You may want to reread up on the Heat Death of the Universe. Our Sun won't even be cold in 5 billion years, never mind the rest of universe. Existing red dwarf stars may last a 100 billion years. Most models put the Stelliferous Era (era of stars) as extending 10s of trillions to 100s of trillions of years into the future. True Heat Death is 10E100 or 10E1000 years out depending on the model, but there won't be any stars or planets (protons will have decayed). Although the Big Rip may occur in as little as 20 Billion years
Or point it at a cinder block wall and watch it light up. In Jr High, one of my Scout leaders lent us a Geiger counter for a few days and it was amazing the things that would set it off and we were 500 miles from the nearest nuclear facility
You may actually want to read up on how the SRBs operate before you comment so ignorantly on them. The SRB most definately leaked, they leaked hot exhaust gases from the solid fuel as it burned. The o-rings were designed to prevent this leakage. Durning Challenger there was a burn through and the hot exhaust gases eventually caused the rear attachment point to fail and the SRB to rotate into the ET rupturing it.
My god, what an evil person you are. Spending time typing on a computer while babies are starving to death? Paying for internet access when that money could do so much. If you actually believed what you wrote, you would have sold your computer and everything you don't need to survive, and spent every waking moment to raise money to feed the starving.
The main reason why diesel consumer vehicles all but died in North America in the 90's was that they had developed a reputation as being "dirty", the more recent growth in demand was a result of the new TDI vehicles as being portrayed as "clean" diesel
You forget the part where Congress and the OMB kept sending NASA back to the drawing board time and time again because the designs were "too expensive" resulting in the spending of more money (in redesigns) than was ultimately saved and deleting key aspects of the stations that would have provided substantial value along the way.
Skylab supported 3 astronauts for a combined 171 days and still had over 60 days of water and 140 days of oxygen remaining on board after the final mission. A Mars mission wouldn't have been turn key, but within the scope of a 1980 manned mission, easily within the ability of NASA to develop (assuming the money was available)
It's not as big an issue as you make it out to be. Most prospective designs include a storm shelter to ride out any solar events, and the Van Allen belts don't protect against deep-space radiation events. The biggest protection ISS has against these is the fact that 50% of the "sky" is blocked by the Earth
We had just about everything we needed to go to Mars in 1970. Saturn V for heavy lift, NERVA for fast transit, Skylab modules for habitation. All that was needed was a Mars Lander, which was specced out in 1968 and would have been no harder to develop than the Lunar Module. It would have been expensive (30-40 billion) but the technology was all there
Unfortunately the spring of 1941 was particularly muddy and summer came late. Had the German's started in May, its likely they would have become bogged down and allowed the Soviets to reorganize themselves better after the surprise attack
Had the war continued production would have ramped up faster than that. With the direction of all U-235 to the production of composite cores (With implosion proven, the Little Boy design was abandoned), and all reactors operating at Hanford, estimates were as high as 12 per month as early as December.
The third bomb would have been ready within days. Bomb casings were available at Tinian and the plutonium core was ready to ship when the war ended. Had the ware continued, production of bombs would have continued to ramp up, with estimates as high as 12 per month by December (once the Fat Man design was proven, all U-235 production was switched to composite implosion cores). Once the war ended, production slowed as there were several improvements engineers wanted to make to K-25 and the top plant that required them to shut down for several months.
Well I'm not planning to learn Russian to prove someone on the internet is wrong. But I would eagerly and happily visit the exclusion zones in either Ukraine or Japan, after all the most dangerous part of the trip would be the drive to and from the airport. I have visited Chalk River (the site of several nuclear accidents)
You on the other hand are vastly overestimating the radiation levels in the exclusion zone. A extensive survey conducted by the Ukraine in 2012 found that 94% of the settlements within their portion of the exclusion zone could be resettled without restrictions due to radiation. In 2010 Belarus found that 80% of the settlements in their portion of the exclusion zone could be resettled without restrictions. In the other places (where some restrictions would be required), the limits for the vast majority of these areas concern the burning of local wood, or the consumption certain wild mushrooms. Cesium levels are now below background and Chernobyl is now a tourist attraction. The biggest limitations to resettlement is the infrastructure that has decayed over the past 30 years and has to be rebuilt at the cost of several billion dollars
It also doesn't factor in the discovery of new technologies that may be far superior in generating energy than building Dyson Sphere. Imagine 500 years from now, a major breakthrough that allows the development of ZPM's (Zero Point Modules, ala Stargate Atlantis), or efficient anti matter synthesis (ala Star Trek), or Hyper Matter reactors (ala Star Wars), or some other technology along those lines why would you bother trying to build a Dyson Sphere for energy collection purposes?
Are the hundreds of thousands of people who live in Denver desperate? Background radiation there is much higher than the vast majority of the Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones. Dangerous hotspots can be detected and marked
You mean like Denver Colorado? Background radiation exposure in Denver is worse than the vast majority of the Chernobyl or Fukushima exclusion zones. There are specific hot spots that are dangerous, but these can be easily detected and remediated (if small) or marked
I think he's referencing Chernobyl, which is so inhabitable, there are people living there right now and Belarus is already reclaiming land that was originally in the exclusion zone. Sure you don't want to go partying up in the Red Forest, but most of the zone is very much habitable
Slashdot Mirror
You may want to reread up on the Heat Death of the Universe. Our Sun won't even be cold in 5 billion years, never mind the rest of universe. Existing red dwarf stars may last a 100 billion years. Most models put the Stelliferous Era (era of stars) as extending 10s of trillions to 100s of trillions of years into the future. True Heat Death is 10E100 or 10E1000 years out depending on the model, but there won't be any stars or planets (protons will have decayed). Although the Big Rip may occur in as little as 20 Billion years
Or point it at a cinder block wall and watch it light up. In Jr High, one of my Scout leaders lent us a Geiger counter for a few days and it was amazing the things that would set it off and we were 500 miles from the nearest nuclear facility
Ya, all those corporate fat cats at Chernobyl cutting costs to line their pockets. If only it was run by the government
I guess you've never heard of the Fenian raids in the late 19th century.
You may actually want to read up on how the SRBs operate before you comment so ignorantly on them. The SRB most definately leaked, they leaked hot exhaust gases from the solid fuel as it burned. The o-rings were designed to prevent this leakage. Durning Challenger there was a burn through and the hot exhaust gases eventually caused the rear attachment point to fail and the SRB to rotate into the ET rupturing it.
Of course the general public also thinks that NASA gets 10% of the federal budget as opposed to 0.3%
My god, what an evil person you are. Spending time typing on a computer while babies are starving to death? Paying for internet access when that money could do so much. If you actually believed what you wrote, you would have sold your computer and everything you don't need to survive, and spent every waking moment to raise money to feed the starving.
Pass campaign finance reform
The main reason why diesel consumer vehicles all but died in North America in the 90's was that they had developed a reputation as being "dirty", the more recent growth in demand was a result of the new TDI vehicles as being portrayed as "clean" diesel
You forget the part where Congress and the OMB kept sending NASA back to the drawing board time and time again because the designs were "too expensive" resulting in the spending of more money (in redesigns) than was ultimately saved and deleting key aspects of the stations that would have provided substantial value along the way.
Skylab supported 3 astronauts for a combined 171 days and still had over 60 days of water and 140 days of oxygen remaining on board after the final mission. A Mars mission wouldn't have been turn key, but within the scope of a 1980 manned mission, easily within the ability of NASA to develop (assuming the money was available)
It's not as big an issue as you make it out to be. Most prospective designs include a storm shelter to ride out any solar events, and the Van Allen belts don't protect against deep-space radiation events. The biggest protection ISS has against these is the fact that 50% of the "sky" is blocked by the Earth
We had just about everything we needed to go to Mars in 1970. Saturn V for heavy lift, NERVA for fast transit, Skylab modules for habitation. All that was needed was a Mars Lander, which was specced out in 1968 and would have been no harder to develop than the Lunar Module. It would have been expensive (30-40 billion) but the technology was all there
I prefer the term lithobraking you insensitive clod
Unfortunately the spring of 1941 was particularly muddy and summer came late. Had the German's started in May, its likely they would have become bogged down and allowed the Soviets to reorganize themselves better after the surprise attack
Had the war continued production would have ramped up faster than that. With the direction of all U-235 to the production of composite cores (With implosion proven, the Little Boy design was abandoned), and all reactors operating at Hanford, estimates were as high as 12 per month as early as December.
You mean Truman, FDR was dead by then
The third bomb would have been ready within days. Bomb casings were available at Tinian and the plutonium core was ready to ship when the war ended. Had the ware continued, production of bombs would have continued to ramp up, with estimates as high as 12 per month by December (once the Fat Man design was proven, all U-235 production was switched to composite implosion cores). Once the war ended, production slowed as there were several improvements engineers wanted to make to K-25 and the top plant that required them to shut down for several months.
Well I'm not planning to learn Russian to prove someone on the internet is wrong. But I would eagerly and happily visit the exclusion zones in either Ukraine or Japan, after all the most dangerous part of the trip would be the drive to and from the airport. I have visited Chalk River (the site of several nuclear accidents) You on the other hand are vastly overestimating the radiation levels in the exclusion zone. A extensive survey conducted by the Ukraine in 2012 found that 94% of the settlements within their portion of the exclusion zone could be resettled without restrictions due to radiation. In 2010 Belarus found that 80% of the settlements in their portion of the exclusion zone could be resettled without restrictions. In the other places (where some restrictions would be required), the limits for the vast majority of these areas concern the burning of local wood, or the consumption certain wild mushrooms. Cesium levels are now below background and Chernobyl is now a tourist attraction. The biggest limitations to resettlement is the infrastructure that has decayed over the past 30 years and has to be rebuilt at the cost of several billion dollars
It also doesn't factor in the discovery of new technologies that may be far superior in generating energy than building Dyson Sphere. Imagine 500 years from now, a major breakthrough that allows the development of ZPM's (Zero Point Modules, ala Stargate Atlantis), or efficient anti matter synthesis (ala Star Trek), or Hyper Matter reactors (ala Star Wars), or some other technology along those lines why would you bother trying to build a Dyson Sphere for energy collection purposes?
Are the hundreds of thousands of people who live in Denver desperate? Background radiation there is much higher than the vast majority of the Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones. Dangerous hotspots can be detected and marked
You mean like Denver Colorado? Background radiation exposure in Denver is worse than the vast majority of the Chernobyl or Fukushima exclusion zones. There are specific hot spots that are dangerous, but these can be easily detected and remediated (if small) or marked
-40 years. As in we had it, but threw it away. NERVA was pretty much flight ready in the late '60s
that should read "so uninhabitable"
I think he's referencing Chernobyl, which is so inhabitable, there are people living there right now and Belarus is already reclaiming land that was originally in the exclusion zone. Sure you don't want to go partying up in the Red Forest, but most of the zone is very much habitable