|
But Volvo's are Swedish, is Swedish engineering still in?
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Kwyndig posted:If that's your reaction 'will destroy anything reasonable we can make the rocket out of' then you're secretly a rocket engineer, aren't you? Sounds like it’s time to consider unreasonable materials.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
crazypeltast52 posted:But Volvo's are Swedish, is Swedish engineering still in? No, Saabs were the only Swedish vehicle suitable for supersonic combat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Thinking in terms of actual physics, our own interpretation of warp drive would also be expanding space and then shrinking, so you actually can't just throw a theoretical piece of German engineering into a planet at .99c. It's pretty clear that what Star Trek calls 'warp drive' is not an Alcubierre drive because there's no planet-sterilizing burst of infinitely-blueshifted radiation showing up when ever a ship drops out of warp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It's pretty clear that what Star Trek calls 'warp drive' is not an Alcubierre drive because there's no planet-sterilizing burst of infinitely-blueshifted radiation showing up when ever a ship drops out of warp. There is, actually, but it's so far shifted into gamma that nobody observes direct thermal effects. This explains why most races they encounter are never heard from again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Sounds like it’s time to consider unreasonable materials. Even theoretical alloys of hafnium aren't strong enough, and using an alloy of one of the hardest metals to refine (because it's chemically almost identical to its good buddy zirconium) is already on the unreasonable scale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:the coolest thing that came out nuclear shaped-charge research was the "Casaba-Howitzer" program which is a still-classified nuclear directed energy weapon Hahaha this is the most badass thing I've ever read. A weaponised Orion Drive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Hahaha this is the most badass thing I've ever read. A weaponised Orion Drive. I thought a weaponized Orion drive was just a nuke
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Even theoretical alloys of hafnium aren't strong enough, and using an alloy of one of the hardest metals to refine (because it's chemically almost identical to its good buddy zirconium) is already on the unreasonable scale. I'd be curious about the possibilities of some modern high-performance ceramics for rocket nozzles. There are many that are lighter and stronger than any metal, and can be white-hot without loss of performance. A little Googling and it seems Airbus is working on exactly that sort of thing: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:I thought a weaponized Orion drive was just a nuke Well it's a nuke that turns a disk of material into a spear of hot plasma traveling at a small but significant enough fraction of the speed of light. It's a nuke panzerfaust.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Hahaha this is the most badass thing I've ever read. A weaponised Orion Drive. The nuclear shaped-charge idea predates Orion, I believe. Read John McPhee's "The Curve of Binding Energy," about famed nuclear weapons/reactor designer Ted Taylor, who did direct Project Orion at General Atomics. I recall that the original use for it was a scheme to dig a transcontinental tunnel under North America, evacuate the air from it, and use it for a supersonic coast-to-coast subway system; Taylor claimed that a one-kiloton bomb could bore a 10'-diameter hole through 1000' of rock. Taylor also designed a *pure fission* bomb that was tested at 500 kilotons of yield, as a backup in case the hydrogen bomb design didn't work. It contained 60 kilograms of HEU, so that yield is pretty absurd when the theoretical maximum you can get from fissioning 60 kg of pure U235 is just a shade more than 1000 kilotons. Little Boy was 64 kilograms, and under 1 kilogram of it actually underwent fission. Ivy King was only about 7 years later and was over 40% efficient. Ted Taylor was a smart motherfucker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O69Kc1i01tA
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The platonic ideal of propulsion is sending the entire propulsion system rearwards at high velocity. As usual, John Clark had a story to tell about that: quote:F. A. Tsander, in Moscow, headed one of these. He was an aeronau Ignition! pages 6-7
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
keyboard vomit posted:Hurling giant rocks at poo poo is banned in the Space Geneva Convention.  Actually, you'll find that Space Geneva Convention doesn't prevent anyone from dropping rocks from space Bhodi posted:the coolest thing that came out nuclear shaped-charge research was the "Casaba-Howitzer" program which is a still-classified nuclear directed energy weapon 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
HawkHill posted:As usual, John Clark had a story to tell about that: I found Ignition! at the thrift store for a buck fifty! It's even signed by the authors! Wait, authors? That doesn't sound righ...MOTHERFUCKERS. Uhhhg
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:Any sufficiently advanced propulsion system is also a weapons system. Basically, The Kzinti Lesson. quote:The A-T Officer wanted all the credit he could get. “Sir, they couldn’t have any big weapons. There isn’t room. With a reaction drive, the motor and the fuel tanks take up most of the available space.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
MisterOblivious posted:I found Ignition! at the thrift store for a buck fifty! It's even signed by the authors! Kevin J Anderson ahahahahah you just owned yourself so hard
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Basically, The Kzinti Lesson. Oh hell THAT'S the series I was trying to think of all day today, where the peaceful humans have no weapons and get attacked by aliens and survive til they can build warships by turning their fusion drives into weapons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Basically, The Kzinti Lesson. This is called NIven's Law. An engine is a weapon equal to its energy potential. It's paired with a conjecture called the bin Laden corollary describing the fuel's eruptive capacity. It is brutal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
spider bethlehem posted:This is called NIven's Law. An engine is a weapon equal to its energy potential. I like your choice of eruptive over anything to do with heat or melting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Laser beams cant melt space alloy hulls
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Laser beams cant melt space alloy hulls But your engineer? Hoo boy, your engineer will find a way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Kevin J Anderson ahahahahah you just owned yourself so hard He's written worse books than that one. I bought it so this may be Stockholm syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:Any sufficiently advanced propulsion system is also a weapons system. Corollary: Any sufficiently advanced weapons system is also a propulsion system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Weapons and propulsion are both "I want a lot of energy right there, and I want it now." Of course they're interchangeable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Propulsion can also be "I want to throw as much energy out the back as possible, and we've got a timeframe of months to do it". However, any sufficiently fast propulsion is a weapon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The nuclear shaped-charge idea predates Orion, I believe. Read John McPhee's "The Curve of Binding Energy," about famed nuclear weapons/reactor designer Ted Taylor, who did direct Project Orion at General Atomics. I recall that the original use for it was a scheme to dig a transcontinental tunnel under North America, evacuate the air from it, and use it for a supersonic coast-to-coast subway system; Taylor claimed that a one-kiloton bomb could bore a 10'-diameter hole through 1000' of rock. Well what about digging a tunnel through the Earth to send a burrito from San Francisco to New York in 42 minutes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
How much poo poo would gently caress up if we actually did use a nuke to bore a big long tunnel? Would it just cause like 1000 earthquakes and volcanic eruptions or would it be fine? Is there any way at all to tell beforehand?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Light Gun Man posted:How much poo poo would gently caress up if we actually did use a nuke to bore a big long tunnel? Would it just cause like 1000 earthquakes and volcanic eruptions or would it be fine? Is there any way at all to tell beforehand? Nah. Underground nuclear detonations dont make much tremors beyond the initial shockwave. It's one single burst of energy, rather than the constant roiling tsunami with unimaginable momentum that is the mantle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Light Gun Man posted:How much poo poo would gently caress up if we actually did use a nuke to bore a big long tunnel? Would it just cause like 1000 earthquakes and volcanic eruptions or would it be fine? Is there any way at all to tell beforehand? Assuming you measured things out and stuff, no worse than how we currently use explosives to blow up rocks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
There's always the chance you could cause a volcano if you don't do your appropriate underground surveying. Earthquakes, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
What kind of radiation are we talking here though? I get that it's a small bomb but only digging 1000ft at a time would put in the range of 10-15,000 charges for a cross country tunnel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
earthquakes are generally caused by buildup and sudden release of pressure from tectonic plate movement, local instabilities aren't really a factor. it'd probably gently caress up the water tables something wicked though, like the ultimate fracking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
TheDon01 posted:What kind of radiation are we talking here though? I get that it's a small bomb but only digging 1000ft at a time would put in the range of 10-15,000 charges for a cross country tunnel. The residual radiation would nearly all be in the stuff you dig out. Solid rock is solid rock. I guess you could induce a bit of radiation from the shower of gamma rays and neutrons, but it wouldn't be much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
If you want earthquakes just go frack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Use nukes to frack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Use nukes to frack. Light Gun Man posted:How much poo poo would gently caress up if we actually did use a nuke to bore a big long tunnel? Would it just cause like 1000 earthquakes and volcanic eruptions or would it be fine? Is there any way at all to tell beforehand? Bhodi has a new favorite as of 03:21 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:We already tried; It was Operation Storax. Didn't work out so well. Patent US3693731 - Method and apparatus for tunneling by melting 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Fur-lined self contained NBC suits  edit Atomic Earth Blaster posted:
good ol boys makin mother earth their bitch with ATOMICS 
Minarchist has a new favorite as of 04:04 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Not surprisingly, the USSR also had a program for peaceful use of nukes; the best-known end result is probably Lake Chagan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 09:08
|
|
