Probably a stupid car question...

[kandrathe]

You just gave the most perfect example for why *not* to ever allow this:

It's another freedom thing.

If you are off the Feds sensors, insanely socio-pathic and have no conscience, and know enough about chemistry and physics, and are rational and patient enough, you can kill millions. But, you'll only ever get one shot at it.

THIS, after the Russian bombing a few days ago, makes for great theories on possible acts of terrorism that could be utilized with such technology, from dirty bombs to mini-nukes! Something like this will *NEVER* see the light of day in this day and age!

The problem here is that the government controls airports, and they haven't been creative enough to redesign them away from being the perfect target for every extremist. Why are they popular?

• They are a busy choke point in the transportation system
• People are always carrying large bundles, so it's easy to carry in your bomb.
• It's easy to leave your package somewhere, and get away to any number of destinations before the bomb even detonates
• Even if discovered, the publicity and chaos caused is a win

My answer is to decentralize down to airline, or even gate. Eventually, I would do away with the mega-airport idea, and have each airline have it's own building. Moving from building to building would require you to be screened through security again. Once you are at the right airlines area, then you'd be checked through screening, and sent to your gate for boarding. My idea on screening is that you "register" for travel screening at the time you buy your ticket, and a background check is done on you and kept on file tied to biometric data (iris, palm print, finger print, whatever). When you arrive at the airport, you merely need to show your travel documents, and prove bio-metrically that you are indeed you.

From a practical standpoint, you would need specialty mechanics, perhaps certified by the government, to work on your car as these "nuclear" run mobiles started slowly replacing standard carbon-emitting automobiles, but I'm sure the trade-off would be slow as the initial prices for such cars would be astronomically higher priced than a standard car as the technology lagged behind the science.

I spend about $100 per week on gasoline, or say about $50,000 over ten years for fuel. Figuring that 200 HP = 0.00015 gigawatts,

Using: http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcc.html ...and, assuming I'm reading the results correctly.

It would take about 100 pounds of uranium ore to power the vehicle for ten years, and using fully processed fuel and accounting for disposal costs would cost about $20 for total fuel costs over the ten years.

Also, there would have to be a radiation detection gauge on the car itself in case there was a crack in the hull, so to speak. Crash-testing these cars could be dangerous and would require a complete regulations over-hall, as would the way police and fire departments deal with car accidents. Basically, if this did become a reality, it would change everything as we know it!

When you crash your car, you usually don't crack open your engine. Radiation is easy to detect, so it's easy to avoid. In that way, it's easier to avoid than the hydrazine vapor used in the air bag deployment. Yes, designing a crash safe mobile nuclear reactor is an engineering problem, but it's one of the easier ones to solve.

Another approach would be to have a small reactor be kept in your house or a slightly larger one at local community level, and have the cars run on batteries.