Gyrfalcon: I'm sure they could produce fuel.Do they realize that you don't just toss the plutonium into the boilers and fire it up?
Satanic_Hamster: Some lawmakers say Iran should enrich uranium to levels close to weapons grade to produce fuel for proposed nuclear-powered oil tankers.Wow. Really? Why would you even MAKE a nuclear powered cargo vessel? Has anyone, ever thought this was a good idea?
Satanic_Hamster: Wow. Really? Why would you even MAKE a nuclear powered cargo vessel? Has anyone, ever thought this was a good idea?
elguerodiablo: How many poor nuclear scientists have die at the hands of the Isralis so Iran can pathetically try to live out their atomic fantasies. Won't somenody please think of the scientists.
Radioactive Ass: Satanic_Hamster: Wow. Really? Why would you even MAKE a nuclear powered cargo vessel? Has anyone, ever thought this was a good idea?Not that I'm anywhere near being a fan of Iran in general but if you were to desire a naval nuclear propulsion program then perhaps attempting a civilian application first to iron out the inherent problems that you will encounter might be a way to do it. Of course then you will have the problem of entire nations being closed off to you and your product(s) due to them not wanting your floating Chernobyl parked in their ports, so there is that tiny problem with the idea.
Gyrfalcon: ...except nobody else ever did that. The US nuclear-navy program actually started with submarines, certainly the worst possible ship to try to design a nuclear reactor for.
vpb: Well, making nuclear fuel is easier than making bomb material, so, what was his point supposed to be?
Satanic_Hamster: But the type of ship that got the most use out of it. Main point of nuclear reactors on ships is to extend the time they don't have to meet a supply ship, which isn't really a concern for a commercial vessel.
Radioactive Ass: Gyrfalcon: ...except nobody else ever did that. The US nuclear-navy program actually started with submarines, certainly the worst possible ship to try to design a nuclear reactor for.Actually it started with a land based prototype (the Mark I later re-designated S1W). I'm quite aware of how US NNP was implemented. There was also talk back in the 50's before the Nautilus ever sailed of building civilian nuclear powered ships that never came to be because of the costs associated with them.
Gyrfalcon: I bow to your superior Navy knowledge, sailor. I'm just continually impressed by the Rickover legacy.
Radioactive Ass: Gyrfalcon: I bow to your superior Navy knowledge, sailor. I'm just continually impressed by the Rickover legacy.This is all crap I learned from being on the Nautilus back in the 80's (on shore duty no less). Most people on submarines don't know the trivia behind US submarine history because they have better things to do, I on the other hand was an overpaid tour guide\paint chipper\eye candy for the civilians who was cursed with a good memory and a lot of spare time with a museum full of interesting stuff to keep an eye on during the wee hours of the morning.
ChiliBoots: There was the Savannah and the Otto Hahn. For some reason, both ships were designed to carry passengers and cargo. There's also the nuclear powered Soviet ice-breakers, they could also carry cargo. None of them ever proved to be economical.
Want the rest of the Farking story? Try
More threads. More community. More Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Oct 19 2017 01:57:05
Runtime: 0.307 sec (306 ms)