The Tsar Bomba was clean because they set off only 2 of the 3 stages. It had the fission primary and fusion secondary, but had a steel/lead casing rather than the U-238 casing it was designed with, bringing it down from possibly 150MT to the 50MT we saw.
2 reasons: They didn't want to poison half their arctic forever just to impress us. And the plane that dropped it barely got away as it was. Dropping the 150 version was probably going to be suicide.
The full bomb would have been very, very dirty. And the cobalt variant would have been dirtier still.
One could hope though, that after 50+ years you would see some reduction in the targeted problems. A slight decrease in the percentage of those living in poverty; something.
Would you actually say that we have more order and civility in our cities than we did 60 years ago?
Nice analysis, but one little part is wrong. You used the word 'share'. No matter how you dress it up, it's not sharing when it is government enforced.
Not going to get in the substance too much (like no one recovered from sickness, pursued education, cared for children, etc. before the nanny state) just use the right word. Whatever the right word is, it isn't 'sharing'.
"ICBM's are solid-fueled in general. So, no, you won't be coming in "at full power""
I don't get that. What does solid fuel have to do with where you drive your ICBM? To my knowledge, you can't shut off a solid fuel rocket, which would be perfect for this application.
And I said ICBM, but for this purpose there is no inter-continental and you don't necessarily even have to be ballistic, so it's really just more of an M. I was just trying to give a sense of scale. A land launched missile can be as big as they want it to be. And if anybody can build a bunch of something cheap, it's the Chinese.
Modern MIRVs being 60s & 70s tech btw. And they don't use nukes because the missiles are inaccurate, they use nukes because the point of the thing is to carry a nuke.
When nuking a city, you don't have to be that accurate. But my freakin' iPhone knows the difference between my living room and my backyard. Which was built in China I remind you. Any country capable of putting a satellite into orbit today has the ability to bring that same missile down within a meter of a target.
Perhaps I misuse the word 'hypersonic'. Most people here are better at physics and math than I, so you tell me; a medium sized small satellite launching type rocket, that uses 2/3rds of it's fuel to get stratospheric, arcs over, and comes straight down, still under full power, hits the sea surface how fast?
I submit that it is fast enough that the surface speed of the target ship becomes irrelevant.
Obama's DoJ can't file charges unless and until the FBI comes up with something.
I would predict Sanders loses to Trump too, but then Trump shot his mouth off pretty hard about Muslims yesterday. I like Trump, but he could go too far.
Given where we are right now, to say that something is too crazy to happen in a year, is a little crazy.
It's to give everybody but Russia and China a hard time. Your WWII comparison is apt; it's not going to be used for that. Which is why we only needed 3.
"First off, there are no hypersonic missiles and will not be for a good 5 or 6 years at least"
Wut? Hell an old fashioned ICBM is a hypersonic missile if you use it as one, and they have better nowadays. If you don't actually need to traverse a continent, you have the fuel to come all the way down at full power. And be smaller.
The latest Chinese missiles are estimated to come down at up to mach 22. They've put a lot of money into them for a while now. Which is why they don't really bother with a navy to counter ours. They figure they need the one carrier for show, and they can give the Philippines a hard time if they need to.
But they don't have to beat our navy with their navy to win.
Propaganda. The propaganda is that surface ships have a viable defense. There is none. Against a single harpoon type missile, yes; the Phalanx does exactly what you say it does; propaganda is usually true.. Against what they would actually shoot at our ships, no.
Multiple, staggered, svelte ICBMs coming down at mach 22. With nuke warheads if they are serious. There is no defense against that. All surface ships are stupid and redundant in the real war that the United States is worried about. I guess they are still handy against the Iraqs of the world.
Huh. People love to forget that Hillary is being actively investigated by the FBI. And that's just for the email lying, if they get into her real corruption, then look out. FBI doesn't investigate like that for fun. Indictments could easily come. The FBI is not run by Republicans so don't even go there. If the FBI recommends charges, even if the DoJ refuses, that's be as good as a jail sentence as far as Hillary winning the nomination.
So then you'd have Sanders and who, Trump?
Sanders is no gun control nutter. Some of his socialism boils down to ending this bank fueled college tuition hyperinflation and the same for government fueled health care. As for the rest of his crap, he has to convince Congress, so I'm not too scared he's going to be all implementy. Most of you here would call me a conservative, and It's my opinion that you have to like Sanders. He is definitely his own man.
I like them both. Between Sanders and Trump; Sanders seems like a safer choice to me. No telling how safe I'll want to play it by the time Nov 2016 rolls around, but I guarantee you I'll have to think hard before I pull that lever.
Are you sure it's so crazy, given this crazy election cycle, that Bernie stands no chance?
See, we're not electing a king. He can't just do all that stuff, he's got to convince Congress to do it. Which is why Trump is not such a bad choice either. Bernie can't just implement socialism, and Trump can't deport 11 million illegals by himself.
It's the 'outsider' part; not owned or bought and paid for or even overly influenced. In this day and age, that makes them our two only viable choices.
If it turns out to be Trump vs. Sanders (because Hillary is on her way to jail in that scenario) then we have a real choice on our hands, and whoever wins, it will be a good thing.
Because it is dishonest to put words in his mouth. He asked you why you'd deny billions of brown people running water and air conditioning and all the things we already have.
Are they sure the majority is from decay now? As opposed to both leftover heat and the the Moon constantly cranking on it? Decay was a theory quite a few years ago.
(They've changed science quite a few times in my lifetime.)
Because it's the only other answer than nuclear for our future. The longer we put off serious nuclear, the more we suffer, as we have seen. We need more power.
On the Earth, there are three stores of power. Stored sunlight in carbon, and stored supernovas in uranium and thorium that are in the crust itself. Those two we can get to now.
Of course the big enchilada is the stored heat from the formation of the solar system that is stored under the crust. Don't even have to build a machine to release the heat; don't have to burn or transmute anything; it's raw power itself; heat; that is there for the taking. I really can't imagine running out of that.
It would allow us to bypass this nuclear power political war that must come, if we are to advance as a species. Doesn't matter where you're at on AGW, carbon is not cutting it anymore. Imagine that very soon 20 billion people will want 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, air conditioning, hot running water, one new car, one older...
Where is that power coming from? Drill baby, drill.
Slashdot Mirror
The Tsar Bomba was clean because they set off only 2 of the 3 stages. It had the fission primary and fusion secondary, but had a steel/lead casing rather than the U-238 casing it was designed with, bringing it down from possibly 150MT to the 50MT we saw.
2 reasons:
They didn't want to poison half their arctic forever just to impress us.
And the plane that dropped it barely got away as it was. Dropping the 150 version was probably going to be suicide.
The full bomb would have been very, very dirty. And the cobalt variant would have been dirtier still.
Mr. dpidcoe is still correct. You pointing out that politicians also see us as a product changes nothing.
Heh. The funny part is that the banks have probably been doing a better job of governing this whole time...
One could hope though, that after 50+ years you would see some reduction in the targeted problems. A slight decrease in the percentage of those living in poverty; something.
Would you actually say that we have more order and civility in our cities than we did 60 years ago?
Nice analysis, but one little part is wrong. You used the word 'share'. No matter how you dress it up, it's not sharing when it is government enforced.
Not going to get in the substance too much (like no one recovered from sickness, pursued education, cared for children, etc. before the nanny state) just use the right word. Whatever the right word is, it isn't 'sharing'.
"ICBM's are solid-fueled in general. So, no, you won't be coming in "at full power""
I don't get that. What does solid fuel have to do with where you drive your ICBM? To my knowledge, you can't shut off a solid fuel rocket, which would be perfect for this application.
And I said ICBM, but for this purpose there is no inter-continental and you don't necessarily even have to be ballistic, so it's really just more of an M. I was just trying to give a sense of scale. A land launched missile can be as big as they want it to be. And if anybody can build a bunch of something cheap, it's the Chinese.
Modern MIRVs being 60s & 70s tech btw. And they don't use nukes because the missiles are inaccurate, they use nukes because the point of the thing is to carry a nuke.
When nuking a city, you don't have to be that accurate. But my freakin' iPhone knows the difference between my living room and my backyard. Which was built in China I remind you. Any country capable of putting a satellite into orbit today has the ability to bring that same missile down within a meter of a target.
Perhaps I misuse the word 'hypersonic'. Most people here are better at physics and math than I, so you tell me; a medium sized small satellite launching type rocket, that uses 2/3rds of it's fuel to get stratospheric, arcs over, and comes straight down, still under full power, hits the sea surface how fast?
I submit that it is fast enough that the surface speed of the target ship becomes irrelevant.
Obama's DoJ can't file charges unless and until the FBI comes up with something.
I would predict Sanders loses to Trump too, but then Trump shot his mouth off pretty hard about Muslims yesterday. I like Trump, but he could go too far.
Given where we are right now, to say that something is too crazy to happen in a year, is a little crazy.
It's to give everybody but Russia and China a hard time. Your WWII comparison is apt; it's not going to be used for that. Which is why we only needed 3.
"First off, there are no hypersonic missiles and will not be for a good 5 or 6 years at least"
Wut? Hell an old fashioned ICBM is a hypersonic missile if you use it as one, and they have better nowadays. If you don't actually need to traverse a continent, you have the fuel to come all the way down at full power. And be smaller.
The latest Chinese missiles are estimated to come down at up to mach 22. They've put a lot of money into them for a while now. Which is why they don't really bother with a navy to counter ours. They figure they need the one carrier for show, and they can give the Philippines a hard time if they need to.
But they don't have to beat our navy with their navy to win.
Propaganda. The propaganda is that surface ships have a viable defense. There is none. Against a single harpoon type missile, yes; the Phalanx does exactly what you say it does; propaganda is usually true.. Against what they would actually shoot at our ships, no.
Multiple, staggered, svelte ICBMs coming down at mach 22. With nuke warheads if they are serious. There is no defense against that. All surface ships are stupid and redundant in the real war that the United States is worried about. I guess they are still handy against the Iraqs of the world.
And for that, apparently we only need three.
Huh. People love to forget that Hillary is being actively investigated by the FBI. And that's just for the email lying, if they get into her real corruption, then look out. FBI doesn't investigate like that for fun. Indictments could easily come. The FBI is not run by Republicans so don't even go there. If the FBI recommends charges, even if the DoJ refuses, that's be as good as a jail sentence as far as Hillary winning the nomination.
So then you'd have Sanders and who, Trump?
Sanders is no gun control nutter. Some of his socialism boils down to ending this bank fueled college tuition hyperinflation and the same for government fueled health care. As for the rest of his crap, he has to convince Congress, so I'm not too scared he's going to be all implementy. Most of you here would call me a conservative, and It's my opinion that you have to like Sanders. He is definitely his own man.
I like them both. Between Sanders and Trump; Sanders seems like a safer choice to me. No telling how safe I'll want to play it by the time Nov 2016 rolls around, but I guarantee you I'll have to think hard before I pull that lever.
Are you sure it's so crazy, given this crazy election cycle, that Bernie stands no chance?
That github page has an embedded youtube of the guy demoing. When the video is over the youtube related video blocks appear, like always.
The first one is "Verizon wireless can suck it!" and they go on from there.
I just really think that is funny.
See, we're not electing a king. He can't just do all that stuff, he's got to convince Congress to do it. Which is why Trump is not such a bad choice either. Bernie can't just implement socialism, and Trump can't deport 11 million illegals by himself.
It's the 'outsider' part; not owned or bought and paid for or even overly influenced. In this day and age, that makes them our two only viable choices.
If it turns out to be Trump vs. Sanders (because Hillary is on her way to jail in that scenario) then we have a real choice on our hands, and whoever wins, it will be a good thing.
Whoosh?
Because it is dishonest to put words in his mouth. He asked you why you'd deny billions of brown people running water and air conditioning and all the things we already have.
I'd like to hear the answer to that myself.
Honestly, no, I had forgotten about that.
Are they sure the majority is from decay now? As opposed to both leftover heat and the the Moon constantly cranking on it? Decay was a theory quite a few years ago.
(They've changed science quite a few times in my lifetime.)
Interesting. As in, anything that proved the existence of God would also prove that he is not God.
So, 'if' they were able to prove the holographic theory, wouldn't that also prove that the universe doesn't exist?
Ouch...
Because it's the only other answer than nuclear for our future. The longer we put off serious nuclear, the more we suffer, as we have seen. We need more power.
On the Earth, there are three stores of power. Stored sunlight in carbon, and stored supernovas in uranium and thorium that are in the crust itself. Those two we can get to now.
Of course the big enchilada is the stored heat from the formation of the solar system that is stored under the crust. Don't even have to build a machine to release the heat; don't have to burn or transmute anything; it's raw power itself; heat; that is there for the taking. I really can't imagine running out of that.
It would allow us to bypass this nuclear power political war that must come, if we are to advance as a species. Doesn't matter where you're at on AGW, carbon is not cutting it anymore. Imagine that very soon 20 billion people will want 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, air conditioning, hot running water, one new car, one older...
Where is that power coming from? Drill baby, drill.
You'd need a vacuum.
oh wait, we have one...
Yer right; walking around with bolt cutters is like a neon sign that says I'm a thief.
I guess you could hide it under a trenchcoat. Which would be totally low profile.
Check out the statues:
http://www.usmarshals.gov/asse...
How crazy does one have to be? I'd love to hear her story behind that. Maybe she'll write a book.
That's the reason that the first thing you'd do with a working space elevator, is to build another space elevator right next to it.
Can't he still do that?
That was Andy Griffith.