what are they thinking to do this project abandoned in the 1960s for being insane?
just read what the developers of the SLAM wrote, it was bananas. in the 60's.
this is just one note I found (and I read other ones, some where.. can't remember where that were a bit more livid).
Pluto was "pretty close to the limits in all respects," says Ethan Platt, an engineer who worked on the project. "We were tickling the dragon's tail all the way," says Blake Myers, head of Livermore's propulsion engineering division.
Nuclear tech and knowledge has also advanced alot since then. In the 50s and 60s they told school kids to hide under their desk if a nuke hit.
Nuclear engines are gonna be the future of manned space travel over long distances, it's already in NASAs budget and plans for Mars missions.
military damage control anti panic ideas are not a metric of engineering sanity
not one bit. An atmospheric rocket that uses nuclear engines is retarded.
what the fuck does this have to do with space travel? its a engineering atrocity
and hiding under a desk will still help because you know, you won't get as shredded from over pressure flung glass window planes if your building does not collapse. I never understood why people downplay the idea, its because of glass shards and debris being flung around. Are you imagining some kind of isotropic fireball that just stops at a set distance away from point 0? If you read the documentation you would know how its specified, amount of over pressure you need to collapse typical structures and other blast effects (like bleeding out from a femoral cut from... glass). Various structures perform better and can within stand different over pressure effects without full collapse, but obviously in most cases the windows will get blown inwards. Or nearby rocks etc can be flung a long distance away and still do damage far outside the blast zone. The idea is you don't have as much infection and need for blood and bandaids because medical facilities if any survive will be over loaded.
And I wanna know what changed in the engineering world that make this a good idea. If it crashes its going to make a mess.
Look at that, it completely disintegrates. Are you telling me some kind of super alloy developed in the last 50 years can withstand that?
What got so better in the plumbing world to make a fuel leak less likely? Did some disaster probability change from 8 to 5 percent because of better weld inspection and higher quality swages on fuel lines? thats still bullshit. And its not even doing anything useful then menacing the west and giving some russian brass dinner conversation.
More alloy choices, more reliance on FEA to reduce costs, shadier private contractors run by modern world business men, hell its probably less reliable because of all the choices you can make now (and you know it will be secretly selected by cost and numbers will be fudged). And its designed to be highly maneuverable and avoid radar (yea that will fit nicely with the reliability design I am sure..........)
what they need to do is put a breathalyzer in the design beureo
what are they thinking to do this project abandoned in the 1960s for being insane?
I am not sure it was any more insane than rockets which burned beryllium in a slurry to beryllium oxide or injecting liquid mercury into a RFNA-UDMH rocket to increase the density impulse which they actually tested without scrubbing the exhaust. It is too bad they did not do that in New Jersey as originally planned instead of the desert.
https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf
And I wanna know what changed in the engineering world that make this a good idea. If it crashes its going to make a mess.
Is this video legitimate. The text seems like it's not from an English speaking person, and sounds like a computer voice. Kinda strange to be coming from a big company.
Looking for what have been happening around the world everywhere (Russia, US, China, Middle East, Africa) I ask: Is there any safe place in this 3rd rock counting from the sun that we call Earth?
Is there any safe place in this 3rd rock counting from the sun that we call Earth?
IMHO:
Australia and NZ seem safe enough (though beware of all the creepy crawlies and the heat).
Europe is OK now, but is trying to shoot itself vigorously in the foot through uncontrolled cultural import, we'll see how that goes, though I don't see how it can improve the situation here. There are also a few other potential shitstorms looming over the horizon.
That said, an actual global WW3 like conflict would mix up everything, but I suppose remote and unimportant places Tristan da Cunha should be safe
If it crashes its going to make a mess.
I thought the whole point of a missile was to destroy things... that's what weapons do, right?
IMHO:
Australia and NZ seem safe enough (though beware of all the creepy crawlies and the heat).
Europe is OK now, but is trying to shoot itself vigorously in the foot through uncontrolled cultural import, we'll see how that goes, though I don't see how it can improve the situation here. There are also a few other potential shitstorms looming over the horizon.
That said, an actual global WW3 like conflict would mix up everything, but I suppose remote and unimportant places Tristan da Cunha should be safe
To be sincere we are very close to the midnight as nowadays...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
The Russians are reaping what they have sowed. Putin recently violated on the INF treaty, so Trump decided to abandoned it also.
The hall of shame...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons.
The argument that nuclear weapons prevents war is
. In 1983, Soviet meatheads almost triggered global nuclear Armageddon by a blunder in their dodgy defence system. That's all it takes. A stupid mistake with tragic consequences.
The Sidney Lumet film Failsafe (1964) should be compulsory viewing in all schools. If the current generation cannot disarm these rogue nations, made the younger people bring their leaders to account. After all, it is their future at risk. (Dr. Strangelove was a satire, but Failsafe was dead serious and brilliantly scripted and acted). "What do we say to the dead, Mr Chairman?"
The argument that nuclear weapons prevents war is .
Then the argument that N.W. dont prevent war is equally
You just can't prove either, but IMHO in the 50's to early 60's there was a huge chance for the WW3, especially the Cuban crisis of 62. And fear of nuclear armageddon certainly played a role in defusing the situation.
Is there any safe place in this 3rd rock counting from the sun that we call Earth?
IMHO:
Australia and NZ seem safe enough (though beware of all the creepy crawlies and the heat).
It's interesting that you mention Australia and New Zealand. In the 1959 movie "On the Beach" Australia is the only place on earth that survives a nuclear war, however the radiation is coming and the survivors there only have short time to enjoy themselves before they too will die of radiation poisoning. What would you do if you knew that you only had 30 days before dying a slow lingering death due to radiation? It's a thought provoking movie, everyone should watch it.
The very idea of a nuclear powered cruise missile is insane. Everywhere it went, it would leave a trail of radioactive debris. And what's the point of it's "unlimited range"?? Where is it going to go? All it could do is to continue to circle the earth and dumping radiation over the entire planet. Personally, if I where in one of the countries that something like this flew over and dumped radiation in, I would consider it an act of war.
Is there any safe place in this 3rd rock counting from the sun that we call Earth?
IMHO:
Australia and NZ seem safe enough (though beware of all the creepy crawlies and the heat).
Based on Japan's ambitions in World War 2 and China now, I would not consider them safe unless they supported a position of armed neutrality and that sure is not happening.
I also think a nuclear driven drone / missile insane. Conventional propulsion can deliver sufficient range to reach essentially any place on earth, when started in Russia. It's much easier to add more fuel to a conventional drive than to use nuclear propulsion.
With modern nuclear weapons, there is no more need to carry a multi ton war head.
Things have changed since the 1950s when they tried nuclear powered planes - no more need to have a human pilot and thus less radiation shield needed. So technically things got easier - still the same argument that stopped it some 60 years ago is still valid: An intercontinental missile is easier to build and more reliable.
We do not have and likely may never get reliable information on what actually happened. It may take a few more days until radioactivity reaches Japan or China. Than we may get a little more information if this is more typical for a reactor, a nuclear weapon or maybe just a isotope generator or only radioactive tracers.
Putin's "rockets with a nuclear propulsion" is the same hoax as was Reagan's "SDI"
Nuclear tech and knowledge has also advanced alot since then. In the 50s and 60s they told school kids to hide under their desk if a nuke hit.
Nuclear engines are gonna be the future of manned space travel over long distances, it's already in NASAs budget and plans for Mars missions.
Hiding under desks is helpful as it protects from falling debris. People are encouraged to do the same during earthquakes. Of course it was also emphasising the common enemy and giving the illusion of having some control over the nuclear inferno about to incinerate you and everything you know.
Nuclear tech and knowledge has also advanced alot since then. In the 50s and 60s they told school kids to hide under their desk if a nuke hit.
Nuclear engines are gonna be the future of manned space travel over long distances, it's already in NASAs budget and plans for Mars missions.
Hiding under desks is helpful as it protects from falling debris. People are encouraged to do the same during earthquakes. Of course it was also emphasising the common enemy and giving the illusion of having some control over the nuclear inferno about to incinerate you and everything you know.
The "Protect and Survive" leaflet distributed to all UK households in 1980.
https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/110193
Come on, guys!
You are supposed to know better than the average layman who chews the cud their TV sets have been feeding them...
There are not any Russians, Americans, Chinese, Europeans, et cetera PEOPLE to blame.
If you want to blame someone(s), you 'd better blame those people's INCORPORATED GOVERNMENTS, that have always been dancing to the rhythm the (multicultural and stateless) INTERNATIONAL BANKERS have been whistling to them. Especially after the era of the Napoleonean Wars, where these practices have been boringly happening in the open... At least, in the past, those banking institutes were disguised as the local Priesthoods of Mesopotamia, Persia, Greece, Rome, etc., and their practices were also disguised as the oracles or the prophecies or the wills of the local gods or you-name-it...
Do never forget that PEOPLE != THEIR_GOVERNMENTS because the vast majority of the people follow their cultivism (the unwritten law that was passed to them by their own parents) but the members of their governments follow their own unhumane torridity obsessions and manias...
-George
As a side note, you probably don't want to know what kind of crazy military projects your own country is currently working on.
