China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The military use of outer space
Published in Francis Lyall, Paul B. Larsen, Space Law, 2017
Nuclear weaponry is known technology. In the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty the parties agreed ‘to prohibit, to prevent, and not to carry out any nuclear weapons test explosion’ in outer space.78 The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons is also helpful.79 On the other hand the term ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMD) is not defined, thus leaving considerable leeway for a narrow or a wide interpretation.80 Aids towards an international law definition come in UN Security Council Res. 1540 of 14 April 2004 on ‘Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction’, as well as in the context of the discussions of the UN Disarmament Commission,81 and such treaties as the Biological Weapons Convention of 197282 and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1992.83 Another element of Art. IV para 1 is the prohibition on the stationing of nuclear weaponry or WMD in space. The curious syntax which ends that para (‘in space or any other manner’) may be explicable by reference to MA Art. 3.3, which prohibits the placing of nuclear or WMD weapons into Moon orbit or on any trajectory to or around the Moon. If both the OST and MA apply, such weapons are forbidden anywhere in space or on celestial bodies. However, it is to be noted that as far as ‘nuclear’ is concerned, the prohibition is on ‘nuclear weapons’. The use of nuclear power in space is unaffected by these provisions, and indeed nuclear power sources are now frequently used by the US, Russia and others in outer space.84 As far as the testing of weapons is concerned, OST Art. IV, para 2 prohibits the testing of any type of weapons on the Moon, while MA Art. 3.3 extends that prohibition to the placing on or use of any weapons in or on the Moon.85
The Military Use of Outer Space
Published in Francis Lyall, Paul B. Larsen, Space Law, 2016
Certain weaponry is specifically dealt with. The first paragraph of Art. IV prohibits states from placing space objects in orbit around the Earth75 ‘carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, installing such weapons on celestial bodies, or stationing these weapons in outer space in any manner’. One part of this is clear. What nuclear weapons are provides no problem: nuclear weapons are a defined technology. On the other hand the term ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMD) was not defined in the OST, thus leaving considerable leeway for a narrow or a wide interpretation.76 Aids towards an international law definition come in UN Security Council Res. 1540 of 14 April 2004 on ‘Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction’, as well as in the context of the discussions of the UN Disarmament Commission,77 and such treaties as the Biological Weapons Convention of 197278 and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1992.79 Another element of Art. IV para. 1 is the prohibition on the stationing of nuclear weaponry or WMD in space. The curious syntax which ends this para. (‘in space or any manner’) may be explicable by reference to MA Art. 3.3 which prohibits the placing of nuclear or WMD weapons into Moon orbit or on any trajectory to or around the Moon. If both the OST and MA apply, such weapons are forbidden anywhere in space or on celestial bodies. However, it is to be noted that as far as ‘nuclear’ is concerned, the prohibition is on ‘nuclear weapons’. The use of nuclear power in space is unaffected by these provisions, and indeed nuclear power sources are now frequently used by the US, Russia and others in outer space.80 As far as the testing of weapons is concerned, OST Art. IV para. 2 prohibits the testing of any type of weapons on the Moon, while MA Art. 3.3 extends that prohibition to the placing on or use of any weapons in or on the Moon.
A Critical Review of Heat Pipe Experiments in Nuclear Energy Applications
Published in Nuclear Science and Engineering, 2023
Scott Wahlquist, Joshua Hansel, Piyush Sabharwall, Amir Ali
Heat pipes are passive phase-change cooling devices that transmit high heat transfer rates with a slight temperature difference over considerable distances. Given the various combinations of design types, recently, HPs have become an integral part of advancing a broad range of technologies. This critical review discusses HP experimental studies related to today’s nuclear technological endeavors. The historical development of HPs, along with the historical advancements pertaining to their integration into nuclear-related technologies, is discussed. The critical review includes HP classification, general principles of operation, and heat transfer limitations in nuclear applications. Heat pipe experiments that accelerated the advancement of nuclear power in space reactors, microreactors, and other nuclear-related technologies are summarized. Experimental data sets containing pertinent information that may be beneficial to researchers are also provided.
A comprehensive review of sustainable approaches for synthetic lubricant components
Published in Green Chemistry Letters and Reviews, 2023
Jessica Pichler, Rosa Maria Eder, Charlotte Besser, Lucia Pisarova, Nicole Dörr, Martina Marchetti-Deschmann, Marcella Frauscher
Ether-type synthetic oils show outstanding characteristics, especially for certain special applications where their excellent heat resistance, oxidation, and radiation resistance and low vapor pressures are of importance. This makes them suitable for high-temperature and high-vacuum applications, and for locations subjected to radiation (144,159). This particularly concerns polyphenyl ethers, which are used as lubricants in extreme environments such as nuclear power plants, space satellites, nuclear submarines, food sterilization equipment, radiation chemistry laboratories, and medical imaging systems. Besides liquid lubricants, they are commercially available as greases (160). Ether-based lubricants may be produced from renewable biomass-derived feedstocks, for example, through direct or reductive etherification of pyrolysis oils, plant, and algal oils, or C5–C6 sugars (161).
Normal Science in the Time of Corona
Published in Engineering Studies, 2020
In a sense, the authors use of the borderlands concept to make that argument is metaphorical. Borderlands has been tremendously useful in helping historians overcome nation-centric thinking, and in that way the concept helps us to understand both the borderlands and the traditional nation better. The borderlands approach is part of a broader move to ‘provincialize Europe’ (and European settler societies) – i.e., to make the supposedly universal rationality and knowledge that claims its Europeanness seem just as contingent and parochial as any other rationality or body of knowledge.24 For this article, the metaphorical translation would be to provincialize dams, canals, bridges, nuclear power plants, space shuttles, and other supposedly universal, privileged forms of engineering. By looking at E4D, we see that contingent, parochial forms of engineering – engineering to solve undervalued problems in undervalued places – are at least as innovative and fundamental as engineering’s ‘metropoles’ of bridges and reactors.