacted in the US.
It's always wise to check that we recall history as it *was*, rather than how we would like it to have been based on c140 year difference in PoV.
"Which all kinda neatly avoids the facf that the mainstream IRA eventually realised it could not win a protracted "war" with the UK and eventually settled for disarment and entry to the political system. "
You don't know much about the IRA's campaign or it's strategy.
Hint. It was known as "The Armorlite *and* the ballot box." "Disarmament" came a *long* time afterward. Nearly 2 *decades* after they tried to blow Margaret Thatcher into small pieces at Brighton and gave Norman Tebbit a steel plate in his head.
"So, obvioulsy, all those Irish "detainees" that you are convinced became life-long commited terrorists also accepted the solution ("
After they'd killed off a few 1000 men, women and children on both sides. Although in some cases I think some of the more extreme cases were put down by their own side in the end.
"(mustn't call it "defeat", the IRA sympathisers like to cling to the idea that they didn't "lose", despite their having failed to achieve any of their aims)."
another comment that show's your ignorance of the peace process.
As long as *no* one "won" everyone could get *part* of what they wanted. If someone *felt* they had won, everyone *else* would feel they had lost and it would all start again.
"It is illogical, but it is a fact" as Mr Spock would say.
"By that token, your argument is shown to be moot in the longrun."
Firstly it's not my argument. It's the analysis of the MoD based on 38 *years* of deployment.. Secondly it means that *not* interning a lot of people on *flimsy* evidence would have saved a *lot* of people they went on to kill and maim. It was also a knee jerk reaction that "Something *must* be done."
That does not make it moot. It makes it highly relevant.
I've noticed a certain vehemence in your posts which IRL i've seen from people who've either lost loved ones to terrorist incidents or lived with the *fear * of loosing them to such a situation. People who've lived *through* such incidents (I've only known one of those at second hand so my sample is limited) were just damm happy to still be alive.
That fear is expressed as a willingness to use unlimited levels of aggression and a complete abandonment of *any* sense of compassion or humanity towards their *perceived* enemy.
Are you supporting the US governments behaviour or trying to justify your own?
"Did I read that correctly? The Land of the Free imprisoned a FOURTEEN year old kidnap VICTIM to extract information from him?"
I guess they figured that the idea a fourteen YO might be a bit traumatized by being seized at gunpoint and threatened with death was IDG some sort of liberal tree hugging hippy crap.
A touch of death metal or some good old waterboarding and he'd soon recover his memory.
Does that sound as mad to you as it does to me?
I was sure the outfit that supplies all those Weathergirls lookalikes in uniform was called the Transport Security Administration, as it's a *direct* part of the government (like the 2nd A in NASA or NOAA)
Could I have been mistaken all these years.
The British tried it in the 1970s
In Northern Ireland.
It was called "Internment without trial" with people being detained on about the same level of evidence (EG annon message left on informant answering machine).
The MoD report on "Operation Banner" (the 38 year deployment of British troops in NI) stated this was the single *worst* mistake made by the UK govt in the campaign as it "Politicised a generation of young men."
They *might* have been terrorists before they went in.
But a hell of a lot more of them *wanted* to be when they came out. And quite a few of them did.
In the Guantánamo bay context if you knew a friendly cop and you could get 4x your *annual* salary in reward by turning in a "terrorist" wouldn't you be thinking about people you knew who were IDK a bit "suspicious" or at least "disposable"?
Had Obama shut this prison, release the ones who are *blatantly* innocent of *any* crime anywhere (89YO's with dementia make p**s poor suicide bombers) and had a *proper* trial of the rest he would have looked a strong brave leader.
99.95% uptime is 4 hrs 23 mins down time a year.
And it s a *service*
As in the service *provider* handles things, not you.
Part of "handle" being to keep customers (they people who are paying for this) informed in a way they can plan what to do next.
Is anyone seeing parallels with RSA?
Clever stuff this swarm technology.
A little bit of code on *every* Android
A few IP packets every now and then back to the chocolate factory.
Hey presto a *surprisingly* dense new dataset for Google to slice and dice for its customers collected by its users.
And unlike Earth view they did not even have to pay the drivers.
Android may be complimentary
It's not free.
@andrew jones 2
Nice summary. I note this *appears* to be opt in.
It wold seem that the only way to scupper this idea (if your Android does not collect the info, every other user Android does) would be to for WiFi operators to randomly reset their hardware and invalidate data that was collected before a certain date.
Personally I have a router with wireless as an option. I keep it disabled.
That might not be an option for other people.
"ts pretty easy really, its called rfakeap, you know you want to have a little fun with them .. as a bonus you could setup a few of these and use directional antennas to bounce 3 sets of fake APs off of various metal objects near your neighborhood. Or leave it running on your laptop as you drive around town broadcasting 50,000 fake MAC addresses."
You mean *poison* the chocolate factory.
"You might want to review your history too - Gagarin Flew in 1961. "
I stand corrected.
However NASA's formation in 1958 was partly (mostly?) triggered by the orbiting of Sputnik 1 in 1956. It started looking at ways to respond to this event *very* shortly afterward.
11 years from *no* successful launches to 2 men on the moon is still *very* impressive.
It's amazing what you can do *provided* money is *literally* no object.
I would maintain that Apollo's biggest legacy is that it *could* be done and the engineering data needed to tell future developers what you have to be able to *do* to repeat it.
*How* you meet those requirements determines if you can do it at an Apollo price tag or *considerably* cheaper.
Of course they take *their* data security seriously
Have spent so much time and effort "collecting" the data from their *users* they don't just want any potential *customer* to be able to send someone in and snaffle a copy of it, or rather the final product they derive from it.
I've seen this phenomenon before. Sometimes the business with the fairly low value transaction takes *much* better care of its IT infrastructure than one for whom IT is *supposedly* their core activity.
@Rober E A Harvey
". For God's sake, from Gagarin to Apollo's landing was barely 9 years,"
You might like to review your history.
Gagarin orbits the Earth 1956
NASA formed 1958
Apollo lands on the Moon 1969
9 years would be 1965. which would be about the time of Gemini.
"Yessir, but the atmosphere is about 1/100th the density."
I'd forgotten just *how* thin the Mars atmosphere is.
Re-read the article though and you realize it makes *no* mention of Dragons ability to make the entry, just that *if* it could the system they have got funding for will allow precision landing (yards, rather than fractions of a nautical mile).
The articles does not say what people *think* it says.
The press release on which it's based states the next version of the Dragon capsule will support a rocket assisted landing, which allows corrections *after* the parachutes (which are currently normal *round* ones for triple redundancy and which can be steered, but not to the extent a parafoil can be) are jettisoned.
While still limited this architecture has more flexibility than the Shuttle (it's not the *vehicle*. It's the 1600m pancake flat *runway* you need first. And of course all the other parts you'd need to get *back* to orbit).
In fact the release makes *no* mention of weather Dragons Picax TPS *could* survive an entry into say the Mars atmosphere. Although it can survive Earth entry from a Mars return. Just that once *implemented* the upgraded systems will allow *precision* landing. mUsk has described this as being like a helicopter landing pad.
BTW Draon parachutes are *not* stored at the top like Apollo (according to pictures in Dwayne Day's article in Spaceflight). They are stored roughly above the heat shield with the ropes running down the side of the capsule in channels which are blown off as part of the landing.
This keeps the top end clear for the fairly large diameter ISS docking port.
It also puts a big storage space just above the heat shield. Ideal *if* you wanted to replace the parachutes with some sort of rocket engine to land on something like the moon (or Phobos or Deimos perhaps). Something with a huge extensible nozzle that punches through the base (like the Stephne Baxter Mars vehicle modeled on the Chrysler SERVE design) Alternatively this *might* supply enough propellant storage space to fly the mission by fueling the thrusters while keeping the capsule heat shield end down.
Spacex has noted the *huge* cost savings to be had by making vehicles out of *slightly* different parts with *lots* of commonality. Continuing this chain of thought would have them stay with a Dragon capsule for landings but discarding it and moving to *another* Dragon for Earth landing.
Just a thought.
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Rogue Nokia splinter cell drops its Jolla phone A-BOMB
- Geek's Guide to Britain BT Tower is just a relic? Wrong: It relays 18,000hrs of telly daily
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Review: Sony Xperia SP
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex