Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91   Report Post  
Old July 27th 08, 06:02 PM posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,207
Default OT T Boone Pickens

dpb wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:39:27 -0500, dpb wrote:

I seriously doubt it would do more than make a decent hole; I
think
the chances of it penetrating are minimal at best and "like a
bullet" are like slim and none and Slim left town.

`
It would certainly make a decent sized hole and "bullet" doesn't
even
describe the effect of a well designed shaped charge.

take a look at anti tank rounds on google


Which don't look anything at all like an engine block as a
projectile.
Nor does the containment building look like tank armor so results
aren't particularly similar.

It's difficult to factually discuss much of reactor protection since
scenarios and all are restricted data. Consequently simply can't
say
much more specifically about what has been looked at other than a
significant amount of work has been done to quantify risk and
vulnerabilities in order to deal with contingencies.


An engine block won't do it. A whole effing jet fighter won't do it
(that's been tested with a similar structure). A geezly 707 hitting
flat out won't do it (that was the design criterion when the original
standards were set, and I'm sure the margins were very large). What a
shaped charge will do is another story, but rigging a shaped charge in
kamikaze could be difficult--you'd need to do a good deal of
reengineering on the plane I think to get the explosive charge into
the right place and still have somewhere for the pilot to sit.

Now, if you want a _nasty_ scenario consider some group stealing one
of Virgin Galactic's White Knights and putting a shaped charge on it
in place of the SpaceShip. That gives them 30 tons of payload on a
fully aerobatic airframe and pretty much complete freedom on the
design.

But stealing one of NASA's Shuttle transporters and mounting the bomb
in place of the Shuttle could do even worse--that could give them 75
tons of explosives.

The trouble with both those scenarios though is that they have to
steal a very high profile aircraft and then hide it somewhere (in an
unusually tall and rather larger hangar) while they mount the bomb.

Probably be just as easy to just steal a B-52 and a load of
bunker-busters to begin with.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



  #92   Report Post  
Old July 27th 08, 07:14 PM posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,207
Default OT T Boone Pickens

Mastermind wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
dpb wrote:



But stealing one of NASA's Shuttle transporters and mounting the
bomb
in place of the Shuttle could do even worse--that could give them
75
tons of explosives.

The trouble with both those scenarios though is that they have to
steal a very high profile aircraft and then hide it somewhere (in
an
unusually tall and rather larger hangar) while they mount the bomb.


Share some of your thoughts with us on how to snag a space shuttle
and
where to hide it. I think you may be on to something if it weren't
for a few minor details.


Who said anything about a Space Shuttle? I was talking about one of
_these_: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Carrier_Aircraft

As to how to "snag one", you walk on, start the engines, and fly off,
same as you steal any other airplane. It's probably best to not steal
it while there's a Space Shuttle on top.

And I stated specifically that hiding it was going to be a problem, so
why are you asking me where to hide it?

That cargo bay in the back would be a kick ass place to store
explosives.


What "cargo bay in the back"? The transporter's "cargo bay" isn't any
different from the cargo bay in any other 747.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


  #93   Report Post  
Old July 27th 08, 07:43 PM posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 1
Default OT T Boone Pickens

J. Clarke wrote:
dpb wrote:



But stealing one of NASA's Shuttle transporters and mounting the bomb
in place of the Shuttle could do even worse--that could give them 75
tons of explosives.

The trouble with both those scenarios though is that they have to
steal a very high profile aircraft and then hide it somewhere (in an
unusually tall and rather larger hangar) while they mount the bomb.


Share some of your thoughts with us on how to snag a space shuttle and
where to hide it. I think you may be on to something if it weren't for
a few minor details.

That cargo bay in the back would be a kick ass place to store explosives.
  #94   Report Post  
Old July 27th 08, 07:55 PM posted to alt.home.repair
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,677
Default OT T Boone Pickens

J. Clarke wrote:
....
... A geezly 707 hitting
flat out won't do it (that was the design criterion when the original
standards were set, and I'm sure the margins were very large). What a
shaped charge will do is another story, ...


The original analyses of containment, etc. are, of course, in the FSAR
and there's much available in the NRC dockets on those. They're
interesting but marginally relevant to other specific terrorist threats.
The work specifically in that area is treated mostly as restricted data
for obvious reasons and so isn't readily available (the old saw "if I
told you what we worked on and the results, I'd have to shoot you" ).

--
  #95   Report Post  
Old July 27th 08, 09:22 PM posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,207
Default OT T Boone Pickens

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
...
... A geezly 707 hitting
flat out won't do it (that was the design criterion when the
original
standards were set, and I'm sure the margins were very large).
What
a shaped charge will do is another story, ...


The original analyses of containment, etc. are, of course, in the
FSAR
and there's much available in the NRC dockets on those. They're
interesting but marginally relevant to other specific terrorist
threats. The work specifically in that area is treated mostly as
restricted data for obvious reasons and so isn't readily available
(the old saw "if I told you what we worked on and the results, I'd
have to shoot you" ).


I ran into an even worse one once. "If I told _me_ what I worked on
and the results, I'd have to shoot myself". Did show the Powers that
Be a big hole in their security though.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)




  #96   Report Post  
Old July 27th 08, 11:15 PM posted to alt.home.repair
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,677
Default OT T Boone Pickens

J. Clarke wrote:
....
I ran into an even worse one once. "If I told _me_ what I worked on
and the results, I'd have to shoot myself". Did show the Powers that
Be a big hole in their security though.


Well, at least the reactor security stuff wasn't nearly as painful to
work with as DOE Q...

--
  #98   Report Post  
Old July 28th 08, 03:32 PM posted to alt.home.repair
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,677
Default OT T Boone Pickens

dpb wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

....
Windmills require NO maintenance (except to turn the vane so they'll
quit pumping).


Snicker, snort...

You've obviously never tried to keep a bunch of them running on a large
ranch...

....

Took a while to find it on the web, but for the prime example...

Windmills: surviving on the Plains
By DARLA BRACKEN
....
"The XIT Ranch had 325 windmills over its vast 3 million acres and a
special full time crew to take care of them. There were many different
types and designs and hundreds of companies manufacturing them between
the 1880s and into the 1920s and 1930s."

While others weren't as large as the XIT, the fulltime windmill crew was
a common occupation until thru the 30's into the war years on the High
Plains. The manpower shortage during the war really was the beginning
of the emphasis to shift to alternate power sources although it didn't
become terribly prevalent until the 50s and 60s as electric power
distribution lines expanded drastically w/ the advent of the electric
co-op's(1).

It was also dangerous business often, having to climb a tower w/ a
runaway vane after the brakeline had broken being one of most perilous.

....

(1) We were supplied totally by wind until after WWII when in '48 got
REA hookup for the first time. Until then, both windmill and Delco 32V
windcharger system were our water and only electric power on the place.

The windcharger was immediately decommisioned, of course, the windmill
continued until the well casing failed and a new well was drilled in the
mid/late 50s. It, of course, used submergible pump and much larger
capacity.

--


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"

 

Copyright © 2017