Thanks so much for watching! For an example of an orphan source RTG accident, please check out: czcams.com/video/bHyJAVMFJ2Q/video.htmlsi=Bql0a_6fGHV04wkW
czcams.com/video/PjeywZZm2Ow/video.htmlsi=RJNzaaiC4_dsZsbB This might need some extra research to corroborate data… but I would love to see your reaction to these guys and their PPE and ALARA policies 😅
Former Navy 'nuc' here. Did anyone think about the steam generators? You need GRAVITY to help separate the steam from the boiling water. In space you'd have a lot of water going down the steam lines to the turbines. Bang, no more turbine blading (well, there will be some turbine blades flying around the engine room, but that's not going to generate electricity lol). And with no effective condensers, the steam will quickly rupture the condenser shells and fill the engine room with live steam/ water. I'd give the engineering crew less than 5 minutes to live. Ship's battery might last a few hours for electricity, but even the forward crew members won't have long.
interesting thought experiment.... I guess the easiest way is to throw the whole sub into some kind of centrifuge (ie 2 subs tethered via a set of cables, spinning, etc). Although you probably could engineer this to avoid needing "gravity". In refrigeration we keep vapor and liquid apart by constant motion. So I would think if you had large enough pumps, and some very careful piping and pressure vessel design you might be able to still boil water without too much issue while still keeping it all separated. IE. The cushion would be a separate tank and a diaphragm. You might not need a separator, but if you did, it could be a vortex style separator with liquid exit ports on the outside diameter, and some positive delta P to keep things moving. It would be quite an engineering challenge. This is why the first and only nuclear reactor test by NASA used thermalcouples instead as they didn't want to get bogged down by a better method like steam.
13:32 Fun fact: something like that has actually happened. A Soviet nuclear-powered reconnaissance satellite by the name of Kosmos 954 which the operators lost control of re-entered the atmosphere in 1978, complete with 50 kg of 90% enriched uranium (it had a system which was supposed to boost a spent core into a safe disposal orbit, but it failed). It came down over western Canada, spreading debris over a 600km track. The recovery efforts (which only found about 1% of the fuel in the end) lasted nine months, for which Canada billed the Soviet Union C$6,041,174.70.
I do remember that there was an instrument carried on Apollo 13's lunar module was powered by radioactive decay, and even though the fuel was sealed in a cask designed not to leak and even to survive reentry, NASA was concerned enough about it that they wanted the remains of the LM to end up in the deepest ocean the flight controllers could manage. It wasn't enough that it was brought down where the debris wouldn't harm people on the ground; they wanted it dealt with as much as possible.
@@anomaly3215It's nuclear fuel, so an unstable element that will undergo radioactive decay. Any chemical reaction that it undergoes wouldn't change the element.
There would be no ball unless it was in a vacuum. Under the influence of gravitational forces, it would vaporise due to g forces alone if not accelerating very slow
Nasa's standard for spacesuit leaks is no more than 100ml of air per minute. Which is kind of crazy when you think about it. I used to just assume stuff like that didn't leak at all lol.
Thanks for saying so, I was really confused when he said that. I knew the Ohio class were around 30-40 years old and still in service and I think the remaining Los Angeles class are even older. EDIT: I looked and the remaining Los Angeles class are in the middle of the Ohio class ages.
Submarines have a life of 30 to 45 years. Los Angeles class, Virginia class, and Ohio class have a single mid-life refueling. Columbia class is designed with a life of the boat reactor, designed for more than 40 years without refueling.
I thought they cut the entire section out with reactor and sealed it, stored it within view of satelites for the nuclear treaty, then installed a new section with new reactor? I want to say it was a documentary I got that from
The next gen of reactors and subs are not designed to be refueled. The S1B reactor is designed to have a fuel life that matches the service life of the host boat.
0:12 I didn't know xkcd did his What If series on CZcams too. I especially love the one detailing what would happen if a glass was _actually_ half empty/full. Like an actual void instead of gasses/air.
If the void is in the top half, the air rushing back in causes a Sonic boom. If the void is in the bottom half, the glass shoots up and hits the ceiling.
Current reactor plant designs would not work, not only because of the heat rejection problem but because the plant relies on gravity to separate liquid water from steam. Simple explanation is that the boilers, condensers and pressurizer would all fail to perform their functions because of the zero-g. If you designed it to spin in a centrifuge it would work, but not if you just teleported a sub into space.
Just looking at the question, the nuclear reactor will melt down since the biggest issues with space is trying to radiate heat away for the object. A large amount of the space station is just radiators to cool it.
Nuclear submarines sort of have “gills” but rather than them for being breathing, they are for cooling. Without seawater the nuclear reactor would get hot hot hot.
@@Minecraft-Expert Thus removing heat. And if an ice machine would be installed to produce new ice using power from the reactor, it would last forever.
7:54 Maybe not in the U.S. but that's for business reasons: if you have a mix of fossil and nuclear plants it is most cost-effective to run nuclear at max capacity and use the fossil fuel plants for load following, but that only works if nuclear makes up a sufficiently small portion of total capacity. In contrast, in France where they have a high percentage of nuclear power, there's no choice but to have nuclear plants perform load following, and they sometimes do ramp them down all the way to 30% (though more commonly to 50%). They also have to do smaller but much faster power changes for grid frequency stabilization. See the NEA paper "Technical and Economic Aspects of Load Following with Nuclear Power Plants" for more info. The ability of nuclear plants to perform load following and frequency stabilization will presumably become a lot more important if fossil fuels need to get phased out.
Could they run the reactors at 100 all the time, sell the power to the larger European grid when there's too much, then buy it when there's too little? Or would that end up costing more/ being less efficient than ramping the reactors up and down?
@@elizataylor1726 If there was enough foreign demand for power during french off-hours then they presumably would do so, but that's not how it works: your neighbours are following the same daily cycle in power demand, so your hours of least demand are also their hours of least demand.
There is gravity almost identical to Earth, although you're moving so fast sideways it creates the illusion of no weight. There's plenty of sources explaining how it works oh the ISS, I recommend looking it up.
Submarines absolutely DO get refueled. I've worked on several during the refueling process. You are correct about the lifespan of the fuel, but the L.A. class boats have or will have 35 to 40 years of service. That means a refuel.
@@rafael_lana The cold war may be over, but governments still find ways to create problems. Russia & Ukraine, China & Taiwan. . . The new Virginia class boats are getting out there. 22 in commission with 66 planned.
Presumably if you were using watercooled nuclear reactors in space you might design them differently or design the infrastructure differently. I have an idea of a water cooled sci-fi reactor that I'm working into a book series where the ships are all basically modeled on subs. The water can be swapped out at stations that can afford much larger radiators, which kind of resets the heatsink quickly. Heat would still be a massive limiting factor, but if you can build stuff in space I think water still makes a really useful cooling system. Crew needs it so you need to have some anyways. You can split it to hydrogen and oxygen; oxygen again for the crew, and hydrogen can be fused for energy, assuming some sci-fi efficiency handwaving. It's also non-toxic and if you store it in otherwise unusable voids in the ship and intentionally placed tanks you don't have to worry as much about it leaking as you might hydrazine or other face melting things. You can then trim the ship by moving the water to different tanks and adjust the center of mass to better align with the center of thrust to account for changing ship conditions, and if you superheat it you can chuck it out as reaction mass for the main engines or reaction control thrusters.
You would never want to use water as a coolant for a reactor in space. The reason being that radiator effectiveness goes up as the fourth power of their temperature. So you want to run your reactor as hot as technology can allow. A very light weight and simple brayton cycle helium cooled reactor can reach 1000c for instance. Without having do deal with multiple coolant loops and the inherent mass penalty. A standard panel radiator for a 500MW Thermal reactor could weigh as little as 11000kg or 11tons. Compared to the thrust.of nuclear powered spacecraft 11tons for the radiator is nothing. Especially compared to trying to heatsink that energy. The weight of the water to get any useful run time would far exceed radiator weight. That's for simple panel radiators compared to more exotic liquid droplet, sublimation, or curi point radiators.
My favorite sci fi solution for heat management in space is actually in Avatar 2. That spaceship with the glowing red heat sinks looks both realistic and menacing, look it up if you haven't already.
Have you seen the video just called "Cursed Units"? It's a collection of weird units of measurement, and is really interesting and funny. I haven't seen anyone else react to it yet.
Feels like the plot to a weird pseudo sci-fi thriller where a nuclear sub suddenly disappears, gets the modifications necessary for the re-entry to maybe work, and then suddenly reappears in space, and the crew needs to figure out what to do in time.
this submarine topic made me think again of the suggestion i wrote below one of your pop culture reactions, that you might be interested in reacting to the movie k-19, which is about a reactor disaster and makeshift repairs of a soviet sub based on a true story.
Almost nothing about that movie was historically (or technically) accurate, according to my navy submariner friends. The joke is Down Periscope is actually more accurate than K19.
Structurally, he's right. Building a structure that will hold together in space is a hell of a lot easier than the deep ocean. On the other hand, you don't have a planet-sized heatsink surrounding you, nor do you have the pretty much total protection from external radiation.
I am amazed by your insightfulness! I was worried this channel might be a very "react andy" style where like many youtubers you watch content and add nothing but I am amazed at the sheer knowledge you share every bit. You genuinely make me more interested about Nuclear physics and power plants :) Thanks for making insightful content and covering things in a very well done manner
The sub is designed against compressive forces, not expansive so much. I dunno I think it would still handle 1 atmosphere but if you had more than that your pushing you're luck bad. It certainly wouldn't handle 20 atmospheres trying to escape I would think.
You dont even need 1 atmosphere though. Lot of space craft use pure oxygen so they can get away with a lot lower pressure. Like the lunar lander only had 0.27 atmosphere.
@@zwenkwiel816The sub wouldn't have a pure oxygen atmosphere in it. The premise was that you somehow got a submarine into orbit, no modifications, no nothing.
@zwenkwiel816 the issue isn't breathing. I'm saying you need less atmospheres of pressure to rupture the sub from the inside than you do to crush it. As in its designed to keep pressure out, not nearly as well will it be able to keep it in.
@@jeremygair4007 yes and I'm saying you don't need 1 atmosphere if you use pure oxygen... Like a sub is essentially a metal tube. (Well 2 tubes I think) designed to withstand 1000's of psi from the outside. I'm pretty sure it could hold 0.27 bar or about 4 psi from the inside as well....
@zwenkwiel816 entirely outside the purview of the video but sure? It could probably hold 1 atmosphere too. I mean you could probably say that about a school bus too in some conditions?
The double walled hull could be used to store water for the heat sink with fins on the outer hull to remove heat. But that would only act as a small heat sink. And may work better with plutonium 238 or some isotope generator.
In this case a heat battery might be a pretty useful addition. Rather than trying to radiate the heat away, pump it into a container designed to store heat. Then you can use that heat in all sorts of processes that might require it. I'm sure we can think of some things to do in space that require heat.
11:00 NASA actually put a reactor in space (a single test only) It was a rather small test, at an electrical output of only 500 watts, it did have a thermal output of 30kW. Look up SNAP-10A. Scott Manly did a video on it.
5:54 i think what you mean by this is that fusion plasma is not very dense, like orders of magnitude less dense than normal atmosphere. ( in JET fusion plasma is 10^14 to 10^20 particles/ m^3 vs atmosphere at sea level which is 10^24 particles/ m^3)
There actually have been proper reactors put in space on a few times a while back, much smaller than the reactors you're probably used to but still somewhat large - I wanna say one had like a hundred kilowatts of thermal output (though these reactors tended to still use simpler and less efficient means of converting that to electricity) by way of having way more highly enriched fuel
Definitely would make things worse than cold sea water, the ISS has big heat sinks (that people often confuse with more solar panels) and they don't even have a reactor. Basically they would accumulate more heat on the sunlight that they could get rid of on the dark.
@rafael_lana I would suspect as much. Wondering how much it shortens things. I mean they could drop the reactor down in power maybe enough but if they have to scram, it will take a lot to get it back on.
1:15 - this idea shocked me when I saw NASA astronauts training in neutral buoyancy pools - I was thinking - won't they get wet, but then remembered airtight > watertight.
16:30 there was a simulated event in the nucleares nuclear simulator game where due to flooding i chose to abandon the control room, and i controlled the entire system just from valves and other manual controls
Interestingly actual fission reactors have been used in space. Nasa launched SNAP-10A in the 60s as an experimental test bed and the soviets launched several dozen fission powered radar surveillance satellites to track ocean traffic. NASA is currently planning to use a 10s of kw sized fission plant for their moon base and is in the process of putting that out for commercial bid with westinghouse expressing interest in designing it. You pretty much have to have some kind of nuclear power for anything on the moon you expect to survive for more than a single lunar day. The lunar night is far to long and cold to rely on solar and batteries. A robotic probe can get away with radiothermal heaters to keep its batteries and electronics from freezing but radio decay isn't practical for something as large and complex as a habitat. You have similar power limit issues with RTGs and manned long distance space craft. The proposals I have seen mostly use stirling engines as a compromise between the complexting of a steam cycle engine and the inefficiency of thermoelectrics. Edit: The russian sats were designed to kick the reactor into a higher graveyard orbit at the end of their life but this failed in two instances and Kosmos 954 rained radioactive debris across canada.
I dunno, I suspect that the submarine and commercial reactor would both end up using evaporative cooking quite quickly in space. Although, we did use liquid metal cooling in reactors that were sent into orbit, some remnants of that coolant remain a risk to LEO spacecraft today. The reactors tended to be beryllium reflector models, the reflectors were ejected on decomissioning, coolant slowly leaked and as I recall, the reactors are still in orbit. Most used cores were ejected into a higher "disposal orbit", but a few Russian reactor cores did reenter the atmosphere (ask Canada about Kosmos 954), Kosmos 1402 core completely burned up on reentry, the remaining cores are in orbit for the next 500 years. That's OK though, the US SNAP-10A will remain orbiting in pieces for 4000 years. Beta emitters, can we say betavoltaic? Glad we're done saying it... ;) Was Army, but fast attack boats do have missiles. Not quite an SSGN, but still they do have guided missiles in most cases for things like ground attack TLAM and antishipping missiles. Still, entertaining notion, "Missile launch in spAaAaAaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE - bad idea, how do we stop this tumbling?!". For every action, there is an equal and opposite amount of laughter. Still, the missiles aren't hot launched, firing engines to take off, a steam generator or compressed air for torpedo tube launched missiles is used, the engine fires long after the missile is clear of the boat, as cooking the boat that you're aboard is generally considered a really, really bad idea. So, one would have steam ejection and missile mass ejection only as "propulsion" - in an uncontrolled, off balance thrust, to generate ever the entertaining multi-axis spin. Wait a minute, submarines don't have ejection seats?! Fortunately, nuclear warheads come in disabled mode, there are tons of safeguards - courtesy of some near- heart attacks in the past when accidents nearly did detonate thermonuclear warheads, that leave warheads disarmed until ready to be detonated. Anything out of place or sequence, any explosion would just be the high explosives going off in uncoordinated ways and at worst, scattering core component chunks about. Fortunately, uranium and plutonium metal isn't flammable, they're only inflammable. Oh yeah...
Nausicaa of the valley of the wind depicted a submarine and people in the future looked at it and one guy asked "what was that for" and the other guy says "some people say they took it to the Stars."
Hello, You say that the ocean is a nigh-infinite heatsink, but could it be possible for the core to heat up to the point the water would start "leidenfrosting"?
If the core was totally exposed to water no, it's essentially the same thing as a cooling pool. But of course in the ocean floor it could become partially covered in sand over time, reducing the water convection for sand conduction. That would be bad news. Leidenfrosting still is fast paced convection so I doubt the part touching the water would be the problem.
Fun fact the Soviet Union and I think the US too have launched actual nuclear reactors into space. I think Scot Manley has done some videos on it. (Checks) Yes Scot Manley has done videos on this.
What about useing water tubes in solar sails the sail would be huge so a lot of water could be moved around by pumps the hull could also have a water heat shield to protect from cosmic rays.
Remove your heat sink, and the reactor will shut down. Why? In short, loss of main condenser vacuum will cause a loss of turbine generators. Loss of turbine generators means loss of non vital power buses. If you're reactor coolant pumps we powered by those buses, you lose them and the reactor will scram. If the RCPs were powered by the vital buses (which will be powered ultimately by the ships battery), they will run for a while until the battery dies. Then...loss of flow scram. There are many ways in which we can say the reactor will be shut down, including procedures followed by loss of equipment/systems. Then there's the issue of no gravity, which would be problematic in several ways as well. No... the reactor will NOT be operating in space.
jfwiw- The LM and EVA spacesuits use sublimators- water ice converting to gas. Of course that means you have to carry water to first form ice then sublimate away. The Apollo and Shuttles had to run glycol through radiator loops. On orbit the Shuttle with the cargo doors open had to keep the radiators pointed away from the Sun. A way to use your nuke for propulsion is to use the reactor heat up a very light gas and then throw it out the nozzle.
A full up reactor makes sense for large space craft especially nuclear propelled ones. You generally need a more exotic reactor because you want to save weight So like the sub using highly enriched fuel. Very high reactor temps. If reliability is of concern use a big ass thermoelectric generator. You can even use molybdenum heat pipes with lithium working fluid on the cold and hot side to need no pumps. Transfer rate is 240,000 kWth/m2. Max temp 1450K For more power use a brayton cycle with helium for coolant directly run thru the turbine for power. 1600K for ceramic blades. Avoid designs that need secondary or tertiary coolant loops as those will by their very nature lower the overall temp before waste heat rejection: lower temps mean your radiators need to get bigger. Since radiators effectiveness grows with the fourth power of the temperature getting it real hot keeps them small. You will have to of course sacrifice efficiency of the reactor the hotter you keep your radiator, that pesky carnot cycle and all, but generally since radiator weight dominates the equation a large less efficient reactor is superior to a smaller reactor with larger cooler radiators. Curie point radiators have got to be my favorite. Molten metal above its curie point sprayed as droplets outside the ship. As they radiate and cool they become magnetic and a magnetic field can pull them back in to be reheated and ejected again. Great for combat ships that can't have fragile panels with areas measured in thousands of square meters. Not so great for a freighter or miner. The biggest reason for a commercial vessel to need a large reactor is their engine, which provides most of the cooling while its lit. However the highest efficiency designs 4000 - 15000 ISP for fission, need radiators even while the engine is running, and certainly need some while its off and cooling. A low thrust to give sudo gravity and running the engine the entire flight makes sense in these cases. Of course military vessels have reasons to go into the 10s of gigawatts for spacecraft.
I don't think the sub would break up very high if at all. Shockingly large and weirdly shaped iron meteorites can reenter and survive. I think the inevitability of it breaking up before impact is greatly overstated.
Ohio class reactors also have 2 redundant, isolated, back up secondary coolant sytems and reactor powered chillers on the secondary loop for emergency cooling if needed. None of which would save the submarine in space, but woukd prolong the human survivability time.
Easy answer...no. In addition to the issue of the reactor needing water to work, a sub is designed to keep higher pressures out and does not work if you are trying to keep higher pressure inside the sub. The maker of the video is wrong about the sub being able to keep pressure in because there are openings that are designed to work only in one direction and cannot keep pressure inside the sub.
Aside from any valves, the materials and structural design are designed to be strong in compression from the outside water pressure and switching the pressure difference also changes it all to tension. You can put a lot of force on a stone arch from the outside but push outward and it collapses. The circular cross section is still the strongest either way, but metals are generally stronger in compression than tension (esp alloys used in a submarine pressure hull) and the internal framework would need to be entirely different to still help. Of course the design pressures differences are so large for submarines I wouldn’t be surprised if they were still “good enough” but I don’t think it’s at all a safe bet.
@@iKvetch558 so the video calls it a valve, everybody else in this thread calls it a valve, but the only person you reply to is the woman? Not a good look honey. if you want to discuss English Definitions bear in mind I am English 🏴 . We invented the language and merriam Webster simplified it for Americans. I suggest you learn how to spell words correctly before you criticise the inventors of the language. You miss "u" all the time, and "burglarize" isn't a word. The correct word is "burgled" And why do you use "z" for the -ise suffix? It's s. For example, realise, not realize, You spell "mètre" the unit of measurement "meter". A meter is a measuring device such as gas or electric meter. I'm thinking of a word which is slang for a cigarette in The United Kingdom.... Name that word, and then look in the mirror. Because that's what you are. I'm also a Welsh 🏴 speaker..... This could end very badly for you.
i think the original guy missed the point! the sub would not be sent into space AS IS! it would be modified with radiation shielding , heat transfer radiators, and any rockets would be set up on the outside and the launch tubes replaced with fuel tanks AND ALL those things needed to survive in space. UNLESS the aliens beam it up that is!!!!!:)
He could get the efficiency data from rolls Royse. Their small modular reactor is just a 180MW reactor from a nuclear sub in a different shape. I think they claimed 35% efficiency.
Fission rocket engines _are_ a thing -- see NERVA. The concept is redesign a fission reactor to use hydrogen as coolant then vent the superheated hydrogen overboard to produce thrust. To be clear, the hydrogen coolant flows _directly_ through the reactor core, so no heat exchanger is required. Also, since you are dumping your coolant overboard after a single pass through the reactor, once you run out of fuel the reactor will inevitably meltdown (even with the control rods fully inserted it will generate _some_ heat, and there is no mechanism for dispersing it. The primary use case was (still is, actually) as a transfer atage for manned Mars missions. The program waa shelved in the 60s but it did get to the point of building testing fully functional scale prototypes. No, they didn't have a mechanism to catch the radioactive exhaust. 60s, remember?
NERVA exhaust isn't that bad. If you want *real* fun exhaust products, you want a Nuclear Salt Water Rocket. The way those work is directly analogous You take water with uranium or plutonium salts in it stored in a bunch of small pipes to keep it from reaching critical mass, then pump it into a reaction chamber, and send the whole hot fissioning mess out the nozzle.
Nuclear warheads are hwavily designed to be VERY hard to set off, as much as they can without affecting reliability. A nuke is never something you want gking off accidentally.
I hope you do realize Randall Monroe (the creator of this video and the author of my favorite book) is infact a former NASA engineer. It is extremely likely that he knows more about this then you do.
to be fair, i think there should be more projects that use nuclear reactors for steam powered space craft and probes, versus the terrible thermoelectric power systems.
The reactors out of nuclear subs and ships can be disposed of by just cutting them out of the bottom of the vessel and letting them drop to the ocean floor… there are standards as to minimum depth… I think Russia is the only place this has happened and they do it around an arctic island… but it’s not deep enough for the standard… the info is on the net… there’s a map of where these reactors are located I found years ago… there’s a good half dozen all close together in Russian waters… I’m pretty sure they don’t do this anymore?
I mean it wouldn't surprise me if fast attack subs started being caller Zoomers, but they weren't called that when I was in the navy. (I served on a Boomer)
Talking about nuclear reactor breaking apart in the atmosphere .... I wondered what would be one country's respond to another if this occurred. If China/Russia launched a satellite with a reactor and "accidentally" it broke up, dusting the bulk of the US, what happens next?
One would insist it was a civilian meteorological satellite. The other would insist it has a thousand more, 100x as large hidden a few miles off the coast of US controlled outer space. Then the US would send a sternly worded letter to the UN.
It happened, in 1978 a Soviet spy satellite that use nuclear power failed to achieve the proper orbit and lost connection to the ground command. It eventually crashed in the Northwest territory of Canada. Canada and the US sent out teams to try to recover the satellite or any nuclear material. They basically stumbled around the woods for several months before giving up and going home with 99% of the nuclear material unaccounted for.
I remember some old Star Trek lore where submarine hulls were converted into spaceships. Of course, it's fiction. But it doesn't seem very practical to convert a submarine hull into a spaceship.
A submarine hull isn't really any worse than any other spacecraft hull, assuming you take the same engineering precautions to make it space worthy. The biggest problem would actually be that in terms of structural strength the hull would be so dramatically overkill that it'd be absurdly heavy for a space craft, so the logistical effort to get one into space would be immense
It is funny.. surviving at the greatest depths of the ocean is actually harder than surviving most of the time in space. But not at the depths subs operate at.. space is far more dangerous. So insert (wtf stare), and let's all say "no" together. Within hours I'd imagine ruptures in the hull from the extreme heat/cold differential would neutralize all meatbags on board. Maybe sooner. Space is real cold on one side, real spicy on the other. Subs ain't designed for that. Fatality!
Hey man! Can you take some time to read this theory about the pyramids and give some opinion? Theory:The pyramids were electrolysis machines using limestone it's main material. (generates static electricity), it ran water under it in a resonance chamber which created piezoelectric discharges (using piezoelectric actustors) which in turns causes electrolysis (splitting of hydrogen ans oxygen molecules), it then uses a conductor like Gold for its topstone which with Acoustic resonance, piezoelectricity, electrostatic electricity, and electromagnetism it emits a plasmonic emission of Pure Hydrogen. Since water (hydrogen specifically) stores a shitload of information. The pyramids transmitted information, and through the use of hydrogen created a global power grid (use hydrogen to carry clean energy or etc), there's entire grids of these pyramids. Did you know the acoustic resonance chamber in all these pyramid still is active today? Stabilizing the earths crust. as well as dispersing negative charge? (The limestone itself and the pyramids shape) They used the sound of the water in their underground dam basically to create a tuning for a crystal, the water ALSO activates the crystal and causes a charge/current, which emites in the form programmed (pyramid likely which focuses energy) creating a non physical sound field that without conductors conducts electromagnetism generated by vibration (remember the resonance chamber is multipurpose). They used the natural sound of water in a enclosed space to emit a sound field, that same enclosed space puts reassure directly or indirectly on a specialized crystal which then enters a phase (more advanced, makes it impossible for the earths ohmz/electrical resistancd to interrupt anything) in that exact field shape, then by matching the earths frequency with the water (negating ohmz). It then causes active electrolysis and electromagnetism pulls the molecules into pure forms, of which the static electricity produced by the limestone the pyramid is built from draws up the energy (also acts as a negation to resistance/ohmz too) eventually reaching the topstone. Which emits it as pure hydrogen. And chances are it wasn't a modern style of laser, plasmonics, gathered in the air using sound itself to split the particles around within its field without a need for a channel directly in the pyramid to directly guide or manufacture the energy. That's why we can't find shit because there's no wires, no Voltz, it uses electromagnetic acoustic resonance to emit plasmonic rays of which are either information or energy, possibly teleportation is capable too.
20 years US subs .. A Sub in Space is about as relevant as: why don't we use C&C machines in dental offices .. No system on a sub would work in space, yet they are extraordinary machines in the environment for which they are designed .. Hmmm now .. would you let me take care of that cavity with a multi-million dollar C&C machine ?? .. Say AHHhh .. No?? I swear its the best C&C money can buy ..
Can u react roblox chernobyl unit 3, is a realistic game, you can watch the tutorial or the rebuild trailer, is really realistic, like 75% similar to the real one
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks so much for watching! For an example of an orphan source RTG accident, please check out: czcams.com/video/bHyJAVMFJ2Q/video.htmlsi=Bql0a_6fGHV04wkW
The direction of the pressure is opposite and the sub will explode easily as it’s designed to have inwards pressure.
There was a Russian reactor that crashed in Canada from space....plainly difficult covered it
Thoughts on this?
czcams.com/video/hOWQgLeRM-M/video.htmlsi=7DNj--pFHj2w3v7V
czcams.com/video/PjeywZZm2Ow/video.htmlsi=RJNzaaiC4_dsZsbB
This might need some extra research to corroborate data… but I would love to see your reaction to these guys and their PPE and ALARA policies 😅
Former Navy 'nuc' here. Did anyone think about the steam generators? You need GRAVITY to help separate the steam from the boiling water. In space you'd have a lot of water going down the steam lines to the turbines. Bang, no more turbine blading (well, there will be some turbine blades flying around the engine room, but that's not going to generate electricity lol).
And with no effective condensers, the steam will quickly rupture the condenser shells and fill the engine room with live steam/ water. I'd give the engineering crew less than 5 minutes to live. Ship's battery might last a few hours for electricity, but even the forward crew members won't have long.
Nothing to keep the bubble in the pressurizer either. Depending on how it drifts around you might end up with some wrecked coolant pumps as well.
interesting thought experiment.... I guess the easiest way is to throw the whole sub into some kind of centrifuge (ie 2 subs tethered via a set of cables, spinning, etc). Although you probably could engineer this to avoid needing "gravity". In refrigeration we keep vapor and liquid apart by constant motion. So I would think if you had large enough pumps, and some very careful piping and pressure vessel design you might be able to still boil water without too much issue while still keeping it all separated. IE. The cushion would be a separate tank and a diaphragm. You might not need a separator, but if you did, it could be a vortex style separator with liquid exit ports on the outside diameter, and some positive delta P to keep things moving. It would be quite an engineering challenge. This is why the first and only nuclear reactor test by NASA used thermalcouples instead as they didn't want to get bogged down by a better method like steam.
Hey! 😜 I commented exactly this on the XKCD video. Cheers from ex CVN75.
My first thought was getting rid of heat first
I love this channel - so many smart people watching and sharing their PoV.
13:32 Fun fact: something like that has actually happened. A Soviet nuclear-powered reconnaissance satellite by the name of Kosmos 954 which the operators lost control of re-entered the atmosphere in 1978, complete with 50 kg of 90% enriched uranium (it had a system which was supposed to boost a spent core into a safe disposal orbit, but it failed).
It came down over western Canada, spreading debris over a 600km track. The recovery efforts (which only found about 1% of the fuel in the end) lasted nine months, for which Canada billed the Soviet Union C$6,041,174.70.
Did they pay or did it go to collections?
@@jasonbender2459 They did eventually pay 3 million. Maybe they objected to the part of the bill that was for "future unpredicted expenses".
the fuel likely mostly burned up in the atmosphere like he said
I do remember that there was an instrument carried on Apollo 13's lunar module was powered by radioactive decay, and even though the fuel was sealed in a cask designed not to leak and even to survive reentry, NASA was concerned enough about it that they wanted the remains of the LM to end up in the deepest ocean the flight controllers could manage. It wasn't enough that it was brought down where the debris wouldn't harm people on the ground; they wanted it dealt with as much as possible.
@@anomaly3215It's nuclear fuel, so an unstable element that will undergo radioactive decay. Any chemical reaction that it undergoes wouldn't change the element.
I recommend another xkcd What If? video: "What if you threw a baseball at nearly light speed?"
Boosting this comment
There would be no ball unless it was in a vacuum. Under the influence of gravitational forces, it would vaporise due to g forces alone if not accelerating very slow
Nevermind, he already saw it lol
Nasa's standard for spacesuit leaks is no more than 100ml of air per minute. Which is kind of crazy when you think about it. I used to just assume stuff like that didn't leak at all lol.
Subs do get refueled. Been a part of it.
Thanks for saying so, I was really confused when he said that. I knew the Ohio class were around 30-40 years old and still in service and I think the remaining Los Angeles class are even older. EDIT: I looked and the remaining Los Angeles class are in the middle of the Ohio class ages.
@@Merennulli there’s a lot that goes into it but refueling can also happen more frequently than 20 years.
Submarines have a life of 30 to 45 years. Los Angeles class, Virginia class, and Ohio class have a single mid-life refueling. Columbia class is designed with a life of the boat reactor, designed for more than 40 years without refueling.
I thought they cut the entire section out with reactor and sealed it, stored it within view of satelites for the nuclear treaty, then installed a new section with new reactor? I want to say it was a documentary I got that from
The next gen of reactors and subs are not designed to be refueled. The S1B reactor is designed to have a fuel life that matches the service life of the host boat.
0:12
I didn't know xkcd did his What If series on CZcams too.
I especially love the one detailing what would happen if a glass was _actually_ half empty/full.
Like an actual void instead of gasses/air.
If the void is in the top half, the air rushing back in causes a Sonic boom.
If the void is in the bottom half, the glass shoots up and hits the ceiling.
@@JadianRadiator either way, the beret guy stays optimistic about the situation
@@vibaj16 And the physicist ducks.
Current reactor plant designs would not work, not only because of the heat rejection problem but because the plant relies on gravity to separate liquid water from steam. Simple explanation is that the boilers, condensers and pressurizer would all fail to perform their functions because of the zero-g. If you designed it to spin in a centrifuge it would work, but not if you just teleported a sub into space.
They have been perfectly adequate space ships since the 90s! I'm pretty sure the Marauders game is based on true events anyway.
Just looking at the question, the nuclear reactor will melt down since the biggest issues with space is trying to radiate heat away for the object. A large amount of the space station is just radiators to cool it.
Come on, can cool the reactor with ice.
@@johanea The ice would melt.
Nuclear submarines sort of have “gills” but rather than them for being breathing, they are for cooling. Without seawater the nuclear reactor would get hot hot hot.
@@Minecraft-Expert Thus removing heat.
And if an ice machine would be installed to produce new ice using power from the reactor, it would last forever.
@@johanea The second law of thermodynamics would like a word.
7:54 Maybe not in the U.S. but that's for business reasons: if you have a mix of fossil and nuclear plants it is most cost-effective to run nuclear at max capacity and use the fossil fuel plants for load following, but that only works if nuclear makes up a sufficiently small portion of total capacity. In contrast, in France where they have a high percentage of nuclear power, there's no choice but to have nuclear plants perform load following, and they sometimes do ramp them down all the way to 30% (though more commonly to 50%). They also have to do smaller but much faster power changes for grid frequency stabilization. See the NEA paper "Technical and Economic Aspects of Load Following with Nuclear Power Plants" for more info. The ability of nuclear plants to perform load following and frequency stabilization will presumably become a lot more important if fossil fuels need to get phased out.
Could they run the reactors at 100 all the time, sell the power to the larger European grid when there's too much, then buy it when there's too little? Or would that end up costing more/ being less efficient than ramping the reactors up and down?
@@elizataylor1726 If there was enough foreign demand for power during french off-hours then they presumably would do so, but that's not how it works: your neighbours are following the same daily cycle in power demand, so your hours of least demand are also their hours of least demand.
90% of badass dudes are certain to watch this video on XKCD as well
The lack of gravity is going to be a huge problem too
In orbit is no lack of gravity
There is gravity almost identical to Earth, although you're moving so fast sideways it creates the illusion of no weight. There's plenty of sources explaining how it works oh the ISS, I recommend looking it up.
wow congrats on 100.000 subs i started watching when you had like 30.000 i am glad this is working out for you and i love the content🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤
Submarines absolutely DO get refueled. I've worked on several during the refueling process. You are correct about the lifespan of the fuel, but the L.A. class boats have or will have 35 to 40 years of service. That means a refuel.
And you bet those 40 will be stretched more and more. Way harder to justify building a new fleet now that the cold war is over.
@@rafael_lana The cold war may be over, but governments still find ways to create problems. Russia & Ukraine, China & Taiwan. . . The new Virginia class boats are getting out there. 22 in commission with 66 planned.
Presumably if you were using watercooled nuclear reactors in space you might design them differently or design the infrastructure differently. I have an idea of a water cooled sci-fi reactor that I'm working into a book series where the ships are all basically modeled on subs. The water can be swapped out at stations that can afford much larger radiators, which kind of resets the heatsink quickly. Heat would still be a massive limiting factor, but if you can build stuff in space I think water still makes a really useful cooling system. Crew needs it so you need to have some anyways. You can split it to hydrogen and oxygen; oxygen again for the crew, and hydrogen can be fused for energy, assuming some sci-fi efficiency handwaving. It's also non-toxic and if you store it in otherwise unusable voids in the ship and intentionally placed tanks you don't have to worry as much about it leaking as you might hydrazine or other face melting things. You can then trim the ship by moving the water to different tanks and adjust the center of mass to better align with the center of thrust to account for changing ship conditions, and if you superheat it you can chuck it out as reaction mass for the main engines or reaction control thrusters.
You would never want to use water as a coolant for a reactor in space.
The reason being that radiator effectiveness goes up as the fourth power of their temperature.
So you want to run your reactor as hot as technology can allow.
A very light weight and simple brayton cycle helium cooled reactor can reach 1000c for instance.
Without having do deal with multiple coolant loops and the inherent mass penalty.
A standard panel radiator for a 500MW Thermal reactor could weigh as little as 11000kg or 11tons.
Compared to the thrust.of nuclear powered spacecraft 11tons for the radiator is nothing.
Especially compared to trying to heatsink that energy.
The weight of the water to get any useful run time would far exceed radiator weight.
That's for simple panel radiators compared to more exotic liquid droplet, sublimation, or curi point radiators.
My favorite sci fi solution for heat management in space is actually in Avatar 2. That spaceship with the glowing red heat sinks looks both realistic and menacing, look it up if you haven't already.
Have you seen the video just called "Cursed Units"? It's a collection of weird units of measurement, and is really interesting and funny. I haven't seen anyone else react to it yet.
This is my favourite one of your videos so far!!
Thanks so much!
Feels like the plot to a weird pseudo sci-fi thriller where a nuclear sub suddenly disappears, gets the modifications necessary for the re-entry to maybe work, and then suddenly reappears in space, and the crew needs to figure out what to do in time.
this submarine topic made me think again of the suggestion i wrote below one of your pop culture reactions, that you might be interested in reacting to the movie k-19, which is about a reactor disaster and makeshift repairs of a soviet sub based on a true story.
Almost nothing about that movie was historically (or technically) accurate, according to my navy submariner friends. The joke is Down Periscope is actually more accurate than K19.
Fun stuff. It'd be super cool so see a reaction or a video about the SNAP 10A space reactor project.
A previous manager of mine said: "Space is easy. There's no pressure there!"
He had a Master's in subsea engineering. 😂
Was he Stockton Rush?
@@jasonbender2459 not that I know of...
to be fair, it's almost the opposite ehehehe
I mean to be fair it's easier to make a container that can survive in space than one that can on the bottom of the ocean.
Structurally, he's right. Building a structure that will hold together in space is a hell of a lot easier than the deep ocean.
On the other hand, you don't have a planet-sized heatsink surrounding you, nor do you have the pretty much total protection from external radiation.
I am amazed by your insightfulness! I was worried this channel might be a very "react andy" style where like many youtubers you watch content and add nothing but I am amazed at the sheer knowledge you share every bit. You genuinely make me more interested about Nuclear physics and power plants :) Thanks for making insightful content and covering things in a very well done manner
The sub is designed against compressive forces, not expansive so much.
I dunno I think it would still handle 1 atmosphere but if you had more than that your pushing you're luck bad.
It certainly wouldn't handle 20 atmospheres trying to escape I would think.
You dont even need 1 atmosphere though. Lot of space craft use pure oxygen so they can get away with a lot lower pressure. Like the lunar lander only had 0.27 atmosphere.
@@zwenkwiel816The sub wouldn't have a pure oxygen atmosphere in it. The premise was that you somehow got a submarine into orbit, no modifications, no nothing.
@zwenkwiel816 the issue isn't breathing. I'm saying you need less atmospheres of pressure to rupture the sub from the inside than you do to crush it.
As in its designed to keep pressure out, not nearly as well will it be able to keep it in.
@@jeremygair4007 yes and I'm saying you don't need 1 atmosphere if you use pure oxygen...
Like a sub is essentially a metal tube. (Well 2 tubes I think) designed to withstand 1000's of psi from the outside. I'm pretty sure it could hold 0.27 bar or about 4 psi from the inside as well....
@zwenkwiel816 entirely outside the purview of the video but sure?
It could probably hold 1 atmosphere too.
I mean you could probably say that about a school bus too in some conditions?
The double walled hull could be used to store water for the heat sink with fins on the outer hull to remove heat. But that would only act as a small heat sink. And may work better with plutonium 238 or some isotope generator.
In this case a heat battery might be a pretty useful addition. Rather than trying to radiate the heat away, pump it into a container designed to store heat. Then you can use that heat in all sorts of processes that might require it. I'm sure we can think of some things to do in space that require heat.
11:00 NASA actually put a reactor in space (a single test only) It was a rather small test, at an electrical output of only 500 watts, it did have a thermal output of 30kW. Look up SNAP-10A. Scott Manly did a video on it.
2:51 everything reminds me of her...
5:54 i think what you mean by this is that fusion plasma is not very dense, like orders of magnitude less dense than normal atmosphere. ( in JET fusion plasma is 10^14 to 10^20 particles/ m^3 vs atmosphere at sea level which is 10^24 particles/ m^3)
There actually have been proper reactors put in space on a few times a while back, much smaller than the reactors you're probably used to but still somewhat large - I wanna say one had like a hundred kilowatts of thermal output (though these reactors tended to still use simpler and less efficient means of converting that to electricity) by way of having way more highly enriched fuel
If its orbiting at ISS speed and orbit, it would have alternating sunlight and darkness cycles of 45 min. How's that factor?
Definitely would make things worse than cold sea water, the ISS has big heat sinks (that people often confuse with more solar panels) and they don't even have a reactor. Basically they would accumulate more heat on the sunlight that they could get rid of on the dark.
@rafael_lana I would suspect as much. Wondering how much it shortens things.
I mean they could drop the reactor down in power maybe enough but if they have to scram, it will take a lot to get it back on.
Lol @ 3:04 - Everywhere I Look Something Reminds Me of Her
1:15 - this idea shocked me when I saw NASA astronauts training in neutral buoyancy pools - I was thinking - won't they get wet, but then remembered airtight > watertight.
16:30 there was a simulated event in the nucleares nuclear simulator game where due to flooding i chose to abandon the control room, and i controlled the entire system just from valves and other manual controls
Thanks for doing this. So many "react" videos aren't transformative. You add a lot to the already excellent XKCD content.
Interestingly actual fission reactors have been used in space. Nasa launched SNAP-10A in the 60s as an experimental test bed and the soviets launched several dozen fission powered radar surveillance satellites to track ocean traffic. NASA is currently planning to use a 10s of kw sized fission plant for their moon base and is in the process of putting that out for commercial bid with westinghouse expressing interest in designing it. You pretty much have to have some kind of nuclear power for anything on the moon you expect to survive for more than a single lunar day. The lunar night is far to long and cold to rely on solar and batteries. A robotic probe can get away with radiothermal heaters to keep its batteries and electronics from freezing but radio decay isn't practical for something as large and complex as a habitat. You have similar power limit issues with RTGs and manned long distance space craft. The proposals I have seen mostly use stirling engines as a compromise between the complexting of a steam cycle engine and the inefficiency of thermoelectrics.
Edit: The russian sats were designed to kick the reactor into a higher graveyard orbit at the end of their life but this failed in two instances and Kosmos 954 rained radioactive debris across canada.
I dunno, I suspect that the submarine and commercial reactor would both end up using evaporative cooking quite quickly in space.
Although, we did use liquid metal cooling in reactors that were sent into orbit, some remnants of that coolant remain a risk to LEO spacecraft today. The reactors tended to be beryllium reflector models, the reflectors were ejected on decomissioning, coolant slowly leaked and as I recall, the reactors are still in orbit. Most used cores were ejected into a higher "disposal orbit", but a few Russian reactor cores did reenter the atmosphere (ask Canada about Kosmos 954), Kosmos 1402 core completely burned up on reentry, the remaining cores are in orbit for the next 500 years. That's OK though, the US SNAP-10A will remain orbiting in pieces for 4000 years.
Beta emitters, can we say betavoltaic? Glad we're done saying it... ;)
Was Army, but fast attack boats do have missiles. Not quite an SSGN, but still they do have guided missiles in most cases for things like ground attack TLAM and antishipping missiles.
Still, entertaining notion, "Missile launch in spAaAaAaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE - bad idea, how do we stop this tumbling?!". For every action, there is an equal and opposite amount of laughter. Still, the missiles aren't hot launched, firing engines to take off, a steam generator or compressed air for torpedo tube launched missiles is used, the engine fires long after the missile is clear of the boat, as cooking the boat that you're aboard is generally considered a really, really bad idea. So, one would have steam ejection and missile mass ejection only as "propulsion" - in an uncontrolled, off balance thrust, to generate ever the entertaining multi-axis spin.
Wait a minute, submarines don't have ejection seats?!
Fortunately, nuclear warheads come in disabled mode, there are tons of safeguards - courtesy of some near- heart attacks in the past when accidents nearly did detonate thermonuclear warheads, that leave warheads disarmed until ready to be detonated. Anything out of place or sequence, any explosion would just be the high explosives going off in uncoordinated ways and at worst, scattering core component chunks about. Fortunately, uranium and plutonium metal isn't flammable, they're only inflammable. Oh yeah...
This would make a good scifi movie 🎥 🍿
Nausicaa of the valley of the wind depicted a submarine and people in the future looked at it and one guy asked "what was that for" and the other guy says "some people say they took it to the Stars."
The Yamamoto has dealt with all of these of course.
So how does the sub reactor evaporative cooling work? Is it basically phase change heat pipes ?
Hello,
You say that the ocean is a nigh-infinite heatsink, but could it be possible for the core to heat up to the point the water would start "leidenfrosting"?
If the core was totally exposed to water no, it's essentially the same thing as a cooling pool. But of course in the ocean floor it could become partially covered in sand over time, reducing the water convection for sand conduction. That would be bad news. Leidenfrosting still is fast paced convection so I doubt the part touching the water would be the problem.
Fun fact the Soviet Union and I think the US too have launched actual nuclear reactors into space. I think Scot Manley has done some videos on it. (Checks) Yes Scot Manley has done videos on this.
Would love your take on the Natural Nuclear reactor at Oklo Gabon
What about useing water tubes in solar sails the sail would be huge so a lot of water could be moved around by pumps the hull could also have a water heat shield to protect from cosmic rays.
Tyler i got a question
Do you know any good colleges/universites for nuclear engineering degrees?
It is over-built. The preassures of the sea are alot more than the interior pressure of a vehicle in the vacuum.
The Apollo spacecraft constantly rotated to disperse heat from the sun light.
A better question would be if a subs nuclear reactor could be made to work as a spaceship's source of power / propulsion.
Those missiles need to be activated before they can detonate.
I.
Think that another option for a space bound. Nuclear reactor would be similar to the carbon pile style reactors.
Remove your heat sink, and the reactor will shut down.
Why?
In short, loss of main condenser vacuum will cause a loss of turbine generators. Loss of turbine generators means loss of non vital power buses.
If you're reactor coolant pumps we powered by those buses, you lose them and the reactor will scram.
If the RCPs were powered by the vital buses (which will be powered ultimately by the ships battery), they will run for a while until the battery dies.
Then...loss of flow scram.
There are many ways in which we can say the reactor will be shut down, including procedures followed by loss of equipment/systems.
Then there's the issue of no gravity, which would be problematic in several ways as well.
No... the reactor will NOT be operating in space.
I mean, you could weld a metal ball to hold some air perfectly unless deformed, it would just be useless.
Can you go all Star Trek, and “eject the core”?
jfwiw- The LM and EVA spacesuits use sublimators- water ice converting to gas. Of course that means you have to carry water to first form ice then sublimate away. The Apollo and Shuttles had to run glycol through radiator loops. On orbit the Shuttle with the cargo doors open had to keep the radiators pointed away from the Sun.
A way to use your nuke for propulsion is to use the reactor heat up a very light gas and then throw it out the nozzle.
A full up reactor makes sense for large space craft especially nuclear propelled ones.
You generally need a more exotic reactor because you want to save weight
So like the sub using highly enriched fuel.
Very high reactor temps.
If reliability is of concern use a big ass thermoelectric generator. You can even use molybdenum heat pipes with lithium working fluid on the cold and hot side to need no pumps. Transfer rate is 240,000 kWth/m2. Max temp 1450K
For more power use a brayton cycle with helium for coolant directly run thru the turbine for power. 1600K for ceramic blades.
Avoid designs that need secondary or tertiary coolant loops as those will by their very nature lower the overall temp before waste heat rejection: lower temps mean your radiators need to get bigger.
Since radiators effectiveness grows with the fourth power of the temperature getting it real hot keeps them small.
You will have to of course sacrifice efficiency of the reactor the hotter you keep your radiator, that pesky carnot cycle and all, but generally since radiator weight dominates the equation a large less efficient reactor is superior to a smaller reactor with larger cooler radiators.
Curie point radiators have got to be my favorite. Molten metal above its curie point sprayed as droplets outside the ship. As they radiate and cool they become magnetic and a magnetic field can pull them back in to be reheated and ejected again.
Great for combat ships that can't have fragile panels with areas measured in thousands of square meters. Not so great for a freighter or miner.
The biggest reason for a commercial vessel to need a large reactor is their engine, which provides most of the cooling while its lit. However the highest efficiency designs 4000 - 15000 ISP for fission, need radiators even while the engine is running, and certainly need some while its off and cooling. A low thrust to give sudo gravity and running the engine the entire flight makes sense in these cases.
Of course military vessels have reasons to go into the 10s of gigawatts for spacecraft.
ooo this is fresh
You totally could have a reactor in space. Just need some biiiiig radiators.
I don't think the sub would break up very high if at all. Shockingly large and weirdly shaped iron meteorites can reenter and survive. I think the inevitability of it breaking up before impact is greatly overstated.
Another issue people didn't pick up on is that the missiles aren't launched by firing the rocket motor, that happens well after they leave the sub.
Well, *normally*, sure. But *normally* they point out, not in.
you need to react to those crazy ukrainian guys diving in a tschernobyl reactor with homemade diving gear
Did you just start an Instagram? a new Instagram with your videos came up w your name. Hope it’s actually you, just wanted to lyk :)
Just how bad do you have to be at navigating to end up in space with your sub?
2:50 giggity
Ohio class reactors also have 2 redundant, isolated, back up secondary coolant sytems and reactor powered chillers on the secondary loop for emergency cooling if needed.
None of which would save the submarine in space, but woukd prolong the human survivability time.
This guy’s a helluva engineer to fact-check Mr. Munroe. #THWG
Easy answer...no. In addition to the issue of the reactor needing water to work, a sub is designed to keep higher pressures out and does not work if you are trying to keep higher pressure inside the sub. The maker of the video is wrong about the sub being able to keep pressure in because there are openings that are designed to work only in one direction and cannot keep pressure inside the sub.
At 2:18 he did state one way valves at the bottom of the picture
An opening that works in one direction is called a valve
Aside from any valves, the materials and structural design are designed to be strong in compression from the outside water pressure and switching the pressure difference also changes it all to tension. You can put a lot of force on a stone arch from the outside but push outward and it collapses. The circular cross section is still the strongest either way, but metals are generally stronger in compression than tension (esp alloys used in a submarine pressure hull) and the internal framework would need to be entirely different to still help. Of course the design pressures differences are so large for submarines I wouldn’t be surprised if they were still “good enough” but I don’t think it’s at all a safe bet.
@@Rachel_M_ No...a valve is a way of regulating flow of gasses or liquids through a pipe or other such...if we are using English meaning.
@@iKvetch558 so the video calls it a valve, everybody else in this thread calls it a valve, but the only person you reply to is the woman?
Not a good look honey.
if you want to discuss English Definitions bear in mind I am English 🏴 . We invented the language and merriam Webster simplified it for Americans. I suggest you learn how to spell words correctly before you criticise the inventors of the language. You miss "u" all the time, and "burglarize" isn't a word. The correct word is "burgled"
And why do you use "z" for the -ise suffix? It's s. For example, realise, not realize,
You spell "mètre" the unit of measurement "meter".
A meter is a measuring device such as gas or electric meter.
I'm thinking of a word which is slang for a cigarette in The United Kingdom....
Name that word, and then look in the mirror. Because that's what you are.
I'm also a Welsh 🏴 speaker.....
This could end very badly for you.
I thought it was polonium not plutonium 238 that was used as electrical power sources
i think the original guy missed the point! the sub would not be sent into space AS IS! it would be modified with radiation shielding , heat transfer radiators, and any rockets would be set up on the outside and the launch tubes replaced with fuel tanks AND ALL those things needed to survive in space. UNLESS the aliens beam it up that is!!!!!:)
So that would become overatmospherine?
He could get the efficiency data from rolls Royse. Their small modular reactor is just a 180MW reactor from a nuclear sub in a different shape. I think they claimed 35% efficiency.
Cooling …cooling .cooling
You should react to PBS Space Time, like literally any of their videos. The science may go a little beyond even this viewer base however
More than one RTG equipped satellite has fallen out of space, one of them was *HUGE* if I remember correctly. 😐
The US has several dozen active nuclear submarines that are over 20 years old, including a handful of Ohio Class boats over 40 years old.
What's the scenario control room fire ever real?
Why is there so much waste heat in a reactor? Is it because of the sheer quantity of heat being produced can’t be harnessed fast enough?
Fission rocket engines _are_ a thing -- see NERVA. The concept is redesign a fission reactor to use hydrogen as coolant then vent the superheated hydrogen overboard to produce thrust. To be clear, the hydrogen coolant flows _directly_ through the reactor core, so no heat exchanger is required. Also, since you are dumping your coolant overboard after a single pass through the reactor, once you run out of fuel the reactor will inevitably meltdown (even with the control rods fully inserted it will generate _some_ heat, and there is no mechanism for dispersing it.
The primary use case was (still is, actually) as a transfer atage for manned Mars missions.
The program waa shelved in the 60s but it did get to the point of building testing fully functional scale prototypes.
No, they didn't have a mechanism to catch the radioactive exhaust. 60s, remember?
NERVA exhaust isn't that bad. If you want *real* fun exhaust products, you want a Nuclear Salt Water Rocket. The way those work is directly analogous You take water with uranium or plutonium salts in it stored in a bunch of small pipes to keep it from reaching critical mass, then pump it into a reaction chamber, and send the whole hot fissioning mess out the nozzle.
Just swap that uranium out for dilithium crystals. Problem solved. 😂
Space Battleship Yamato
Another banger lol woohoo!!
Nuclear warheads are hwavily designed to be VERY hard to set off, as much as they can without affecting reliability. A nuke is never something you want gking off accidentally.
"Space battleship yamato" but as a sub..😅
will this be another lets point out the problems and not offer any solutions?
I hope you do realize Randall Monroe (the creator of this video and the author of my favorite book) is infact a former NASA engineer. It is extremely likely that he knows more about this then you do.
to be fair, i think there should be more projects that use nuclear reactors for steam powered space craft and probes, versus the terrible thermoelectric power systems.
The reactors out of nuclear subs and ships can be disposed of by just cutting them out of the bottom of the vessel and letting them drop to the ocean floor… there are standards as to minimum depth… I think Russia is the only place this has happened and they do it around an arctic island… but it’s not deep enough for the standard… the info is on the net… there’s a map of where these reactors are located I found years ago… there’s a good half dozen all close together in Russian waters… I’m pretty sure they don’t do this anymore?
I mean it wouldn't surprise me if fast attack subs started being caller Zoomers, but they weren't called that when I was in the navy. (I served on a Boomer)
Talking about nuclear reactor breaking apart in the atmosphere .... I wondered what would be one country's respond to another if this occurred. If China/Russia launched a satellite with a reactor and "accidentally" it broke up, dusting the bulk of the US, what happens next?
One would insist it was a civilian meteorological satellite. The other would insist it has a thousand more, 100x as large hidden a few miles off the coast of US controlled outer space. Then the US would send a sternly worded letter to the UN.
It happened, in 1978 a Soviet spy satellite that use nuclear power failed to achieve the proper orbit and lost connection to the ground command. It eventually crashed in the Northwest territory of Canada. Canada and the US sent out teams to try to recover the satellite or any nuclear material. They basically stumbled around the woods for several months before giving up and going home with 99% of the nuclear material unaccounted for.
I remember some old Star Trek lore where submarine hulls were converted into spaceships. Of course, it's fiction. But it doesn't seem very practical to convert a submarine hull into a spaceship.
A submarine hull isn't really any worse than any other spacecraft hull, assuming you take the same engineering precautions to make it space worthy. The biggest problem would actually be that in terms of structural strength the hull would be so dramatically overkill that it'd be absurdly heavy for a space craft, so the logistical effort to get one into space would be immense
please React to I survived 1000 DAYS on The Ultimate DeathWorld in FACTORIO by Michael Hendriks
It is funny.. surviving at the greatest depths of the ocean is actually harder than surviving most of the time in space. But not at the depths subs operate at.. space is far more dangerous. So insert (wtf stare), and let's all say "no" together. Within hours I'd imagine ruptures in the hull from the extreme heat/cold differential would neutralize all meatbags on board. Maybe sooner. Space is real cold on one side, real spicy on the other. Subs ain't designed for that. Fatality!
It a space ship so between one atmosphere and zero
Hey man! Can you take some time to read this theory about the pyramids and give some opinion?
Theory:The pyramids were electrolysis machines using limestone it's main material. (generates static electricity), it ran water under it in a resonance chamber which created piezoelectric discharges (using piezoelectric actustors) which in turns causes electrolysis (splitting of hydrogen ans oxygen molecules), it then uses a conductor like Gold for its topstone which with Acoustic resonance, piezoelectricity, electrostatic electricity, and electromagnetism it emits a plasmonic emission of Pure Hydrogen. Since water (hydrogen specifically) stores a shitload of information. The pyramids transmitted information, and through the use of hydrogen created a global power grid (use hydrogen to carry clean energy or etc), there's entire grids of these pyramids.
Did you know the acoustic resonance chamber in all these pyramid still is active today? Stabilizing the earths crust. as well as dispersing negative charge? (The limestone itself and the pyramids shape)
They used the sound of the water in their underground dam basically to create a tuning for a crystal, the water ALSO activates the crystal and causes a charge/current, which emites in the form programmed (pyramid likely which focuses energy) creating a non physical sound field that without conductors conducts electromagnetism generated by vibration (remember the resonance chamber is multipurpose). They used the natural sound of water in a enclosed space to emit a sound field, that same enclosed space puts reassure directly or indirectly on a specialized crystal which then enters a phase (more advanced, makes it impossible for the earths ohmz/electrical resistancd to interrupt anything) in that exact field shape, then by matching the earths frequency with the water (negating ohmz). It then causes active electrolysis and electromagnetism pulls the molecules into pure forms, of which the static electricity produced by the limestone the pyramid is built from draws up the energy (also acts as a negation to resistance/ohmz too) eventually reaching the topstone. Which emits it as pure hydrogen. And chances are it wasn't a modern style of laser, plasmonics, gathered in the air using sound itself to split the particles around within its field without a need for a channel directly in the pyramid to directly guide or manufacture the energy. That's why we can't find shit because there's no wires, no Voltz, it uses electromagnetic acoustic resonance to emit plasmonic rays of which are either information or energy, possibly teleportation is capable too.
20 years US subs .. A Sub in Space is about as relevant as: why don't we use C&C machines in dental offices .. No system on a sub would work in space, yet they are extraordinary machines in the environment for which they are designed .. Hmmm now .. would you let me take care of that cavity with a multi-million dollar C&C machine ?? .. Say AHHhh .. No?? I swear its the best C&C money can buy ..
You should make a more heavily edited reaction video for the new fallout show.
Space is also an ocean. It's just an ocean of nothingness.
Can u react roblox chernobyl unit 3, is a realistic game, you can watch the tutorial or the rebuild trailer, is really realistic, like 75% similar to the real one
Sub commander Ralathor disliked this
They work in sub space