If it was that simple the Manhatten Project would probably have happened in 1850. Not all Uranium is equal. Getting enough of the right isotopes for fuel out is not trivial.
For submarines it's a very good choice - aerospace where every gram counts not so much, but the complex fuel cycle kills it dead once you go off planet. The fuel does not stay useful forever and shipping in new fuel at intervals would be very difficult to sustain.
It's fine to be a big fan of nukes but in some situations they are not so good a fit.
Stop sending so much money in the direction of Saudi Arabia and they won't have spare cash to give to Daesh. Even better, keep better track of weapon sales so Daesh are not buying our stuff and have to settle for poor quality knockoffs.
That's kind of the core issue on whether a project goes ahead or not mister market forces. An invisible hand is not getting us to Mars just as it didn't get Columbus to America.
You may have had a point in 1970 but I doubt it. Now we have an entire generation hitting the workforce that have no doubt that it "actually works" because it's been working since before they were born. I really don't get what you are trying to do here.
I'll try again. Physics and metaphysics are very different things. Is that better? It only gets confusing when various "churches" with a very financial bent decide that people like Dawkins are a threat because they oppose what their cult says about biology.
That again? That thing keeps on resurfacing so much that it's making people look like Tesla broadcast power fanatics. It was a good idea in it's time but the research has been built on and improved a great deal since then, most recently in India. Perhaps you should take a look at what India has been doing with Thorium and that will cure your desire to bring back an impractical devils brew of radioactive and highly reactive liquid metals that the world had moved on from.
Are you one of those "there is no nuclear waste, only fuel" people? A liquid flourine thorium reactor is not going to be able to do anything with the low level waste at Harford, it's for used fuel rods, weapon materials and other highly active things can already be dealt with by other technologies (including a MOX process at Harford).
You have a point but not really about the topic at hand. Christianity-lite has a lot to answer for. The topic here is the Vatican so perhaps you should consider it from that perspective and not what the lay preacher on your radio asking for cash is going on about. Science threatens the business model of the latter which is why they have attacked geology, biology and now any science related to climate. It kind of make sense with a bunch that started off by claiming that the San Francisco earthquake was an act of divine retribution - science got in the way of a good story, but that approach is very much more business than religion IMHO.
The discoverers like Mendel and Kepler only advanced when they STOPPED being christians
You are looking at it via the prism of Pentacostalism and not as Mendel and Kepler would have seen it. Reason outside of the Church was not seen as an enemy but just a different field.
As I wrote elsewhere it really came down to politics and calling the Pope an idiot in print. Others had been discussing the Copernican model before Galileo (and Galileo for two decades before his trial), but they did not depict a character that was obviously the Pope and obviously an idiot in their discussions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Not a terribly good argument. If Galileo was present today, I'd think he'd have a slightly easier time of it.
Not by much. Very publicly calling a major political figure with an autocratic streak a mile wide an idiot (simplicio) doesn't tend to go down well in any era.
If time didn't exist, then there was no time for a god to create the universe.
Does a God need it? You (and the creationist idiots for different reasons) are looking at things the wrong way IMHO. As I see it science and religion are orthogonal unless it's dumbed down Christianity-Lite that sees science as a direct threat to it's very financial business model. Mendel was quite happy working out a few things about genetics as well as being a monk, they didn't conflict. In geology four out of the five that disproved the "Noah's flood" theory of fossils were ordained. They didn't have so narrow an idea of religion that reality could get in the way.
From your posting history it appears incredibly unlikely that if you are in a position where you have to deal with such matters or are aware of them first hand. Aren't you the guy that hates all governments and sees all taxes as armed robbery?
Was I the only one that found it utterly bizarre that Trump chose to mention that in his letter firing Comey?
Autocrats do that sort of thing. Personal issues become the most pressing State issues. Expect a lot more of this sort of thing. It's new for the US Presidency but extremely common in various regimes. It's the sort of thing that inspired George Washington to refuse a crown and ensure that his power was balanced - he's fought against leader that was a lot like Trump and didn't want one running America again.
until Clinton lied about the blue dress like a stupid idiot
It was semantics (though it did indeed make him look like an idiot). At what point do you redefine kissing to be sex? Clinton seemed to be arguing never, and seemed to be arguing that only intercourse was "sex with that woman".
The really strange thing is we are still talking about it today as if it was important enough to waste all that time in court. Clinton was already known to be sleazy, it was just his political opponents trying an "angle" to damage him and progress their own careers and the country be damned.
you're going to watch support melt away as it did for Nixon
I should remind the younger readers that it took three years to get rid of Nixon, and that's only because he "prepared a parachute" to jump before he could be pushed.
How stupid would you have to be to believe that Donald Trump fired Comey for the actions which he publicly commended him for?
How many times have you heard the words "he has my full support" in the first few days of a scandal and then the person gets dumped a few days later? Surely you've noticed that in a few places, business, politics, all over the place.
As for Trump himself going from support to attack on something - consider his earlier praise for WikiLeaks and the current move to act against it: http://bgr.com/2017/04/20/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-charges/
Donald Trump is preparing for his criminal prosecution and impeachment just like Richard Nixon did in the leadup to his resignation in disgrace.
Is that sarcasm or something? Trump is not going to leave without leaving metaphorical claw marks on the floor as he's dragged out, and there's no sign of anyone dragging him out any time soon. He started in disgrace and isn't going to resign to avoid it.
If you get in there as an entrepreneur, you'll be suffocating under a mounting of paperwork before being demonized by Democrats for trying to make a profit
Sorry to break it to you now that you are back from years in the wilderness with no news of the outside world, but there has been an election and Democrats are now irrelevant so you'll have to find someone else to blame.
I'd say it's extremely obvious sarcasm but don't let that stop you doing some political cheerleading.
I don't think this is about "left" or "right" anyway. Nixon had a lot to say about pollution. The Soviets had Lysenkoism and current trends seem to be going in that direction - reality being defined by what the State says it is and don't let those pesky facts get in the way.
Actually it's got both military and civilian waste, and there is still very interesting ongoing work on reprocessing at the place which is described on their website. It's a very large site and a lot of activities have occurred there in different buildings over many years. The rolling stock that's mentioned in the summary is not exactly Chernobyl material - just something radioactive enough to be too dangerous to stand next to for a while. It's a good example of the vast amount of low level radioactive waste existing that the "there is no nuclear waste, only fuel" people try to pretend does not exist for some bizzare reason (I don't know why they do this since the low level stuff is not so difficult to store).
Obviously not. You could not find the portion to quote. Why are you still whining about this? Nobody cares about your silly little game apart from you.
You calling me a fool based upon words you put in my mouth was the attack.
Maybe you should take a break
Maybe you should stop these pathetic little games and stupid little easily exposed lies such as the quote you cannot find. Also if "trouble with reading comprehension" is your insult of choice in your neck of the woods perhaps you should take up moonshining and banjo - it shows a special sort of contempt of those around you. How did you get to be so utterly pathetic? I even agreed with you in some cases but you still had to set up a strawman and have a go at getting some bullying done. Do you do that to the kiddies here often gaslight troll?
So by not accepting the ridiculous words you attempted to place in my mouth and staying on topic I am acting crazy? What a pathetic and silly little game. Are you sure you are not logged onto your father's account?
Slashdot Mirror
A "nuclear battery" supplies not a great deal of power for not a great deal of time. Wikipedia will help.
If it was that simple the Manhatten Project would probably have happened in 1850.
Not all Uranium is equal. Getting enough of the right isotopes for fuel out is not trivial.
For submarines it's a very good choice - aerospace where every gram counts not so much, but the complex fuel cycle kills it dead once you go off planet.
The fuel does not stay useful forever and shipping in new fuel at intervals would be very difficult to sustain.
It's fine to be a big fan of nukes but in some situations they are not so good a fit.
Stop sending so much money in the direction of Saudi Arabia and they won't have spare cash to give to Daesh.
Even better, keep better track of weapon sales so Daesh are not buying our stuff and have to settle for poor quality knockoffs.
That's kind of the core issue on whether a project goes ahead or not mister market forces.
An invisible hand is not getting us to Mars just as it didn't get Columbus to America.
You may have had a point in 1970 but I doubt it.
Now we have an entire generation hitting the workforce that have no doubt that it "actually works" because it's been working since before they were born.
I really don't get what you are trying to do here.
I'll try again. Physics and metaphysics are very different things. Is that better?
It only gets confusing when various "churches" with a very financial bent decide that people like Dawkins are a threat because they oppose what their cult says about biology.
That again?
That thing keeps on resurfacing so much that it's making people look like Tesla broadcast power fanatics.
It was a good idea in it's time but the research has been built on and improved a great deal since then, most recently in India. Perhaps you should take a look at what India has been doing with Thorium and that will cure your desire to bring back an impractical devils brew of radioactive and highly reactive liquid metals that the world had moved on from.
Are you one of those "there is no nuclear waste, only fuel" people? A liquid flourine thorium reactor is not going to be able to do anything with the low level waste at Harford, it's for used fuel rods, weapon materials and other highly active things can already be dealt with by other technologies (including a MOX process at Harford).
And trump has always been known to be sleezy. One is ok and one isn't ?
Funny isn't it.
You have a point but not really about the topic at hand. Christianity-lite has a lot to answer for. The topic here is the Vatican so perhaps you should consider it from that perspective and not what the lay preacher on your radio asking for cash is going on about. Science threatens the business model of the latter which is why they have attacked geology, biology and now any science related to climate.
It kind of make sense with a bunch that started off by claiming that the San Francisco earthquake was an act of divine retribution - science got in the way of a good story, but that approach is very much more business than religion IMHO.
You are looking at it via the prism of Pentacostalism and not as Mendel and Kepler would have seen it. Reason outside of the Church was not seen as an enemy but just a different field.
As I wrote elsewhere it really came down to politics and calling the Pope an idiot in print. Others had been discussing the Copernican model before Galileo (and Galileo for two decades before his trial), but they did not depict a character that was obviously the Pope and obviously an idiot in their discussions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Not by much. Very publicly calling a major political figure with an autocratic streak a mile wide an idiot (simplicio) doesn't tend to go down well in any era.
Does a God need it?
You (and the creationist idiots for different reasons) are looking at things the wrong way IMHO. As I see it science and religion are orthogonal unless it's dumbed down Christianity-Lite that sees science as a direct threat to it's very financial business model.
Mendel was quite happy working out a few things about genetics as well as being a monk, they didn't conflict. In geology four out of the five that disproved the "Noah's flood" theory of fossils were ordained. They didn't have so narrow an idea of religion that reality could get in the way.
From your posting history it appears incredibly unlikely that if you are in a position where you have to deal with such matters or are aware of them first hand.
Aren't you the guy that hates all governments and sees all taxes as armed robbery?
Autocrats do that sort of thing. Personal issues become the most pressing State issues. Expect a lot more of this sort of thing.
It's new for the US Presidency but extremely common in various regimes. It's the sort of thing that inspired George Washington to refuse a crown and ensure that his power was balanced - he's fought against leader that was a lot like Trump and didn't want one running America again.
It was semantics (though it did indeed make him look like an idiot). At what point do you redefine kissing to be sex? Clinton seemed to be arguing never, and seemed to be arguing that only intercourse was "sex with that woman".
The really strange thing is we are still talking about it today as if it was important enough to waste all that time in court. Clinton was already known to be sleazy, it was just his political opponents trying an "angle" to damage him and progress their own careers and the country be damned.
I should remind the younger readers that it took three years to get rid of Nixon, and that's only because he "prepared a parachute" to jump before he could be pushed.
How many times have you heard the words "he has my full support" in the first few days of a scandal and then the person gets dumped a few days later? Surely you've noticed that in a few places, business, politics, all over the place.
As for Trump himself going from support to attack on something - consider his earlier praise for WikiLeaks and the current move to act against it:
http://bgr.com/2017/04/20/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-charges/
Is that sarcasm or something? Trump is not going to leave without leaving metaphorical claw marks on the floor as he's dragged out, and there's no sign of anyone dragging him out any time soon. He started in disgrace and isn't going to resign to avoid it.
Sorry to break it to you now that you are back from years in the wilderness with no news of the outside world, but there has been an election and Democrats are now irrelevant so you'll have to find someone else to blame.
I'd say it's extremely obvious sarcasm but don't let that stop you doing some political cheerleading.
I don't think this is about "left" or "right" anyway. Nixon had a lot to say about pollution. The Soviets had Lysenkoism and current trends seem to be going in that direction - reality being defined by what the State says it is and don't let those pesky facts get in the way.
Actually it's got both military and civilian waste, and there is still very interesting ongoing work on reprocessing at the place which is described on their website.
It's a very large site and a lot of activities have occurred there in different buildings over many years.
The rolling stock that's mentioned in the summary is not exactly Chernobyl material - just something radioactive enough to be too dangerous to stand next to for a while. It's a good example of the vast amount of low level radioactive waste existing that the "there is no nuclear waste, only fuel" people try to pretend does not exist for some bizzare reason (I don't know why they do this since the low level stuff is not so difficult to store).
Obviously not. You could not find the portion to quote.
Why are you still whining about this? Nobody cares about your silly little game apart from you.
Maybe you should stop these pathetic little games and stupid little easily exposed lies such as the quote you cannot find. Also if "trouble with reading comprehension" is your insult of choice in your neck of the woods perhaps you should take up moonshining and banjo - it shows a special sort of contempt of those around you. How did you get to be so utterly pathetic? I even agreed with you in some cases but you still had to set up a strawman and have a go at getting some bullying done. Do you do that to the kiddies here often gaslight troll?
So by not accepting the ridiculous words you attempted to place in my mouth and staying on topic I am acting crazy?
What a pathetic and silly little game. Are you sure you are not logged onto your father's account?