Plume or jet? A plume is driven by buoyancy, a jet is driven by momentum. My guess is a jet The reactor was test fired with its plume in the air so that radioactive products could be safely dissipated.
At least in all the sources, including the primary ones (of which NASA and LANL have published quite a lot if you're interested in the technical details); but you're the aeronautical engineer.
Hawkeye7(discuss)03:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
If you don't want to read pointless drivel, ignore this (not going to make you change plume to jet). When I was in school I learned it was a plume and always a plume (never was questioned, nor was there a plume v jet discussion). I worked in industry for however long, at multiple companies, and used 'plume' during that time. Then at some point I was editing some article on Wiki, and someone changed my 'plume' to 'jet'. Aha! I have a Master's degree in this, definitely going to show this editor!...oh. Turns out the standard rocket terminology is the wrong terminology. Ever since, my local groups of rocket folk I talk to switch to jet after we have the same brief discussion about plume v jet, but overall the rest of the world uses plume. So it would be pointy of me to make you switch it, and I will have to just convince the world to switch to jet first, then we can switch it on Wiki. There, told you it was a pointless story :). Kees08 (Talk)15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That's fine; it maybe should be MDY since it is a US centric article, but I don't really care. Kees08 (Talk)
Me neither. I have a script to convert articles if need be. It appears that this article went without any dates for a long time. Then some Aussie seems to have added the links from TROVE, which are auto-formatted to dmy by the National Library. This then became the original date format of the article. NASA uses dmy so it matched the secondary sources, which always makes it easier to write.
Hawkeye7(discuss)03:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Could rephrase The first was that a means had to be found of controlling reactor temperature and power output. to The first was controlling reactor temperature and power output.
Saving weight by being the lowest mass, or saving weight because it would require the lowest system mass? ranium-233 held the prospect of saving weight, but was not readily available.
It weighs 1% less than U-235. Produces 10% less power per kg, but I guess we could just crank up up the control drums. Sounds like a loser of an idea really. But when you're building a reactor the big choices are fuel, moderator and coolant.
Hawkeye7(discuss)09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Is there any way to word it to say it was the lightest fuel and not necessarily the lightest engine? Sort of the same with liquid rockets, where sometimes LH2 can make the lightest system, but sometimes can make it the heaviest. Kees08 (Talk)15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Once, or often? Not sure it warrants inclusion unless it caused a big delay. Open to changing my mind. The plastic coating on the control cables was chewed by burrowing rodents and had to be replaced.
We lead with metric units in some areas and imperial in others, probably best to be consistent It was exceptional only for its size: 250 feet (76 m) long, 140 feet (43 m) and 63 feet (19 m) high.
Should it be could instead of would? Would seems like they designed it to fail exactly three times.. meaning that the engine would fail to perform as designed only three times in every thousand starts.
Could this be phrased better, it sounds incomplete: In particular, whether it would go critical or explode when flooded with sea water, a neutron moderator.
Vacuum chamber, or a diffuser? The second seems more likely, but I do not have the source. See
page 24 for an example of a diffuser in a setup like this. downward into a reduced-pressure compartment to (reading the rest of the page, I see it is a diffuser; is there an appropriate wikilink for that?)
I do not believe it is the same thing, I looked for a Wikipedia articles on the topic and did not find one.
Here is a highly technical literature example of one, it should roughly match what your sources say about the vacuum source in these tests. If it is a diffuser in this article, you can just remove the wiklink to the vacuum chamber in this article. If I am misreading the situation, let me know. Kees08 (Talk)06:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Maybe something like 'NERVA had plenty of planned missions' 'scheduled missions' 'proposed missions' or similar (based on whichever is true) NERVA had plenty of missions.
Not sure where we ended up on solar system but I see a couple instances of 'Solar system' and one instance of 'Solar System' (I know you mentioned the correct one above; just noting the inconsistency)
Is AAP a press agency? It is in print in this citation: "Moon Rocket Flight 'In Decade'". The Canberra Times. 35, (9, 934). Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 9 June 1961. p. 11. Retrieved 12 August 2017 – via National Library of Australia.
Looks like this is from a Kennedy speech; our citation could be made clearer to indicate that: "Excerpt from the 'Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs'". NASA. 24 May 2004. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
Yes, it's his famous speech where he called for a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. That he went on to call for nuclear-powered rockets tends to be forgotten.
Hawkeye7(discuss)06:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I think they might go by Los Alamos Monitor "Los Alamos remembers visit by JFK". LA Monitor. 22 November 2013. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
Same AAP question: "$24,000m for trip to Mars". The Canberra Times. 43, (12, 381). Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 4 August 1969. p. 4. Retrieved 12 August 2017 – via National Library of Australia.
Think it should be Universe Today as the publisher and phys.org as a via parameter: Cain, Fraser (1 July 2019). "Earth to Mars in 100 days: The Power of Nuclear Rockets". phys.org. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
Sorry, I think I am almost incapable of doing lightweight GA reviews at this point. That's the end of the review though; I think I owe you a reply above, but I will not be generating any new bullet points to address. Kees08 (Talk)06:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Plume or jet? A plume is driven by buoyancy, a jet is driven by momentum. My guess is a jet The reactor was test fired with its plume in the air so that radioactive products could be safely dissipated.
At least in all the sources, including the primary ones (of which NASA and LANL have published quite a lot if you're interested in the technical details); but you're the aeronautical engineer.
Hawkeye7(discuss)03:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
If you don't want to read pointless drivel, ignore this (not going to make you change plume to jet). When I was in school I learned it was a plume and always a plume (never was questioned, nor was there a plume v jet discussion). I worked in industry for however long, at multiple companies, and used 'plume' during that time. Then at some point I was editing some article on Wiki, and someone changed my 'plume' to 'jet'. Aha! I have a Master's degree in this, definitely going to show this editor!...oh. Turns out the standard rocket terminology is the wrong terminology. Ever since, my local groups of rocket folk I talk to switch to jet after we have the same brief discussion about plume v jet, but overall the rest of the world uses plume. So it would be pointy of me to make you switch it, and I will have to just convince the world to switch to jet first, then we can switch it on Wiki. There, told you it was a pointless story :). Kees08 (Talk)15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That's fine; it maybe should be MDY since it is a US centric article, but I don't really care. Kees08 (Talk)
Me neither. I have a script to convert articles if need be. It appears that this article went without any dates for a long time. Then some Aussie seems to have added the links from TROVE, which are auto-formatted to dmy by the National Library. This then became the original date format of the article. NASA uses dmy so it matched the secondary sources, which always makes it easier to write.
Hawkeye7(discuss)03:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Could rephrase The first was that a means had to be found of controlling reactor temperature and power output. to The first was controlling reactor temperature and power output.
Saving weight by being the lowest mass, or saving weight because it would require the lowest system mass? ranium-233 held the prospect of saving weight, but was not readily available.
It weighs 1% less than U-235. Produces 10% less power per kg, but I guess we could just crank up up the control drums. Sounds like a loser of an idea really. But when you're building a reactor the big choices are fuel, moderator and coolant.
Hawkeye7(discuss)09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Is there any way to word it to say it was the lightest fuel and not necessarily the lightest engine? Sort of the same with liquid rockets, where sometimes LH2 can make the lightest system, but sometimes can make it the heaviest. Kees08 (Talk)15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Once, or often? Not sure it warrants inclusion unless it caused a big delay. Open to changing my mind. The plastic coating on the control cables was chewed by burrowing rodents and had to be replaced.
We lead with metric units in some areas and imperial in others, probably best to be consistent It was exceptional only for its size: 250 feet (76 m) long, 140 feet (43 m) and 63 feet (19 m) high.
Should it be could instead of would? Would seems like they designed it to fail exactly three times.. meaning that the engine would fail to perform as designed only three times in every thousand starts.
Could this be phrased better, it sounds incomplete: In particular, whether it would go critical or explode when flooded with sea water, a neutron moderator.
Vacuum chamber, or a diffuser? The second seems more likely, but I do not have the source. See
page 24 for an example of a diffuser in a setup like this. downward into a reduced-pressure compartment to (reading the rest of the page, I see it is a diffuser; is there an appropriate wikilink for that?)
I do not believe it is the same thing, I looked for a Wikipedia articles on the topic and did not find one.
Here is a highly technical literature example of one, it should roughly match what your sources say about the vacuum source in these tests. If it is a diffuser in this article, you can just remove the wiklink to the vacuum chamber in this article. If I am misreading the situation, let me know. Kees08 (Talk)06:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Maybe something like 'NERVA had plenty of planned missions' 'scheduled missions' 'proposed missions' or similar (based on whichever is true) NERVA had plenty of missions.
Not sure where we ended up on solar system but I see a couple instances of 'Solar system' and one instance of 'Solar System' (I know you mentioned the correct one above; just noting the inconsistency)
Is AAP a press agency? It is in print in this citation: "Moon Rocket Flight 'In Decade'". The Canberra Times. 35, (9, 934). Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 9 June 1961. p. 11. Retrieved 12 August 2017 – via National Library of Australia.
Looks like this is from a Kennedy speech; our citation could be made clearer to indicate that: "Excerpt from the 'Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs'". NASA. 24 May 2004. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
Yes, it's his famous speech where he called for a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. That he went on to call for nuclear-powered rockets tends to be forgotten.
Hawkeye7(discuss)06:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I think they might go by Los Alamos Monitor "Los Alamos remembers visit by JFK". LA Monitor. 22 November 2013. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
Same AAP question: "$24,000m for trip to Mars". The Canberra Times. 43, (12, 381). Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 4 August 1969. p. 4. Retrieved 12 August 2017 – via National Library of Australia.
Think it should be Universe Today as the publisher and phys.org as a via parameter: Cain, Fraser (1 July 2019). "Earth to Mars in 100 days: The Power of Nuclear Rockets". phys.org. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
Sorry, I think I am almost incapable of doing lightweight GA reviews at this point. That's the end of the review though; I think I owe you a reply above, but I will not be generating any new bullet points to address. Kees08 (Talk)06:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply