The Lucifer Project
Some believe that NASA is trying to turn Saturn or Jupiter into a small sun.
Filed under Conspiracies
| Skeptoid #143 March 03, 2009 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
One of the most dramatic events in Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey series of books happens in the second installment, 2010: Odyssey Two. The strange alien monolith orbiting Jupiter somehow replicates itself billions of times, apparently using matter from Jupiter itself, condensing the gas giant down into a smaller, denser, hotter mass until it suddenly achieves sustained nuclear fusion. Thus, Jupiter fulfills the destiny denied it by nature as what some astronomers have termed a "failed star". This new star brings life to its constellation of Earth-like moons, becoming a solar system within a solar system, and is named Lucifer by the people of Earth, who henceforth have two suns in the sky.
Jupiter was not moving from its immemorial orbit, but it was doing something almost as impossible. It was shrinking — so swiftly that its edge was creeping across the field even as he focused upon it. At the same time the planet was brightening, from its dull gray to a pearly white. Surely, it was more brilliant than it had ever been in the long years that Man had observed it...
Most of us consider this the stuff of science fiction; there are too many physical reasons why it couldn't actually happen, a few of which are raised by Clarke's characters as they witness the event incredulously. However, a number of conspiracy theorists (most of the variety who still believe in the Face on Mars) believe that this is not only possible, but that it is an actual project in the works at NASA. And, moreover, that what they term "The Lucifer Project" has already been attempted.
Details vary, the most significant of which is the confusion over whether Lucifer would involve Jupiter or Saturn. The Space Odyssey movies and books all use Jupiter, except for the original book, which was based on an early version of Clarke and Kubrick's screenplay that used Saturn (Saturn's rings later proved too great of a special effects challenge). Many of the modern conspiracy theories bring the story back around to Saturn as well, but really for all practical purposes we're talking about "a gas giant", think of either Saturn or Jupiter, whichever you please. Doesn't make much difference as far as reality is concerned.
The main element of these deep-space NASA missions that fuels the conspiracy is the RTGs, or radioisotope thermoelectric generators, that power space probes such as Cassini, Galileo, Voyager, and others. Past Mars there's not enough sunlight to provide the power a spacecraft needs, and so these RTGs are the only option we have. We've mentioned them before on Skeptoid: Russia has used similar generators to power about 150 lighthouses along its extremely remote northern coast. Heat from a radioactive element, usually plutonium-238, goes through a thermocouple, which is a material that produces a direct electrical current when heat is applied to it. RTGs have no moving parts and are extremely simple and reliable.
Believers in the Lucifer Project conjecture that such a payload of radioactive material would act like an atomic bomb in the high-pressure depths of a gas giant, and they suppose that this would somehow ignite the entire planet, turning the whole thing into a small star. This would act as a sun for its moons, turning them into habitable worlds. Saturn's moon Titan is usually cited, the claim being that NASA plans to turn it into a human colony for some unknown nefarious purpose.
In 2003, the Galileo spacecraft's mission was ended by deliberately crashing it into Jupiter, in order to absolutely avoid any possibility of contaminating Jupiter's moons with bacteria from Earth. A guy named Jacco van der Worp, now an advocate for the 2012 apocalypse, went on the Coast to Coast AM radio program and claimed that such a collision would cause the plutonium in the RTGs to immediately implode, triggering an atomic explosion. Recall our old friend Richard Hoagland, the space conspiracy theorist who believes that many of the features found on Mars are ruins of ancient civilizations, and that NASA is covering it up. He heard of van der Worp's idea and ate it up, claiming that a mysterious black spot that appeared briefly on Jupiter's surface a month later was evidence of this explosion. Hoagland asserts that Galileo would have broken up in Jupiter's atmosphere, and that it would have taken one month for the plutonium capsules to fall through Jupiter's increasingly dense atmosphere until such a pressure was reached that the capsules would implode. Hoagland concludes that the protection of Jupiter's moons from contamination was just a cover story for NASA's attempted creation of Lucifer.
The Cassini orbiter at Saturn is scheduled to terminate in 2012, however NASA has not yet decided whether to crash it into a smaller moon (where RTG contamination is not a problem) or to leave it in a high parking orbit. Saturn's rings make an approach for a Galileo-style crash into the gas giant too difficult.
There are a number of differences between an RTG and an atomic or thermonuclear warhead. The grade of plutonium is one difference. The RTG uses reactor grade plutonium, while a weapon uses weapon-grade plutonium. The difference is that weapon grade contains less than 7% Pu-240. Reactor grade has more. Not only does this make a chain reaction more difficult to sustain, it also makes the material more radioactive and more difficult to work with and store. In 1977, the United States declassified a 1962 underground nuclear test at the Nevada test site in which non-weapon grade plutonium was used. Although the explosive yield was quite low, the test proved that the plutonium grade alone doesn't disprove the Lucifer conjecture.
But the main reason that an RTG could not explode like a weapon is its structure. Each of Cassini's three RTGs contains 72 marshmallow-sized pellets of plutonium, each weighing about 150 grams, and each separately enclosed in iridium inside a shock-proof graphite impact shell. Four of each of these are enclosed within one of 18 separate General Purpose Heat Shell modules, each with its own separate heat shield and impact shell. Should any kind of crash or problem happen, including breaking up during a re-entry, these impact shells separate from each other and scatter.
Conversely, in order to detonate Pu-238, you need a single critical mass of solid plutonium weighing at least 10 kg. This critical mass has to be imploded with a simultaneous explosion from all sides, applying sudden pressure precisely from all angles at the same exact instant. Obviously this couldn't happen with an RTG design. Although each RTG does theoretically have enough plutonium to make up a critical mass, there isn't any way that it could all be brought together into the right shape. An implosion triggered atomic device needs to have its critical mass in a very specific configuration. Any type of pressure or crash event has already sent all the separate impact shells scattering about space, and each is far too small to ever achieve critical mass and implode. No way, no how, physics simply do not make it possible for a chunk of less than critical mass to initiate a chain reaction, no matter what environment it's put in.
Proponents of the NASA conspiracy state that the high pressure of the deep atmosphere inside a gas giant will provide the implosion pressure, but they do not offer a solution for the critical mass problem. I searched and searched, and the best document I could find by conspiracy theorists, by an anonymous author, admits that the pellets are 150 grams but states that plutonium-238 requires only 200 grams to reach critical mass. This is simply wrong, but even if it were true, 150 is still less than 200. However the author seems to simply ignore this, skips over it, and says that a 600 kiloton explosion would result.
So let's grant that an RTG could somehow result in a 600 kiloton atomic explosion on a gas giant. This is only a tiny fraction of the firepower of some of the thermonuclear tests done on Earth, the largest being the Soviet Union's 1961 Tsar Bomba shot with a yield of 50 megatons. That didn't turn the Earth into a small sun, it was a barely visible pinprick on our gigantic planet. So why would this far, far smaller explosion have such a drastic effect on a gas giant? Well, like our sun, the gas giants are composed largely of hydrogen and helium. In the intensely confined pressure inside an atomic explosion, fusion happens among these elements and causes the runaway thermonuclear chain reaction. In a nuclear explosion on Earth, this chain reaction quickly runs out, because of a lack of pressure and fuel. But inside the sun, there is tremendous fuel available and tremendous pressure from the sun's powerful, crushing gravity. This is called gravitational confinement, and it's the reason the sun's nuclear reaction is ongoing.
Stars that are less massive than the sun have less gravity. Beyond a certain limit, they have inadequate gravitational confinement. These are called brown dwarfs. Because of their density and gravity, all brown dwarfs happen to be about the same physical size as Jupiter. However their mass ranges from 1 to about 90 Jupiter masses. Above this limit, they would have adequate gravitational confinement and could sustain fusion. But inside this range, at which Jupiter is at the extreme lowest end, they don't and can't. Some astronomers don't make a clear distinction between what constitutes a gas giant and what constitutes a brown dwarf, but one feature they share is mass that's way too low for sustaining fusion. An atomic or even thermonuclear explosion inside Jupiter would fizzle out the same way it does on Earth. Saturn, with less than a third of Jupiter's mass, is even farther from achieving gravitational confinement.
Even Arthur C. Clarke didn't pretend that his fiction was plausible. At Lucifer's ignition, one of Clarke's Russian scientists, Vasili, said:
Oh, I can see a dozen objections — how would they get past the iron minimum; what about radiative transfer; Chandrasekhar's limit.
And like Vasili, we've only touched upon a couple of the problems, but certainly among the most intractable for those who believe that our tiny little space probes are the harbingers of planetary death and new solar systems. Enjoy your science fiction stories and enjoy the science coming back through Cassini's telemetry, but please don't confuse the two. Saturn and Jupiter are here to stay.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2009 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Beatty, J., Petersen, C., Chaikin, A. The new solar system 4th Edition. Cambridge: Sky Publishing Corporation, 1999. 194-195.
Blanchard, A. et al. Updated Critical Mass Estimates for Plutonium-238. Aiken, SC: Westinghouse Savannah River Company, 1999.
Griffin, Michael D.; French, James R. Space Vehicle Design Second Edition. Reston: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc, 2004. 497-500.
NASA. "Spacecraft Power for Cassini." NASA Fact Sheet. NASA, 1 Jul. 1999. Web. 16 Jan. 2010. <http://georgenet.net/hubble/cassini_pdf/power.pdf>
O'Neill, Ian. "Project Lucifer: Will Cassini Turn Saturn into a Second Sun? (Part 1)." Universe Today. Universe Today, 24 Jul. 2008. Web. 15 Jan. 2010. <http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/24/project-lucifer-will-cassini-turn-saturn-into-a-second-sun-part-1/>
Planning & Human Systems, Inc. Atomic Power In Space: A History. Washingon, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 1987.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"The Lucifer Project." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
3 Mar 2009. Web.
10 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4143>
Discuss!
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
I think the only thing which is more bewildering than conspiracy theorists' lack of scientific understanding is their lack of common sense. Why on earth would NASA want to create a new sun out of Jupiter? I'm not on Stephen Hawking's speed dial or anything, but wouldn't that have catastrophic gravitational consequences for the rest of the solar system?
H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
March 03, 2009 11:58am
I was thinking the same thing, H, only more along the lines of "Dude...wouldn't that like...turn Earth into an unliveable cinder?" (Yes...the last time I took a serious physics course, I sat behind the stoners.)
But, well...don't the conspiracy people ever stop to think that the guys at NASA actually know a little more about the consequences of such an act of "science" than your average backyard telescoping whackjob with a tinfoil helmet?
(And how embarrassing is it that I got the "I am not a spambot" question *8+7 is only 51 if you're dyslexic* wrong and now it's asking me what 4+2 is?)
Kate, Des Moines, IA
March 03, 2009 12:02pm
Excellent work.
I was thinking along the lines of comparing the potential yield of an RTG explosion with the detonations created by the Shoemaker-Levy comet. If the comet's (massive) impact explosions didn't turn Jupiter into a self-sustaining nuclear reactor, then what chance do we have with a tiny 150mg nuclear device?
Mark, St. Louis, MO
March 03, 2009 1:03pm
Now.. this is just freaky!
I was reading about this very thing at Bad Astronomy yesterday. It was the first time I had heard of it, and was amazed that people could be so silly to believe in such a thing...
BUT more importantly - this goes a long way towards proving Brenton's Postulate* - that if you hear of a new concept, and you resonate with it, then you will hear about the same thing at least twice more in the next 2 weeks.
This is different to the White Toyota phenomenom - that you will notice white Toyotas if someone points them out to you (they were always there - you just didn't notice them).
My other great discovery is Brenton's Other Postulate** - that the number of people at a bus or train station is greatest just before the train or bus arrives - allowing you to determine if a bus or train is about to arrive, solely on the density of people on the platform.
Life is warm and fuzzy...
* Actually, it is just a coincidence. A rather cool coincidence, but nothing more. Think of all of the times you learn something new, and it NEVER gets reinforced in this way, or the "SLIder" (or street light) phenomenom.
** Actually, this is just a case of the bleeding obvious.
Brenton, New Zealand
March 03, 2009 1:40pm
Frankly, I'm amazed that this is a conspiracy theory at all. People will believe anything and everything, I guess. Anyway, the fundamental misunderstanding seems to be that you can have a fusion chain reaction. You can't. Unlike fission, the product of a fusion reaction (namely outward pressure) is not conducive to further fusion.
Peter R, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
March 03, 2009 2:46pm
Had the 1962 nuclear test remained classified, you'd think that plutonium grade alone disproves the Lucifer conjecture. Makes you wonder what remains classified.
Can reactor-grade uranium be used in a nuclear bomb?
H. Tiberius Miser, creating a star out of Jupiter wouldn't "have catastrophic gravitational consequences" because its mass wouldn't change.
What's the point of doing it? If there's one thing conspiracy theorists are good at, it's coming up with outlandish motives.
Max, Boston, MA
March 03, 2009 4:12pm
I remember when my grandfather was in a nursing home at the end of his life and he had dementia. The nurses told us not to contradict him when he said outlandish things. There's a point where the person is so far gone that there's no bringing them back to reality. If you're an adult and you are so far gone that this makes sense to you there is no point in having a discussion about it. Maybe we should just smile and nod, extricate ourselves and let the world whiz by them. It's sad but at this point there's no hope.
Craig, Washington DC
March 03, 2009 10:23pm
Nice story Brian, as always. Conspiracy theories really are often very far-fetched.
Your one sentence about thermocouples, however, contains three physics mistakes:
You write: "a thermocouple, which is a material that produces a direct electrical current when heat is applied to it"
In fact: a thermocouple is a junction between different conductors that produce a direct electrical potential when it is kept at a different temperature than the "other" junctions that complete the circuit.
The "couple" in "thermocouple" gives away that one is always talking about two materials, not one. And the second law of thermodynamics tells us that we cannot generate work from heat alone. Finally, the unit does not generate an electric current, but an electric potential.
Rob Hooft, The Netherlands
March 03, 2009 11:37pm
This, even surpassing Reptoids, has to be the most bizarre conspiracy theory EVER.
I had to 'google' this just to make sure you weren't making the whole thing up as some kind of skeptic meta-joke. Another fine, and mindblowingly wierd, episode.
Morgan, Tracy, CA
March 04, 2009 11:32am
always enjoyable.
david erardi, milford,ma
March 07, 2009 5:58am
If the only thing seperating Jupiter from a sun was the lack of tiny little spark, you can be sure it would have ignited a long, long time ago.
And a small correction:
You can have a nuclear weapon without critical mass, but you need to use a neutron reflector to make sure you can still get a chain reaction.
It's like holding half an apple against a mirror, so that it looks like a whole apple.
Erik, Trondheim, Norway
March 08, 2009 8:51am
If a puny nuclear device was capable of detonating the whole of Jupiter's gaseous mass, you'd think the impact of the Levy-Schumacher comet fragments in 1994, the largest over 2 km in size, would've definitely done it....
Barry, Eindhoven, NL
March 09, 2009 12:39pm
To clarify further, Jupiter (or anything) turning into a star wouldn't change any gravitational forces anywhere in the solar system, because gravitational force is a function of distance between centers of gravity and mass.
Discounting the small mass from a satellite bomb, the mass of the two bodies isn't going to change if Jupiter turned into a star. Obviously the distance between the two centers of gravity isn't going to change (unless someone moved Jupiter in the process), so the net effect is zero.
The moon could turn into a black hole, and apart from darker nights there wouldn't be any real effect on us.
Kris, Portland, OR
March 11, 2009 10:58am
Kris, that's not the point. The point, at least in Clarke's novels, is the extra heat and light radiated by the new star.
Ben, Dijon
March 12, 2009 12:49pm
People will always overlook details when it comes to conspiracy theories. They WANT to believe that someone isn't telling the truth, or that for some reason there's something bigger going on. It's like a drug, they just sit there and brood and stew and get upset with a force that doesn't even exist because they either don't have a real outlet for their life frustrations, or they are too introverted to express themselves against something or someone that can actually respond to them directly.
Andy, B.C.
April 14, 2009 11:43pm
Yes, I know that it is purely fictional, and may be completely impossible to accomplish in real life - but if NASA somehow WERE planning on igniting a fusion reaction in Jupiter or Saturn, how can the assumption of sinister motives is a viable starting point?
A project like that would be a brilliant means of safeguarding humanity against asteroid strikes, disease, and a hundred other possible dangers! Why on Earth (no pun intended) would they ever need to keep it secret, when it could easily be the single greatest PR coup any space agency could hope to accomplish short of a working faster-than-light drive?
Harrison, Oceanside, NY
May 01, 2009 10:45am
It is said that the longer Cassini waits, the more 238 is converted to 239, allowing the critical mass figure to drop.
It is not good to assume that the pellets in the RTG will scatter. It's a fully contained unit that actually may stay together and be crushed intact.
At greater depths in Saturn you CAN get a uniform crushing from all sides.
Lastly, we have circumstantial evidence of a nuclear reaction on Jupiter at the CORRECT PREDICTED LOCATION based on Jupiter wind patterns. Doesn't this make you suspicious that NASA has found a way to do this?
CJ, Omaha
July 06, 2009 10:25am
Brian,
Your 10 kg for Pu-238 critical mass is calculated at normal density, not Saturn depths which create much greater densities. Actually for Cassini we should look at 11 to 12 kg as it is a Pu-Oxide in Carbon sleeves. Once again this is considering normal density with nothing special done to the mass.
Critical mass DOES change based on changing temperature, shape, density, and many other characteristics of the "ball" of Plutonium.
For instance, EACH 150 gram 1-1/2" diamter pellet (of which there are 216 total) ALONE can reach critical mass (and supercritical) if squeezed tightly into a ball the size of a small marble, which is highly likely for at least some of the pellets as they descend into Saturn (if indeed that's what their fate is). This is just considering changing density and no other condition. Add in a host of other factors like changing temperature and such, and the possibilities are endless.
It is possible that they will opt for a polar entry into Saturn, citing the difficulty with the rings at the equator. Besides, this will give them a close up view of one of the massive hurricane eyes that have been spotted at the poles.
As noted earlier by someone, we have already seen an extremely coincidental "event" at the correct location on Jupiter following a plunge of RTG's. Just the fact that many scientists are having to respond to the "possibility" that something may have happened with the Pu there should be enough to open some eyes.
JCG, Atlanta
July 07, 2009 4:55am
On earth, a fission reaction would be only initially constrained, then allowed into "open air" to quickly subside. Deep in a gas giant, the constraining time is multiplied many times this, after the instant of supercritical. Do you realize the implications of this?
Worp did...it creates a superbomb from a relatively small amount of material, because it creates a "superheat"; the fission efficiency skyrockets. Hot enough for fusion to occur...?
As JCG mentioned, the pellets are in a well-constructed carbon sleeve series: about 1 cubic inch of PuO2 each surround by multilayers of various shielding.
They will survive initial impact intact and float into Saturn slowly. They have been designed to survive a violent impact. At that point you have 216 "tries" at a fission reaction. When one is successful, it will force others into fissioning that are nearby or still connected or combined. A very cool plan actually, very clever.
If nothing else, it stirs up the bowels of Saturn for observation at the surface when the explosion pokes through the upper clouds, like Galileo's RTG's did. Isn't that what NASA is about lately? Blow stuff up to see what it's made of?
As far as the person who said SL-9 would have done the "star scenario" if Jupiter was ready to go... That's not right. SL-9 did not create temps even close to what a fission reaction can do.
CJ, Omaha
July 07, 2009 11:21am
Regarding gravitational confinement, there is also a way around that mentioned in at least one of the exposes: If a blowout cavity can be created large enough from a initial fissioning event, you create a collapse mechanism, ala the "2010" movie. Suddenly you go from a static situation to a dynamic "inward falling matter" situation. What results is an artificially "densified" ball of gas which mimicks the grav. confinement scenario for a short time until equilibrium is reached. This "short time" though could take years to decades to centuries to reach. You have a case of accelerating mass towards the center AFTER the initial "blowout". The extra pressure of the sudden and continuing "falling-in" replaces the constant grav. confinement pressure of a more static situation in a larger mass.
JCG, Atlanta
July 08, 2009 4:56am
Of course they will send Cassini into Saturn. Pre-Galileo plunge, up until the day they announced that it would go into Jupiter, they had also pretended they would send Galileo elsewhere. It's a bit of a misdirection stunt.
They are going to say "Well, just in case more moons are like Enceladus, we don't want to mess with the moons....yada yada... and to avoid the rings we will have to do a polar thing..." Same thing happened with Galileo, they cited Europa as a moon not to be spoiled and that others could be special also.
IMO
CJ, Omaha
July 08, 2009 12:50pm
The comments made me think.
Due to the gravitational pull of both jupiter and saturn, they are bombardet by asteroids. (Shoemaker-Levy is a fine example)
The billions of years of bombardment would have landet some of the heavier elements, beyond the ammount of what is discussed here, that have now nestled in the core?
I can't twist my mind to as how this scenario you propose could happen, nor the motifs for it by NASA. - What they did was smart and noble IMO
Creepster, Denmark
July 08, 2009 8:01pm
Creepster, what you say is true, BUT just think about the concentration of those fissionable elements in the manner you propose, they are wide scattered and at any one location cannot hardly be measured. What we have with (216) 150 gram Pu pellets is and ABUNDANCE of a very unnatural element that is fissionable. This going supercritical deep inside the bowels might cause a "collapse mechanism" and an artificial density that would NEVER occur naturally.
JCG, Atlanta
July 09, 2009 8:54pm
I quickly reviewed the NASA fact sheet about the reactor design. First I should mention that I have run dozens of reactor simulation programs for electric power generation and I have attended an International conference on the use of Isotope reactors in space organized by the British Interplanetary society.
My first major concern, is why are they lying in the fact sheet?
The fact sheet states that there is no fission ( wrong because the whole process depends on the fact that Plutonium undergoes fission naturally, and this process gives out heat )
Then they argue that Graphite is chosen for its structural capabilities ( Wrong again. Graphite is chosen because it is a moderator. It slows down and reflects back neutrons and this increases the amount of fission )
So the author of the fact sheet is a PR person not a nuclear scientist.
Alarm bells ring. Risk evaluation being done by PR people is very dangerous. This sort of irresponsible behavior led to the Challenger disaster. Has NASA learned nothing from that?
Why is Plutonium being used? In the conference I attended it was believed that international agreement had been reached that Plutonium would not be used in Isotope Reactors because of its toxicity.
We know that our knowledge of fission and fusion processes is pretty basic. If Saturn did ignite it would end all human life. Why risk that?
Crash it on a barren moon, where there is no chance of any harm to us.
Richard Jones, The Hague
November 16, 2009 1:52am
If I am correct Richard, what you have proposed at the beginning of your response is the classical straw man fallacy. You are implying that the natural process of radio active decay is the same process that occurs in controlled nuclear reactions. In controlled nuclear reactions particles are bombarded together changing the nucleus of an atom. In radio active decay the element loses energy by emitting ionizing particles.
By inferring that the "fission" pertaining to radio active decay is the same as the "fission" in controlled nuclear reactions, you have weakened NASA's statement given in the fact sheet but only weakened it prima facie. Any person who has taken high school physics will be able to determine that the two processes are very different.
Jason, Grand Rapids, MI
January 12, 2010 11:47am
SHIT YEAH I was just thinking this as soon as I read the title. I finished reading "2010" a few days ago, and I had seen the (inferior) movie months before.
I am now reading 2061, and plan on reading 3001. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is my favorite science fiction movie ever, and one of the absolute best of any genre ever.
What is my point? 150 IS larger than 200. It was proven last night by Stephen Colbert, upon analyses by news pundits that the Democrats in the US Government having the Presidency, a several-dozen seat majority in the House, and a 19 seat majority in the Senate makes them an underdog minority to the unstoppable Republican juggernaut, unable to do anything without at least one Republican senator's support.
Indeed, black is east, up is west, cold is red, hot is Star Trek III: Search for Spock. The whole world bows before the simple fact:
Smaller numbers are bigger than larger numbers.
Also interesting to note about the Odyssey series, specifically "2010": Nonsentient, gas-looking lifeforms had evolved on Jupiter, and its core was made of solid diamond. Way to commit genocide, aliens, OR SHOULD I SAY, THE US GOVERNMENT?!?!
Andariel Halo, Miami, Florida
January 27, 2010 9:38am
I think people have been reading one too many Arthur C. Clarke novels
Christopher Dube, Toronto, Ontario
March 15, 2010 2:13am
If the government plans to colonize the moons of our gas giants after they become stars. Here's the big question,where are the spaceships to start the colonization. We haven't even set up camp on our moon!
brad poe, castle rock wa
May 06, 2010 3:59am
Hi folks
I just left a reply to Brian Dunning re the Lucifer project here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31598998/A-Reply-Brian-Dunning-of-Skeptoid-Regarding-the-Lucifer-Project
Cheers and keep thinking for yourselves,
Conrado Salas Cano
http://conrado.50gigs.net
Conrado Salas Cano, Zaragoza, Spain
May 19, 2010 4:02am
woh said we never set up shop on the moon ...
kray, edmonton
June 18, 2010 10:31am
To quote the band They Might Be Giants "The sun is a miasma of incandescent plasma." (From the album 'Here Comes Science') This is the only band that has a fact-checker (that I'm aware of).
Plasma is the 4th state of matter. Not liquid, not solid, not quite gas either. It's just positive ions and free electrons that have no electrical charge. How would a nuclear bomb knock the electrons from an atom and turn Jupiter or Saturn into a sun/small star? I'm having a tough time understanding how that could even be plausible... If I leave the gas on in my kitchen and light a match, will I make a really, really, really small star?
I'm glad that my children are able to have a fun way to learn science and the scientific method before they're old enough to attend school. I'm also glad that there are people like Brian Dunning out there that encourage us to think more critically. When all you know is what you're told, it's best to be told more than one side of a story. I suppose it's even better to find out for yourself!
Nate, MN
July 03, 2010 8:25pm
Chris, there's nothing wrong with reading Arthur C. Clarke. Remember Martian chronicles by Ray Bradbury? It was great in its day.
Lori, Etobicoke
July 07, 2010 10:54am
Never doubt the human mind and the possibilities evolving Brilliance. The wisper from the moning star will come and hence forth that Day. A mater of time
Alexander Funnes, South of Heaven
July 22, 2010 11:29pm
So why would the Lucifer project be a bad thing, and why would NASA do it to begin with?
Tom H, Kent, UK
August 28, 2010 9:31am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Interesting. You're correct that RTG Plutonium isn't weapons grade, but it isn't reactor grade either. The Plutonium used in RTGs is enriched to have a high percentage of Plutonium 238; far higher than you get from power reactors, or weapons grade Plutonium production reactors.
The reference link is now dead, but when I read it in 1998 it claimed that the isotope mix for the Plutonium in Cassini's RTG, at launch, was :
http://www.afn.org/~fcpj/space/cassini/fuel.html:
238 Pu 82.266%
239 Pu 15.254%
240 Pu 2.137%
241 Pu 0.216%
242 Pu 0.127%
236 Pu 1.2e-6%
Karl Johanson, Victoria BC
March 03, 2009 10:23am