Raise your hand if you want your tax dollars spent on a Lunar nuclear reactor . . .

[as seen on tv]

NASA Wants to Put a Nuclear Reactor on the Moon (msn.com)

This is the latest idea of NASA scientists (or “boffins”, as the brits hilarious refer to science nerds).

Put a nuclear reactor on the moon, which could make it (the moon) a permanently habitable place, more or less. This Lunar Chernobyl/Fukishima is an add-on to LAST weeks government revelation that there's enough oxygen on the moon (trapped in rocks) for 8 billion people. So . . . you have water, you have oxygen, what more do you want to hear before you start shoveling tax dollar at NASA to "build back better"?

Even if you're slow to embrace the moon nuclear power idea, the government is desperate to encourage despirited public school students to sign up for STEM courses, and this could inspire them. Because . . . um . . . the bigger the applicant pool of mediocre public school talent, the better the result will be? No wait . . that doesn't sound right, does it? That's how lawyers are created. Let me walk that back.

We need to put a permanent base on the moon, because the ISS space station will soon be destroyed by one of the 50,000 pieces of low earth orbit shrapnel created when the Russians tested their anti-satellite missile last week. Does that do it for you? No? Hmmm . . .

Well, if we don't go back to the moon – and soon – and claim it for the USA, the Chinese are going to get there, and re-unify it with Taiwan, Tibet, and Timbuktu. Chinese boffins just demonstrated an MCU worthy hypersonic ICBM that circled the planet at 5X the speed of sound. They are as far ahead of us in this area, as the Russians were when they sent up Sputnik. And then all those russian dogs that suffocated in space. And we beat THEM to the moon, right?

I readily admit that one of my failings is that I watch too much television. But possibly the NASA boffins banging the drums for a Lunar Chernobyl don't watch enough TV. At least, they should probably watch the HBO mini-series “Chernobyl”. I've been a moderate to strong supporter of safe, clean nuclear power until I binge watched this show. Will I be spoiling the ending for you if I reveal that 150,000 people had to be evacuated, at least 10,000 have died so far, and the area will be radioactive for 20,000 years? I'm sorry . . .

No, NASA, I don't want a nuclear reactor on the moon. And I don't want an arsenal of next gen hypersonic NASA missiles on the theory that some ginormous asteroid is getting too close. I don't want hundreds of medium sized asteroid fragments raining down on us. We probably couldn't even tell if an asteroid was going to hit us anyway. That Chelyabisk one came out of nowhere, and exploded with more force than the Hiroshima bomb. (Chernobyl released more radiation than Hiroshima too. Thousands of times more)

I'd settle to have my tax dollars directed to more mundane stuff. Like a vaccine against Covid 19 that works better, so i can ditch the mask at work (I'm a food worker). Protection against state sponsored hacking and grid attacks. A future where the US dollar doesn't become worthless due to hyperspending and hyperinflation, from building hypersonic missiles.

Is that too much to ask? Spend it on stuff we really need?

Let Elon Musk build a lunar - or martian - nuclear reactor, if he wants. It's his money.

 

[Dawg]

Hand in the Air

No not both for don't shoot

I fear it's to late for what we want........

 

[God of War]

View attachment 67082


NASA Wants to Put a Nuclear Reactor on the Moon (msn.com)

This is the latest idea of NASA scientists (or “boffins”, as the brits hilarious refer to science nerds).

Put a nuclear reactor on the moon, which could make it (the moon) a permanently habitable place, more or less. This Lunar Chernobyl/Fukishima is an add-on to LAST weeks government revelation that there's enough oxygen on the moon (trapped in rocks) for 8 billion people. So . . . you have water, you have oxygen, what more do you want to hear before you start shoveling tax dollar at NASA to "build back better"?

Even if you're slow to embrace the moon nuclear power idea, the government is desperate to encourage despirited public school students to sign up for STEM courses, and this could inspire them. Because . . . um . . . the bigger the applicant pool of mediocre public school talent, the better the result will be? No wait . . that doesn't sound right, does it? That's how lawyers are created. Let me walk that back.

We need to put a permanent base on the moon, because the ISS space station will soon be destroyed by one of the 50,000 pieces of low earth orbit shrapnel created when the Russians tested their anti-satellite missile last week. Does that do it for you? No? Hmmm . . .

Well, if we don't go back to the moon – and soon – and claim it for the USA, the Chinese are going to get there, and re-unify it with Taiwan, Tibet, and Timbuktu. Chinese boffins just demonstrated an MCU worthy hypersonic ICBM that circled the planet at 5X the speed of sound. They are as far ahead of us in this area, as the Russians were when they sent up Sputnik. And then all those russian dogs that suffocated in space. And we beat THEM to the moon, right?

I readily admit that one of my failings is that I watch too much television. But possibly the NASA boffins banging the drums for a Lunar Chernobyl don't watch enough TV. At least, they should probably watch the HBO mini-series “Chernobyl”. I've been a moderate to strong supporter of safe, clean nuclear power until I binge watched this show. Will I be spoiling the ending for you if I reveal that 150,000 people had to be evacuated, at least 10,000 have died so far, and the area will be radioactive for 20,000 years? I'm sorry . . .

No, NASA, I don't want a nuclear reactor on the moon. And I don't want an arsenal of next gen hypersonic NASA missiles on the theory that some ginormous asteroid is getting too close. I don't want hundreds of medium sized asteroid fragments raining down on us. We probably couldn't even tell if an asteroid was going to hit us anyway. That Chelyabisk one came out of nowhere, and exploded with more force than the Hiroshima bomb. (Chernobyl released more radiation than Hiroshima too. Thousands of times more)

I'd settle to have my tax dollars directed to more mundane stuff. Like a vaccine against Covid 19 that works better, so i can ditch the mask at work (I'm a food worker). Protection against state sponsored hacking and grid attacks. A future where the US dollar doesn't become worthless due to hyperspending and hyperinflation, from building hypersonic missiles.

Is that too much to ask? Spend it on stuff we really need?

Let Elon Musk build a lunar - or martian - nuclear reactor, if he wants. It's his money.

I don't want our side of the moon developed in any way. It all has to be on the dark side of the moon or they can drop dead on the launch pad in a ball of fire.

The moon needs to remain natural. An international asteroid defense station on the dark side of the moon is all we should have.

 

[Spamature]

Okay, now raise your hands if you want that nuclear reactor built near where you live instead of the Moon.

 

[God of War]

Okay, now raise your hands if you want that nuclear reactor built near where you live instead of the Moon.

Okay, now raise your hands if you want another covid booster shot for Christmas. ha ha

I hope you can see the point beyond the obvious.

 

[Spamature]

Okay, now raise your hands if you want another covid booster shot for Christmas. ha ha

I hope you can see the point beyond the obvious.

Raise your hand if you want a ventilation tube stuck down your throat this Christmas.

Do it now because by the time they have to do that you will be too weak to raise that hand.

 

[God of War]

Raise your hand if you want a ventilation tube stuck down your throat this Christmas.

Do it now because by the time they have to do that you will be too weak to raise that hand.

I knew you'd only get that superficially and not the deeper also intended point made. ha ha

P.S. You're pathetically unoriginal.

 

[Spamature]

I knew you'd only get that superficially and not the deeper also intended point made. ha ha

P.S. You're pathetically unoriginal.

What was the deeper meaning of your joke ?

 

[God of War]

What was the deeper meaning of your joke ?

Were you saying you didn't trust nuclear reactors or not? Either on the moon or your backyard?

 

[Spamature]

The moon needs to remain natural. An international asteroid defense station on the dark side of the moon is all we should have.

Won't you need a nuclear power plant to run it ?

Or do you think they should extend the XL pipeline to the moon ?

 

[Spamature]

Were you saying you didn't trust nuclear reactors or not? Either on the moon or your backyard?

No, I was saying that the moon is a safe place to put a nuclear power plant.

 

[God of War]

No, I was saying that the moon is a safe place to put a nuclear power plant.

Is it?

Your backyard isn't as safe then?

 

[Dino]

View attachment 67082


NASA Wants to Put a Nuclear Reactor on the Moon (msn.com)

This is the latest idea of NASA scientists (or “boffins”, as the brits hilarious refer to science nerds).

Put a nuclear reactor on the moon, which could make it (the moon) a permanently habitable place, more or less. This Lunar Chernobyl/Fukishima is an add-on to LAST weeks government revelation that there's enough oxygen on the moon (trapped in rocks) for 8 billion people. So . . . you have water, you have oxygen, what more do you want to hear before you start shoveling tax dollar at NASA to "build back better"?

Even if you're slow to embrace the moon nuclear power idea, the government is desperate to encourage despirited public school students to sign up for STEM courses, and this could inspire them. Because . . . um . . . the bigger the applicant pool of mediocre public school talent, the better the result will be? No wait . . that doesn't sound right, does it? That's how lawyers are created. Let me walk that back.

We need to put a permanent base on the moon, because the ISS space station will soon be destroyed by one of the 50,000 pieces of low earth orbit shrapnel created when the Russians tested their anti-satellite missile last week. Does that do it for you? No? Hmmm . . .

Well, if we don't go back to the moon – and soon – and claim it for the USA, the Chinese are going to get there, and re-unify it with Taiwan, Tibet, and Timbuktu. Chinese boffins just demonstrated an MCU worthy hypersonic ICBM that circled the planet at 5X the speed of sound. They are as far ahead of us in this area, as the Russians were when they sent up Sputnik. And then all those russian dogs that suffocated in space. And we beat THEM to the moon, right?

I readily admit that one of my failings is that I watch too much television. But possibly the NASA boffins banging the drums for a Lunar Chernobyl don't watch enough TV. At least, they should probably watch the HBO mini-series “Chernobyl”. I've been a moderate to strong supporter of safe, clean nuclear power until I binge watched this show. Will I be spoiling the ending for you if I reveal that 150,000 people had to be evacuated, at least 10,000 have died so far, and the area will be radioactive for 20,000 years? I'm sorry . . .

No, NASA, I don't want a nuclear reactor on the moon. And I don't want an arsenal of next gen hypersonic NASA missiles on the theory that some ginormous asteroid is getting too close. I don't want hundreds of medium sized asteroid fragments raining down on us. We probably couldn't even tell if an asteroid was going to hit us anyway. That Chelyabisk one came out of nowhere, and exploded with more force than the Hiroshima bomb. (Chernobyl released more radiation than Hiroshima too. Thousands of times more)

I'd settle to have my tax dollars directed to more mundane stuff. Like a vaccine against Covid 19 that works better, so i can ditch the mask at work (I'm a food worker). Protection against state sponsored hacking and grid attacks. A future where the US dollar doesn't become worthless due to hyperspending and hyperinflation, from building hypersonic missiles.

Is that too much to ask? Spend it on stuff we really need?

Let Elon Musk build a lunar - or martian - nuclear reactor, if he wants. It's his money.

We should build nuclear reactors here and send the radioactive carbon waste to the moon.

 

[Spamature]

Is it?

You backyard isn't as safe then?

Yours might be ?

Maybe you should make a request.

 

[Spamature]

We should build nuclear reactors here and send the radioactive carbon waste to the moon.

But if the rocket crashes, you have technically launched a nuclear attack on someone.

 

[God of War]

Yours might be ?

Maybe you should make a request.

So you don't trust nuclear scientists but you implicitly trust vaccine scientists. ha ha

And of course you trust the rocket scientists to put nuclear fuel on the tip of a fireball to launch into space. ha ha

I see what I thought was funny in fact is.

 

[Dawg]

Evidently all those windmills in Illinois are not working as claimed and Illinois have the giants everywhere and damn high power bills for customers and this may be why (borrowed from a friend_

Right now the average wind farm is about 150 turbines. Each wind turbine needs 80 gallons of oil as lubricant and we're not talking about vegetable oil, this is a PAO synthetic oil based on crude... 12,000 gallons of it. That oil needs to be replaced once a year.
It is estimated that a little over 3,800 turbines would be needed to power a city the size of New York... That's 304,000 gallons of refined oil for just one city.
Now you have to calculate every city across the nation, large and small, to find the grand total of yearly oil consumption from "clean" energy.
Where do you think all that oil is going to come from, the oil fairies?
Not to mention the fact that the large equipment needed to build these wind farms run on petroleum. As well as the equipment required for installation, service, maintenance, and eventual removal.
And just exactly how eco-friendly is wind energy anyway?
Each turbine requires a footprint of 1.5 acres, so a wind farm of 150 turbines needs 225 acres; In order to power a city the size of NYC you'd need 57,000 acres; and who knows the astronomical amount of land you would need to power the entire US. All of which would have to be clear-cut land because trees create a barrier & turbulence that interferes with the 20mph sustained wind velocity necessary for the turbine to work properly (also keep in mind that not all states are suitable for such sustained winds). Boy, cutting down all those trees is gonna piss off a lot of green-loving tree-huggers.
Let's talk about disposal now.
The lifespan of a modern, top quality, highly efficient wind turbine is 20 years.
After that, then what? What happens to those gigantic fiber composite blades?
They cannot economically be reused, refurbished, reduced, repurposed, or recycled so guess what..? It's off to special landfills they go.
And guess what else..? They're already running out of these special landfill spaces for the blades that have already exceeded their usefulness. Seriously! Those blades are anywhere from 120 ft. to over 200 ft. long and there are 3 per turbine. And that's with only 7% of the nation currently being supplied with wind energy. Just imagine if we had the other 93% of the nation on the wind grid... 20 years from now you'd have all those unusable blades with no place to put them... Then 20 years after that, and 20 years after that, and so on.
Golly gee, how green is that?
Oops, I almost forgot about the 500,000 birds that are killed each year from wind turbine blade collisions; most of which are endangered hawks, falcons, owls, geese, ducks, and eagles.
Apparently smaller birds are more agile and able to dart and dodge out of the way of the spinning blades, whereas the larger soaring birds aren't so lucky.
I'm sure the wildlife conservationist folks are just ecstatic about that.
I'm so glad the wind energy people are looking out for the world.

Why Illinois paid $694 million to keep nuclear plants open

 

[God of War]

@Spamature

So, are you going to tell us how you rate nuclear scientists, vaccine scientists, and rocket scientists in the pantheon of Scientology? I'm only rubbing it in a little bit but I think some kind of comment on the matter is warranted so you can rationalize your belief system if not for us then at least for you. :0)

 

[Spamature]

So you don't trust nuclear scientists but you implicitly trust vaccine scientists. ha ha

And of course you trust the rocket scientists to put nuclear fuel on the tip of a fireball to launch into space. ha ha

I see what I thought was funny in fact is.

I don't ever remember anyone making a guarantee that nuclear anything is safe or that I trust rocket scientist with nuclear weapons.

 

[God of War]

I don't ever remember anyone making a guarantee that nuclear anything is safe or that I trust rocket scientist with nuclear weapons.

I can see that is a natural reflex to protect your own psyche to answer in a completely obtuse manner. Clearly I'm asking you why do you implicitly trust vaccinologists but not an aerospace engineers or a nuclear engineers, right? You think there is a difference between them in trustworthiness? Why? Someone tell you vaccines are more intrinsically safe? On what basis?