Author Topic: China Attempted To Blind U.S. Satellites With Laser (Read 1793 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #60 on:** September 30, 2006, 06:36:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Satellites are too vulnerable. What we really need is a big airplane that can fly really fast over hostile territory. Paint it black, put some cameras on it. Voila.

Or one of the many super-stealthy UAVs with long range that are under development.

Viking · « **Reply #61 on:** September 30, 2006, 07:34:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

A photograph of one of the lava-flows formed by corium Fuel containing mass in the basement of the Chernobyl plant. 1 is the lava flow, 2 is concrete, 3 is a steam pipe and 4 is some electrical equipment

Something melted to allow "Fuel containing mass" to flow thru this piping...

Ok, but does that constitute a "nuclear meltdown"?

lukster · « **Reply #62 on:** September 30, 2006, 11:39:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
What nuclear meltdown would that be, Chernobyl? Contrary to common belief Chernobyl's 4th reactor did not melt down; it exploded (steam overpressure). The only known reactor meltdown happened at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979.

I guess the Soviet's efforts at coverup weren't so fruitless as I thought.

Three mile island was only a bit of unwanted venting. Are you seriously comparing the two?

lukster · « **Reply #63 on:** September 30, 2006, 12:02:20 PM »

If you want to compare the two nuclear power plant accidents here's a pretty good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island

"Aftermath

The full damage to the reactor core was not known for many years after the accident.

"The average radiation dose to people living within 10 miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by U.S. residents in a year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Viking · « **Reply #64 on:** September 30, 2006, 12:06:47 PM »

The Three Mile Island accident was a proper meltdown. The reactor core was destroyed and the plant was decommissioned. A mild radiation leak radiated an area of 10 miles from the plant, but no one was seriously hurt.

Chernobyl's reactor exploded with horrible radioactive pollution as the result. Obviously there is no comparing the damage.

lukster · « **Reply #65 on:** September 30, 2006, 12:13:41 PM »

I think both cores melted at least partially, one was contained the other wasn't. I didn't realize how much of a threat Chernobyl still presents to that region if not the entire earth until I read that article.

Viking · « **Reply #66 on:** September 30, 2006, 01:40:31 PM »

Yeah, it's one of humanity's greatest screw-ups.

lukster · « **Reply #67 on:** September 30, 2006, 02:03:46 PM »

Some suspected sabatoge at Three Mile Island but it really doesn't matter either way. One technology proved capable of averting a disaster resulting in many lives lost while the other didn't. We were talking about technologies and which were/are superior were we not?

From what I've read about modern Chinese they are a hard working industrious people. If they decide to subjugate the rest of us it will be no mean threat.

Viking · « **Reply #68 on:** September 30, 2006, 04:36:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Some suspected sabatoge at Three Mile Island but it really doesn't matter either way. One technology proved capable of averting a disaster resulting in many lives lost while the other didn't.

Yes, but it's only you talking about that. The question is whether Chernobyl melted down or not. It exploded (which is worse I admit).

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
We were talking about technologies and which were/are superior were we not?

Eh … care to rephrase that? Preferably into something understandable.

Edit: Oh now I get it! "We were talking about technologies and which were/are superior, were we not?"

And now for the answer: Yes.

lukster · « **Reply #69 on:** September 30, 2006, 06:07:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Yes, but it's only you talking about that. The question is whether Chernobyl melted down or not. It exploded (which is worse I admit).

Eh … care to rephrase that? Preferably into something understandable.

Edit: Oh now I get it! "We were talking about technologies and which were/are superior, were we not?"

And now for the answer: Yes.

The link I gave specifically cites it as a meltdown.

"On Saturday April 26, 1986 at 1:23:58 a.m. reactor 4 suffered a catastrophic steam explosion that resulted in a fire, a series of additional explosions, and a nuclear meltdown."

Call it whatever you want except for proof of superior Soviet technology.

Viking · « **Reply #70 on:** September 30, 2006, 06:38:41 PM »

I don't call it anything; you brought it up. And whatever you think Chernobyl has got to do with space technology I fail to see.

Edit: Talk backwards I do. Yoda I must be.

lukster · « **Reply #71 on:** September 30, 2006, 06:42:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
I don't call it anything; you brought it up. And whatever you think Chernobyl has got to do with space technology I fail to see.

You brought the Soviets into it proclaiming their supposed advanced technology. I was just pointing out some of that advanced Soviet technology in action. No need to get defensive, there are no Soviets anymore.

Vulcan · « **Reply #72 on:** September 30, 2006, 06:42:20 PM »

You guys should try something like this:

Quote

Dear Mr Chinese Ambassador,

Our satellittes have nooks in them. We would advise shooting at them as they overfly your country.

regards

El Presedenti

Viking · « **Reply #73 on:** September 30, 2006, 06:52:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
You brought the Soviets into it proclaiming their supposed advanced technology. I was just pointing out some of that advanced Soviet technology in action. No need to get defensive, there are no Soviets anymore.

Problem with the Soviets wasn't technology, but build quality. In space US astronauts still have to fly on Russian rockets. And they fly to and from a mostly Russian space station. No need to get defensive.

Chairboy · « **Reply #74 on:** September 30, 2006, 07:39:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Problem with the Soviets wasn't technology, but build quality. In space US astronauts still have to fly on Russian rockets. And they fly to and from a mostly Russian space station. No need to get defensive.

It's ironic, because you imply that the Russian build quality is so inferior, yet immediately afterwards mention how the US astronauts have had to fly in Russian spacecraft without mentioning that it was because of a fatal Shuttle accident. Russians haven't had a fatal space accident since the early 1970s, and have a total of 4 dead, 5 if you count the Cosmonaut who burnt to death in a pure O2 acident a few months before Apollo 1. The US manned space program has 14 dead, 17 if you count Apollo 1 if you were really trying to make a point.

The Russian spacecraft might be simple, but I don't see evidence that it's poorly constructed. Mir was up for 15 years, if you want to use that as an example, and wasn't really having big probs until near the end. That's why the same design was re-used for the International Space Station.

Oh, didn't know that? Yeah, the ISS's primary module, the one with life support, maneuvering thrusters and more is an updated version of the Mir space station's core.