I am new to this board, and I have read many discussions that are far above my skill level in basic science and understanding (I guess that would make me a noob to this type of forum ;). Although I am lacking a grasp on the technical aspects of these posts, I am intrigued by the arguments made by both sides of the isle (by that I mean the anti-nuclear arguments made by stungun, and the pro?. technical arguments by the likes of googlnut and others). It is clear that I need to hit the books to really appreciate the subtleties of this forum, and I was wondering if you all would grace me with insight into your backgrounds and education.
I love science for both it's virtue in striving to understand the universe we live in and the knowledge it has gleamed, but also it's humility in questioning and it's admittance of not "knowing" the answers without experimenting and proving to itself wisdom of what it says to be true.
So my question (s), and reason for this post, is simply what backgrounds do you (the regulars of this cyberspace haunt) hail from? And what suggestions do you have (for this novice in the field of nuclear science) for me to develop a more complete understanding of the technical arguments that are made here?
Well, welcome aboard. We're always happy to have new people to kick around ideas with--I appreciate fresh perspectives and I am a firm believer in discussion as a means to test ideas to refine them to a truth.
We have many members who hail from quite a broad class of professions. Myself, I am a 'frustrated' engineer--I haven't completed my graduate degree yet, but still hope to get back at it. I have an AA degree in Natural Sciences and Mathematics (Physics, Chemistry, Calculus and Differential Equations.) I have always had a love for science and technology, especially where space travel is concerned, but also in other aspects such as energy production, resources, transportation, etc. Politics isn't really my thing, but if it helps me to dabble in the other stuff, I guess I'll do it.
I have no professional background in nuclear energy in anyway, but I do consider myself reasonable well read up on the subject. The same with my background in aerospace--I'm just a well read amateur. The real nuclear experts are Jaro (10kBq Jaro) and Paul (iprimap.)
I am one of several Board Moderators, and we try to keep things on a polite--yet sometimes spirited--footing. Another moderator is Bruce Behrhorst who also researches and writes quite a selection of articles posted here on this board. He has interviewed quite a few folks including the former NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, various aerospace and government officials.
Anyways, welcome to the board. If you are still in school, stick with it. Science is hard, but it is rewarding. It also pays pretty well compared to other businesses (I currently work in a grocery store in Northern California as a cashier.) Study the hard sciences, but don't be afraid to take the humanities and the arts too. My advice: take the core courses necessary for your degree, but don't be afraid to take what you want outside of that. Never shy away from a course that sounds interesting--chances are you'll learn something and enjoy it while you do!
If you are interested in learning about rockets and how they work, you can pick up a graduate level text called Rocket Propulsion Elements, 7th edition by George P. Sutton and Oscar Biblarz. It's available at Amazon.com for about $95. This is an advanced level text, but is extremely detail oriented about engineering of all aspects of rocket propulsion. It explains the nitty gritty of rocket engines and how they operate. This will also give you a good idea of what kinds of courses you should take if you want to try tackling this field (lots of chemisty, calculus, calculus based physics...)
Or you can try doing a Google search on the subject, like I very often do.
I am a podiatrist from Twin Falls, Idaho. Some people post a bio you can see by clicking their icon.
I had the basic pre-med sciences, and got involved in nuclear issues in 1988, when Idaho was chosen to cluster all nuclear dirty work here.
My approach has been simply to ask questions, to play "I doubt it", and ask for proof of nuclear safety claims etc. I have been surprised how often DOE provided "proof" has educated me with ammo that contradicts safety claims.
I usually try to contact the nuclear people who write the papers I read. I either learn more, or find out they are BSing
Hello Roland. This is my absolutely favourite forum over all the internet. It combines the questions I find most relevant for the long-term future of human kind, which are summarized by the two worlds: NUCLEAR and SPACE. And, most importantly, there are debates and exchanges of ideas between enthousiastic and well-informed people. It actually helped me grow and become more reasonable (I will still probably need to mature some more: I am still quite young, 27 years old).
I graduated in high-energy physics at CERN (you know, those very large particle accelerators for probing the very essence of all matter) and I am presently writing my PhD thesis in experimental nuclear physics (although my project is still about fundamental physics, I am working in an environment where the spirit is more orientated towards applications). I am very interested in all energy issues, and I have always been fascinated by space.
I agree cheerfully with your opinion about science. We, poor humans, are very limited. Our behaviour must be influenced by our view of ourselves and of the universe. I believe that it can only be good for humanity to have beliefs which are as close as possible to the truth (and often it's bad to have wrong beliefs). I believe that the most important objective of science is not to provide new technologies, but to provide new insight about what we are and in which world we live. Important examples are Copernic's heliocentric theory and Darwin's theory of evolution . They both indicate that the world was not created for us but rather we are products of it. At the extreme in the space scale, we are only inhabitating a tiny planet in the middle of billions of galaxies containing billions of stars each. At the extreme in the time scales, understanding that tiny changes can accomplish wounders in shaping life can help us understand our basic behaviours as humans, at the (current) end of this long ancetral inheritance.
Welcome. I am a plant process computer specialist at a US boiling water reactor. Between the submarine service and commercial nuclear power I have over 29 years of training and experience in the nuclear field. I have at various times been a Reactor Operator, an I&C technican, then an instructor, a Radiation Monitoring System Engineer and a Digital Design Engineer. From participating on this message board and a few others, I have found that the old adage "the more I know, the more I realize how much I don't know" is often the truth. Expertise is not conferred on by a degree (though a degree may recognize that one has expertise), and I have found that the people participating here have real expertise regardless of their academic qualifications.
I work in the aerospace industry as a cost estimator. This is my lastest assignment although I've worked in system engineering as design-to-cost analysist and a parametric cost analyst in the past. None of this was directly space related (all aircraft). I have a B.S. and masters degrees in applied math. My undergraduate degree had a very strong concentration in physics (very close to a double major). However, I'm not sure if that has much to do with what I'm doing on this board.
I've been interested in space from way back as child (7 or 8). My mother was a big follower of the space launches back in the '60s and she got me into this. I remember that it seems forever between that last Mercury and the Gemini 3. Also, I kept a scrapbook of pictures and newspaper article about the different manned and unmanned space missions. Science fiction was my favorite literature. I tended to judge its quality by how realistic the technology and science were in a book. Then if a new idea cropped up I'd try to find out if it was based on anything real or not. It was this process that led me to physics and math rather than any overwhelming talent.
I tend to be more on the conceptual than a detailed engineer but the criticism of the detailed people is welcome and very important. I'm a strong advocte of nuclear energy both fission and fusion. I'm of the belief that foolish decision of the congress in the early '90s have held up progress toward controlled fusion by a decade. No doubt the cold fusion farce/fraud? and the confusion it caused maybe part of the reason for this.
Anyway, I try to be a optimistic for advancement as I can while understand the great limitations that also exist. So I'll advance ideas like fusion powered spacecraft even if there are some very major challenges to be overcome.
