opening could instead go towards a lunar nuclear waste repository far away
from ground water contamination, the biosphere, and terrorist meddling
[1]. This waste can be reprocessed to amply supply a lunar nuclear
reactor, part of a seed mining and manufacturing facility (e.g. titanium
from ilmenite). Key products: oxygen propellant and nuclear thermal
rockets, supporting Borowski's LANTR concept [2]. As the lunar factory
grows, fewer critical "vitamin" components need to be shipped off Earth.
At some number of NTRs - an important number to determine - it is cheaper
to make them on the Moon than launch them from Earth. If and when the
Elevator comes online [3], lunar NTR manufacture will still be safer;
furthermore, the evolution to gas-core reactor technology [4] will reduce
the comparative advantage of eventually cheaper Earth-access to space. A
gateway station at Earth-Moon L1 offers optimal astrodynamics [5]. Non-
lunar metals, and water if necessary, can be obtained from the few percent
of the millions of 10m asteroids that have the friendliest orbits. With
nuclear rockets, the Mars oasis [6] is cargo-close. The Greens should love
the idea of getting
Earth needs serious protecting; Life off Earth can seriously protect Life
on Earth; Life off Earth is expensive; Life off Earth is much cheaper with
high-density power systems. As to the Creationists, though most are nice,
they still seem to be struggling with basic systems analysis, evidenciary
logic, and the scientific method. What we need all the rockets for: start
with Buzz Aldrin, end with comparative planetology (bolide plasma probes,
to be exact, a la SL9 on Jupiter).

[1] http://space.com/news/nuclear_moon_020822.html
[2] http://www.spacetransportation.com/ast/abstracts/7A_Barowski.html
[3] http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/elevator_update_020819.html
[4] http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/gcr.pdf
[5] http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~shane/papers/lo_ross_2001_abs.html
[6] http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/mars_ice_tech_020619-1.html

The surface of the Moon is already bathed with a high flux of radiation
from cosmic rays and the solar wind.

It is impossible to for humans to stay out on the lunar surface for any
length of time, within a few days they will accumulate a dose of
radiation from the natural sources which exceeds the annual safety
limit on Earth.

Nuclear waste will make no appreciable difference.

The surface of the Moon is already bathed with a high flux of radiation
from cosmic rays and the solar wind.

It is impossible to for humans to stay out on the lunar surface for any
length of time, within a few days they will accumulate a dose of
radiation from the natural sources which exceeds the annual safety
limit on Earth.

Nuclear waste will make no appreciable difference.

Shielding on the Moon is cheap, dust and rocks are plentiful on Luna.

Most inhabitants will probably live in lava tubes at discrete locations
where they will be well protected from waste dumps on the surface and
from nuclear radiation.

There are already radioactive materials which humans have taken to the
Moon, the ALSEP science stations were powered by Plutnoum RTG's..

The Moon has the same surface area as Africa, with no inhabitants and no
biosphere. Radioactive objects on the lunar surface can be marked on
maps with warnings notices. Even on the surface, provided you stay a
mile or two away for most of the time you would not accumulate any
significant dose from them.

I see no significant problems about nuclear waste on the Moon, and many
benefits.

The perfect place for a nuclear waste dump.

It would be a great way to pay for lunar development.

If you are really worried about the stuff, then we can simply designate
a selected lava tube as the primary repository, and have robotic rovers
traverwse the lunar surface collecting the radioactive items, and bring
them to the central dump site.

There is much less risk of terrorists hijacking waste shipments on the
Moon than on Earth.

The report I read mentioned that they proposed using retiring ICBM
missiles and launching the radioactive waste to CRASH on the moon.
There would be no guidance system, let alone a controlled landing.
This would make it affordable. The critics who raised the radiation
issue were pointing out to the advocates of this approach that the
radioactive waste would litter the entire surface of the moon
because the kinetic energy of the impact would eject the radioactive
waste along with the crater ejecta from the force of the impact.

It could turn out the some of the shielding that you are proposing
to use would have some of this radioactive waste in it. Also, there
would be no clearly defined areas that could be used as radioactive
waste dumps; the waste would randomly litter the surface of the moon.

Those were the criticism's of the proposal as it was put forward. I
was very surprised that no one had brought up the issue of missiles
exploding and raining nuclear waste onto the earth.

Now, if the proposal was changed to allow for a controlled
landing . . .

>
> Shielding on the Moon is cheap, dust and rocks are plentiful on
Luna.
>
> Most inhabitants will probably live in lava tubes at discrete
locations
> where they will be well protected from waste dumps on the surface
and
> from nuclear radiation.
>
> There are already radioactive materials which humans have taken to
the
> Moon, the ALSEP science stations were powered by Plutnoum RTG's..
>
> The Moon has the same surface area as Africa, with no inhabitants
and no
> biosphere. Radioactive objects on the lunar surface can be
marked on
> maps with warnings notices. Even on the surface, provided you
stay a
> mile or two away for most of the time you would not accumulate any
> significant dose from them.
>
> I see no significant problems about nuclear waste on the Moon, and
many
> benefits.
>
> The perfect place for a nuclear waste dump.
>
> It would be a great way to pay for lunar development.
>
> If you are really worried about the stuff, then we can simply
designate
> a selected lava tube as the primary repository, and have robotic
rovers
> traverwse the lunar surface collecting the radioactive items, and
bring
> them to the central dump site.
>
> There is much less risk of terrorists hijacking waste shipments on
the
> Moon than on Earth.
>
> > Point taken.However, what is the level of shielding required to
> > protect humans from the `normal' doses on the lunar surface, and
how
> > does that compare with the necessary shielding that we would
have to
> > use to protect ourselves from the levels of radiation that the
waste
> > containers would hold?If there is no compelling reason to
maintain a
> > stock of the material, then we should be trying to rid ourselves
of it
> > completely.
> >
> > Chad Lupkes
> >
> > chadlupkes@...
> >
> > http://www.chadlupkes.com
> >
> > The surface of the Moon is already bathed with a high flux of
> > radiation
> > from cosmic rays and the solar wind.
> >
> > It is impossible to for humans to stay out on the lunar surface
for
> > any
> > length of time, within a few days they will accumulate a dose of
> > radiation from the natural sources which exceeds the annual
safety
> > limit on Earth.
> >
> > Nuclear waste will make no appreciable difference.
> >
> > > At the end of the space.com article, there was a statement
byMike
> > > Duke that putting the nuclear waste on the Moon would limit the
> > future
> > > utilization of lunar resources by putting a quarantine around
the
> > > locations hit by the missiles.I don't think that we should
limit our
> >
> > > future options like that.
> > >
> > > I'm much more in favor of building a rail gun that would
accelerate
> > > particles of nuclear waste material fast enough to escape the
> > gravity
> > > well of earth, which would allow us to launch it into the Sun
> > > itself.Has anyone done the math to determine what would be
necessary
> >
> > > to do this?We could still use Yucca Mountain as the launch
base, but
> >
> > > with a plan for getting rid of the material forever.We could
> > determine
> > > the optimum size of bullet and test it plenty of times to make
sure
> > it
> > > worked before actually sending up radioactive material.We
certainly
> > > want to avoid having it miss and end up back into a population
> > center.
> > >
> > > Chad Lupkes
> > >
> > > chadlupkes@...
> > >
> > > http://www.chadlupkes.com
> > >
> > > [mailto:planetarydefence@...
> > >
> > > Building on Gormly's proposal, the $58 billion for Yucca
Mountain's
> > > 2010
> > > opening could instead go towards a lunar nuclear waste
repository
> > far
> > > away
> > > from ground water contamination, the biosphere, and terrorist
> > meddling
> > >
> > > [1]. This waste can be reprocessed to amply supply a lunar
nuclear
> > > reactor, part of a seed mining and manufacturing facility (e.g.
> > > titanium
> > > from ilmenite). Key products: oxygen propellant and nuclear
thermal
> > > rockets, supporting Borowski's LANTR concept [2]. As the lunar
> > factory
> > >
> > > grows, fewer critical "vitamin" components need to be shipped
off
> > > Earth.
> > > At some number of NTRs - an important number to determine - it
is
> > > cheaper
> > > to make them on the Moon than launch them from Earth. If and
when
> > the
> > > Elevator comes online [3], lunar NTR manufacture will still be
> > safer;
> > > furthermore, the evolution to gas-core reactor technology [4]
will
> > > reduce
> > > the comparative advantage of eventually cheaper Earth-access to
> > space.
> > > A
> > > gateway station at Earth-Moon L1 offers optimal astrodynamics
[5].
> > > Non-
> > > lunar metals, and water if necessary, can be obtained from the
few
> > > percent
> > > of the millions of 10m asteroids that have the friendliest
orbits.
> > > With
> > > nuclear rockets, the Mars oasis [6] is cargo-close. The Greens
> > should
> > > love
> > > the idea of getting <77,000 tons of nuclear waste off the
Earth:
> > Life
> > > on
> > > Earth needs serious protecting; Life off Earth can seriously
protect
> >
> > > Life
> > > on Earth; Life off Earth is expensive; Life off Earth is much
> > cheaper
> > > with
> > > high-density power systems. As to the Creationists, though
most are
> > > nice,
> > > they still seem to be struggling with basic systems analysis,
> > > evidenciary
> > > logic, and the scientific method. What we need all the rockets
for:
> > > start
> > > with Buzz Aldrin, end with comparative planetology (bolide
plasma
> > > probes,
> > > to be exact, a la SL9 on Jupiter).
> > >
> > > [1] http://space.com/news/nuclear_moon_020822.html
> > > [2]
> > http://www.spacetransportation.com/ast/abstracts/7A_Barowski.html
> > > [3]
> > >
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/elevator_update_02
0819.html
> >
> > > [4] http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/gcr.pdf
> > > [5]
http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~shane/papers/lo_ross_2001_abs.html
> > > [6]
> > >
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/mars_ice_tech_0206
19-1.html
> >
> > > > Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:00:24 -0500
> > >
> > > Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift
ideas.
> > > Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@...
> > >
> > > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at
> > >
Service.
> >
Service.
> >
Service.
> >
Service.

> The report I read mentioned that they proposed using retiring ICBM
> missiles and launching the radioactive waste to CRASH on the moon.
> There would be no guidance system, let alone a controlled landing.

It would be quite simple to add a guidance system. ICBM's already have
an
accurate guidance system which would suffice.

>
> This would make it affordable. The critics who raised the radiation
> issue were pointing out to the advocates of this approach that the
> radioactive waste would litter the entire surface of the moon
> because the kinetic energy of the impact would eject the radioactive
> waste along with the crater ejecta from the force of the impact.

It would be fairly simply to perform a minimum energy grazing impact,
with a
perilune near the center of the far side of the Moon. This would result
in
the lowest energy impact, the amount of ejecta would be fairly low and
confined to a well defined debris zone.

>
> Those were the criticism's of the proposal as it was put forward. I
> was very surprised that no one had brought up the issue of missiles
> exploding and raining nuclear waste onto the earth.

That is the most difficult part.

Surface transportation of the waste for its present location to the
launch
site would represent a significant safety/security problem. Then the
launch
system has to be reliable enough to make sure launch aborts never
contaminate
habited areas. Difficult.

>
> Now, if the proposal was changed to allow for a controlled
> landing . . .
>

I presume you mean soft landing. This is probably not necessary if a
minimum energy grazing impact is used. Soft landing adds considerably
to
the cost.

>
> > The report I read mentioned that they proposed using retiring
ICBM
> > missiles and launching the radioactive waste to CRASH on the
moon.
> > There would be no guidance system, let alone a controlled
landing.
>
> It would be quite simple to add a guidance system. ICBM's
already have
> an
> accurate guidance system which would suffice.

I agree.

>
> > This would make it affordable. The critics who raised the
radiation
> > issue were pointing out to the advocates of this approach that
the
> > radioactive waste would litter the entire surface of the moon
> > because the kinetic energy of the impact would eject the
radioactive
> > waste along with the crater ejecta from the force of the impact.
>
> It would be fairly simply to perform a minimum energy grazing
impact,
> with a
> perilune near the center of the far side of the Moon. This would
result
> in
> the lowest energy impact, the amount of ejecta would be fairly low
and
> confined to a well defined debris zone.

Good idea. How come these "experts" at these conferences get this
press coverage and we here at this site can come up with better
ideas and more refined ideas. Huh?
>
> > Those were the criticism's of the proposal as it was put
forward. I
> > was very surprised that no one had brought up the issue of
missiles
> > exploding and raining nuclear waste onto the earth.
>
> That is the most difficult part.
>
> Surface transportation of the waste for its present location to the
> launch
> site would represent a significant safety/security problem. Then
the
> launch
> system has to be reliable enough to make sure launch aborts never
> contaminate
> habited areas. Difficult.
>
> > Now, if the proposal was changed to allow for a controlled
> > landing . . .
> >
> I presume you mean soft landing. This is probably not necessary
if a
> minimum energy grazing impact is used. Soft landing adds
considerably
> to
> the cost.

Yes, I meant soft landing.