PB666

My biggest concern is not keeping them alive, humans have gooten way better a self contained systenms, its way ahead of fusion, we are getting close to the point that we have a dirty laundry list of bacteria that we need to complete a system, so given space, a couple of wavelengths of light, a machinecthat can make leds and its doable. The black hole drive and fusion have a common problem radioactivity and diwnstream particles like neutrons, also increasing velocity makes cosmic rays coming from the bow all the more dangerous. In terms of the BHD, the really important point is spatial density, i consider it impossible if you have to move so far from the center to fire that space time phenomena obviate precision targeting, In this case both quantum and relativistic phenomena augment each others effects. Its impossible to create.

IIRC, I read the report back in 1982 just after the big report was released. There are two areas. 1 was the timing of the nuetron injection and the detonation of the cells on the outside (rumours are that this gave the a-bomb developers trouble). 2nd was the lithium deuteride matrix (as I understand it the matrix is enriched with tritium). Obviously reports after the fact have the matrix embedded in some type of heavily compressible media (styrofoam), this was done IMO to give the lithium deuteride momentum which increased pressure when the stuff converged at the center of the apparatus. The matrix itself might be heavily responsive to the compressive xrays. There is a considerable amount of sophistication in the H-bomb, its not something someone can walk off the street can do, I suspect that you would need a crew of dozens of people working out the kinks in the electronics, electronic testing, of course you need a radioactive neutron generator that can be turned-on, deuterium, lithium hydride is extremely reactive, the plutonium used in the outer shell is very dangerous. Thus there are many technical aspects of building the bomb that are not common knowledge simply because of the training involved. BTW, do you think any government, US, Soviet, god only knows what the Chinese developed . . . would disclose the working details of an H-bomb for orion or even allow a third party country in the US to make H-bombs for private space craft ventures. This in an of itself kills Orion, the second tech entity X developes a mini-H bomb DHS is all over them like flies on a honeypot in the middle of a feed lot.

The C14 issue is about detecting frauds, notably frauds produced just after WWII when there was an attempt to cash in on American wealth in some European countries. Some of those paintings are still out there, haven't hit the market yet.

a number with many decimal points, all my numbers have one or none?

Archaeologist aren't happy with the atomic bomb testing, it almost doubled atmospheric C-14 made dating in the 20th century complicated. C14 has a half life of 4000 years. Abombs used for a launch are just bad news and alot of unintended (but reasonably expected) consequences.

On Mars you could give the nauts weights to increase their weight to earth magnitudes and let the work out 2 @ 20 minutes a day. That should suffice to prevent some of the health problems

You could get the same thing with hydrazine normal and separate ION thruster system.

Chemicals have a higher energy density in terms of bond energies than can be recovered from battery or capaciter. The only strategy that competes with that is energy density in atomic decay, the problem with nuclear reactions however is they are often difficult to start and once started almost impossible to completely stop. With fusion energy they might be able to travel between waypoints in space with human cargo. The problem with ion drive is to really take advantage of them you should use a high ISP drive, but to take advantage of high ISP thrusters that are capable of >1 ma one needs alot of power, and solar cells at their best are too heavy and need to much associated structure.

YOu can shape are reaction if you can alter the momentum early in the reaction, thats were the muscular structures come in, the problem is that these structures will eventually accelerate out of the way. Nuclear reactions don't stop the moment the fusion reaction reach thier peak, they continue on depending on pressure and temperature and also neutron density. So the area of the reaction where this is the highest will push out in the direction where it is lowest. The idea of shaping nuclear weapons came about for he following reason, as the pictures show a nuclear explosion occur in largely a three dimensional space, but all the targets lie essentially on a two dimensional plane, therefore have a 100 megaton bomb is not 5 times more useful than a 20 megaton. So the basic idea was to steer the explosion so that the blast wave moved primarily in the X,Z directions and not in the Y. The problem has basically been solved by other methods, namely just making more smaller weapons and clustering their detonations. This is not to say it has not been done or no-one is doing it, its just that have a Tsar Bomb in your arsenal affords certain bragging rights, but the Russian have tended to focus more on multiwarhead missiles than on making directional super bombs. Moreover, with the smart weapons in the US arsenal, nuclear weapons per say are for nothing more than show and detent. GIven the cleanup cost of nuclear weapons and likely suits that would follow now, they are not a wise choice. In space you prolly want the smallest possible warhead, which means you are prolly going after a spherical device (two plate fission devices are rather inefficient), just because of the mass energy issues. unless of course you are using structure as an accelerant to push the bombs ejecta onto the blast plate. I have not thought about it that much because I think Orion is a really really bad idea, the use of TNEDs to propel a ship introduces so many more variables that TNRs do not have, namely the uncontrollability of the heat and forces involved. Any deviation of the bombs explosion can cause turning forces on the rest of the rocket, or potentially breaking the standout which the plates set. The impulse of the bomb, no matter how well buffered will likely degrade the structural integrity of the ship after a while, particularly where the thruster and rest of craft join.

How does it stop. IIRC a hydrogen bomb is compose of hydrogen isotopes and lithium, lithium deuteride, lithium tritide. So only about a third of the weight of the core undergoes fusion. If we then argue that 0.1% mass energy conversion that is 0.03% of the bomb, much less (assuming an efficiency of 100%). If the bomb mass is say 1/10th of the ship then that is 0.003% or a proportion of 0.00003 which means the best you could do is reach 0.5% of the speed of light. To reach 3.3% the bombs would have to be something like 90% and only a flyby. Yep, the explosives in a hydrogen bomb are in the shape of shallow pyrimdial triangles, hundreds of them each wired to an electronic detonater that precisely times the detonation charge. It is possible by very very muscular confinement of metals to direct the flow of energy, while it maybe true there is alot of xrays, these xrays are ionizing and that energy undergoes conversion, however, muscular confinement by metallic structures is not suitable for space craft as these structures increase the mass and are potentially catastropic projectiles. Orion anyway I think is not a feasible propulsion system because wear and tear, and many engineers will tell you, is not flat, and degradation starts in pits and tends to grow from there.

Voyager is almost 50.

I dont think I could learn physics if she was my teacher, biology. . . . maybe.

OK so by tweaking several factors, I managed to get my FEP interstellar to get to 45 years accelerating to 0.006 c, this would take 666 years to reach proxima centauri adding an additional 45 years to accelerate and decelerate to full speed. Its peak speed of 1.75 million is close to limit of IS risk. In this vessel 1/4th of the mass is fuel (the vessel mass was increased to 2 million tonnes) but I now only need to take around 200 individuals on board. I still think this is too fast for safe interstellar space travel. ISPg = 1250000 sec (Xenon needs to be ejected at 12,400,000 m/s) The vessel produces 2kN of thrust but this is devided across 2000 starting tonnes. The equation 2000 = 2 * keff * Power / specific impulse velocity then Power = 1000 * 12400000 = 12.4 GW of power divided by 45 reactors is 276 MW per 10 meter fusion reactor. [PROBLEM #1]. Right so that the power density I was using for each reactor is actually a major handwave at fusion, 276MW per 10 diameter reactor is probably a far reach, originally I used 100MW which seamed more reasonable. [JUXT] But in shrinking my ship to one tenth scale I forgot to shrink power to 1/1000th of the original so now my FR are producing at 2760 a sensible power density. I should have used a full sized reactor, which is fine, but it means the unit cell is larger, which means I can put fewer reactors back there instead of 45 its more going to be like 15 cutting power output to 1/3rd. Ok so the trip takes 2100 years. [Massive] 15 reactors weighing 50 tonnes each, that is 750 tonnes so I need to increase also the weight of my ship by 700 from 2000 to 2700 this further extends our trip and the number of inhabitants. Adding bulk to the back of the ship allows the 30 addition reactors to be added, but at the cost of 1400 tonnes so we can get our ship now double in mass and down to 1400 years. Now for he handwaving parts. 1. I am assuming 100% efficiency on all electrical processes, it is unclear how efficient an 12400000 ISP would be 2. right now the practical power density for ION drives is around 100kW per meter, this means that in order to generate this amount of thrust I would need 124000 square meters a backward facing surface, this is much more than my pi.322 = 3216 m2 ship back provide and probably requires much larger radiator fins. On a ship 10 times the size theproblem is considerably worse, much more fin would be needed. 3. the 45 @ 276 MW reactors would have to either produce 1000 times more power per unit or I would need a 1000 times more of them. If they are spread 80 m apart occupying a space of 1600 m2 each then I would need to get them to occupy at least 1.6 m2 each which is impossible, so that the fins would have to have both fusion reactors and ion drives on them. 4. All those are managable issues to some degree (compared to FTL or BH drives), this is where the hands wave Nucelar fission releases 4.2 MeV of energy per 4 atomic units (2 deuterium). So we have several ION drives solely devoted to the acceleration of helium-4. So this is not a problem, and we can partition are fuel tanks so that some do not hold xenon but hold dueterium or hydrogen or neutrons, whatever. [PROBLEM #2] the deuterium is about 3600 MeV of energy and if we are only getting 4.2 out then we are only getting 0.1% of the total energy within the deuterium. Lets say that 20% of the fuel is Dueterium (obviously we can breed deuterium with Neutrons released), that means we have on board 100,000 kg of deuterium gas. If then 0.1% of that is energy then its 100kg. 100*c2 = 9 x 1018 J, OK so spread over the 162 years to accelerate/decelerate that amounts to 0.176 GW of power, ouch, well OK we simply remove xenon and replace it with deuterium (we have super new tanks and we can pressurize D into a solid of amazing density). So increasing D by 5 then gets us up to 8.8GW, OK so we need more fuel. 704.505 should do in a perfect world. But we have to reduce the rest of the ships mass. Since we are traveling faster we need fewer humans. OK so where did I finally end up. Ship 320 meters (800 m) in radius about 640 meters (800m) in height, speed = 0.003 c, time to proxima 1400 years. Number of colonizers 400. Starting ship Mass 4000000000 kg (4 million tonnes), Fuel mass 704,505 tonnes (majically stored deuterium), Power output 12.4 TW, spread over 45,000 [wheezing] 0.000276 TW fusion reactors. Note I did not add any additional energy for our unlucky humans (who will spend all their lives a few hundred meters from neutron heaven), that is because when we increased the fuel we can lower the ISP to 890000 and decreasing the power needed for drive. Percent of ship devoted to Fusion reactors and cooling, about 70%, percent devoted to fuel (starting) 17%, percent of fuel mass remaining 13% for superstructure and humans. Unfortunately the dimensions of the ship are two big for the launch pad so . . . . . . . .

Well its a paper is must be true, ROFL. 0.95c is manure, strait off and without even looking at the paper. . Correcting one error in what K2 said from the paper " Note: that if an isolated SBH is initially endowed with an electric charge, then it will quickly, and almost completely,radiate this charge away (see [3], p. 398)." So you can endow it with a charge but it won't keep it, so you cant use charge to accelerate it. Of course as we read on in the paper we find that this source of information is less than credible. "A high-efficiency square solar panel a few hundred km on each side, in a circular orbit about the sun at a distance of 1,000,000 km, would absorb enough energy in a year to produce one such BH" (the paper you idolize) Err....... unfortunately solar panels have to be tilted at sharp angles within 60,000,000 km of the sun, that would simply vaporize at that distance. At 150,000,000 km the sun produces 1.3 kW per meter of power, most panels if cooled in some fashion can handle up to 50kW per meter. The amount of power on panel a milion km from the sun is going to be 30375 kW per meter. that is roughly 600 times what a solar panel in atmosphere can tolerate, and many times more than a panel in space can tolerate. "A radius of 1 attometer corresponds to the wavelength of a gamma ray with an energy of about 1.24 TeV. Since the wavelength of the Hawking radiation is 8 π2 times the radius of the BH, the Hawking temperature of a BH with this radius is on the order of 16 GeV, within the limit of what we could hope to achieve technologically." Errr....above 5 MeV gamma rays in close proximity result in pair production, this would cause scattering of the incident ray resulting in any beam used to create a black hole significantly scattering before reaching the center of the sphere. "Now the idea that the wavelength of the radiation should match the radius of the BH created is very likely pessimistic." No duh. Aside from the fact that Heisenberg uncertainty inhibits the focusing of a beam of light to 1 attometer, that this has to be done all at the same moment, and that photons that get in close proximity prior to reaching the BH site are likely to undergo pair production and scatter . . . . . "Although a laser-powered black hole generator presents huge engineering challenges, the concept appears to be physically sound according to classical general relativity. The Vaidya-Papapetrou metric shows that an imploding spherically symmetric shell of “null dust” can form a black hole" Oki-doki, this is what I call the classic psuedoscience if and if and if argument. Yes we have lasers, but no lasers that can produce 16GeV photons, 'technically impossible' unless that laser were traveling in the direction of the black hole at nearly light speed. In essence to seed a laser that produces such high wavelengths you need a nuclear decay that produces the photon and a similar material in the laser that can be excited, its hard to imagine a laser composed of materials that an electron decays from an excited state producing 16GeV, it has to be the result of nuclear decay. This is in the high energy gamma range, the types of energies produced by machines such as hadron colliders and are not generally possible in small compact equipment of the type required to create a spherical shell. Laser is the production of a beam of light from a column in which atoms are excited in unison, the beam has to be contained, which takes space and there has to be an energy source to excite, which means we have energy density and heat, which ultimately limiting the energy density of laser light created per unit space. So if we assume that a black hole is being formed of 600,000,000 kg = E/c2 therefore E = 5.4 x 1025 joules. Now lets say that this all has to be done within a wavelength of 1 attometer. That is to say within t = 10-18/3 x 108 m/sec = 3.33 x 10-26 seconds, therefore the E/sec = 1.62 x 1051KW. If we assume that a laser with a face of 10 cubic centimeters can maximally produce 1 KW (a very generous assumption) then we can produce .. . . Oh screw logic, lets just say they got to within a 1000th of the speed of light blue-shifting the lasers energy 1000 fold so that we have a MW per 10 cubic centimeter (that means these spaceships have a cross sectional face of 10 cm). OK so thats 1 x 109 watt/m2. That means we would need 1.62 x 10(51-9) m2 of laser production 1.62 x 1042 which translates to a sphere of 1.62 x 1042 = 4pi* r2 R = 3.59 x 1020 meters, IOW our feild of lasers would have to be approximately 10000 ly (9.4607×1015 m) away when fired traveling at 0.999c. ROFLMAO. Huge engineering challenge is a very fluffy way of saying its about as likely as well god (insert benevolent alien race) giving us a black hole. So Angel have you bothered to even think what uncertainty is going to do with the theta of emitted photons at such distances, are they going to be +/- kilometers, 10s of kilometers, 100s of kilometers from their target? Lets say we can form a black hole over say a month, sure we reduce the shell but by how much you are still in the 10 x 1010 radius range, still not close enough to even get close to an attometer. The reality here is that 100 KeV nuclear laser needs to be moving toward the black hole at about 99,999c/100,000. This paper just gets better and better, any one can publish anything in this journal, do the referees even know how to do arithmetic? "Since a nuclear laser can convert on the order of 10-3of its rest mass to radiation, we would need a lasing mass of order 109 tonnes to produce the pulse. This should correspond to a mass of order 1010 tonnes for the whole structure (the size of a small asteroid)." Great but nuclear lasers produce hv in the KeV range, a million times lower than what they are proposing. Second an asteroid is a block of rock not necessarily radioactive (in fact very little radioactivity), and finally those lasers are going to have to be spread over a considerable area. If that 1013 kg is made into a shell, the thin shell is fed into the laser then that shell would occupy a very large area, remember the pulse has to be very fast and you cannot pulse a meter thickness of asteroid/fissile product through a nuclear laser. the amount of material fed into the laser would be on the order of pico to femtomoles of fissile material per pulse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pumped_laser - points out that the closest we have gotten to a X-ray laser is 21nm and relies on reaction based. The authors even get the materials wrong, you would not need solar cells and electric power so much as "Fusion lasers (reactor driven lasers) started testing after the bomb-driven lasers proved successful. While prohibitively expensive (estimated at 30,000 dollars per test)," you need fusion reactors, anyway "This is clearly extremely ambitious, but we do not see it as impossible." I think prolly everyone in that group needs to see an optometrist. "The reader has no doubt by now observed that a great many questions in this proposal are left open." meaning hand waving to a solution that is technically impossible, and where is Angel's discussion of light speeds? This paper magically assumes that somehow we can 1. Convert 1/10000th of asteroid mass into 16GeV hv 2. Do it fast enough that the black does not radiate itself into non existence moments after we lase it. 3. That it is possible to coordinate the pulsing of focused a tremendous scale of laser light to one attometer at a rather great distances. 4. That we can make powerful sub nano-meter wavelength lasers. "We can mention the self-focusing of a focusing electromagnetic wave, and the possible effects of gravitational lensing and magnification on the various aspects of our problem" How exactly is that going to work and coordinate over the vast expanses of space at human capable EM production densities. If you want highly refined directed laser light in the 10 to 1KW range fine, but the authors are asking about energy production in the TW/laser range if not higher. Humans have no ability to produce that density of light let alone high energy gamma and certainly no refined ability to focus it at those power outputs. If and If and If . . . . . . BTW, producing a black hole close to earth with 16 GeV, and the amount of energy they suggest, think a sterilized earth (unless you are cave dweller or deep sea inhabitant) But no where in this paper does it suggest reaching 0.1c in 20 days or reaching a speed of 0.95c. They say it loses charge rapidly, but I find the remainder of their work handwaving incredulity. The most essential bit of information they did not provide, timing. First, what is the minimum sized radius that they can produce, if their limit is 16 GeV then a smaller radius would not absorbe all of the radiation (even if they could target it) and thus to form a black hole they would have to feed all of 16 GeV at that space at once. If they could feed TeV they might be able to pulse the black hole over a month or so to form it. But what is the limit? How small can a black hole be and how long would it last, if you could pulse say a million times a second would a millionth of a second the black hole decay. Integral Ro to 0, c4.R2/ 2.G.a.F(t) dR c = speed of light, R = black hole radius, G = universal gravitational contant, a is their constant, apparent the published value of 10-22 was to low so they are using 10-20 F(t) = function (time) of all the various energy particles produced use 100. Based on this equation you could have a BH of size 10-21 stable for a millionth of a second but to build it you would need to pulse it with 16TeV at say 1/1000000 the of the total energy required but in a smaller area, even at millionth of that energy they are still looking at targeting the black hole from a distance of 10 ly, which is nearly impossible.

The meter is based on the average distance across the surface (flattened) of the earth from the equator to the pole divided by 10,000,000. The unit of volume is defined by a cubic decimeter, and a kilogram is defined by the cubic decimeter and the density of water at STP. second is defined and adjusted by the day divided by 24 major units and 3600 minor units or 86400. So unless an aliens world is the exact circumferance as ours and if they decided to take a quarter of that circumference, not a 1/2 or all and if they decided to divide it by 10,000,000 (assuming they have 10 digits and have a base 10 system) and if they then decided to carve their meter by a factor of 10 (that is their worlds circumference by 400,000,000) and then cube it to arrive at a liter, and if they use water as the density agent (versus say seawater or sodium chloride or pure sulferic acid, or they might embib from time to time and prefer the density of alcohol). Next rather than using that unit as gram, they decide to call it a kilogram and use the gram (that is use their meter divided by 100) to define not a liter but a milliliter. Of course we have to assume that their day is unlikely 86400 seconds long (minus a few cause we have to keep adding leap seconds, days). So the metric system is so strait forward that we define it now as 1 / 299792458 sec. Of course this assumes that a second never changes, so now we have to define the second as second has been defined as the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. Of course if we assume an aliens second is with plus or minus 2 fold that means from 1/2 to 2 seconds of ours, the probability that their second is our second is 1/(periods * 1.5) (assuming they use caesium). They might know because like the rest of the universe we say cesium. People who use metric think that it is objective and not subject to all the idiosynchracies of the Kings measurements, but alas if the metric system was so perfect. It assumes that base 10 has some special natural meaning, nope, The base unit of a volume with be the base unit of length cubed. The base unit of mass would be that volume filled with a pure, non-volatile inelastic metal. Such as platinum. The unit of time would have been based on physics not astrology. Of course if we set the gravitational constant to 1, and C to 1 we have an objective distance and time. Of course the gravitational constant is not as precisely known as c. The scale of the a natural system should be based in base 2.

If you are traveling about 0.01 c you can basically assume that the first atom/atom impact with begin a cascade (since this atom will smash into other atoms, passing around most but occasionally hitting a few) Electrons create repulsion, so if the electrons do not have time to create charge density in front of the atom, you can look at the frequency of electrons is particular orbitals, in the time interaction begins until the time two atoms might collide you get an atom smashing event, even at 0.8 to 0.9 c. Most of these will be elastic (non-nuclear) some will produce radioactivity. You can control this by using certain kinds of material in the hull, but you can't control the constituants of space, and unstable nuclei might just relieve themselves of a neutron. As you approach C the impactors atoms appear more massive, and so on impact they would have a tendency to do more damage. So the atoms first line of defense is the electron shield this shield covers the crosssectional area of the atom as two atoms collide, if the atom is going fast enough the reaction time of electrons is too slow or the repulsive force is too weak. In either case electrons get stripped of their outer shell electons and this results in highly increases chemical reactivity and heat generation. The next point of elasticity are the nuclei, the nuclei are essentially around 10E-15 across about 1/100000 the diameter of an atom, so its cross sectional area is 10E-10 of the entire atom. However, alpha particles do not have enough energy to penetrate to the center so the effective 1/1000000 the size of an atom from a scattering point of view. We can do some calculations, if we assume that a ship is going about 0.01C and an atom is about 10-10 thick, then how far does an atom have to travel before it is scattered by another atom. The answer is 1000000 x 10E-10 or 10-4 meter or about 0.1 mm. This means at this speed just about all atoms not repelled by electrostactic forces will undergo deep nuclear interactions. As speed increases the thickness at which this occurs decreases so that around 0.06c you can go deeper about a millimeter, before this type of scattering is observed, but at this speed nuclei are beginning to actually penetrate the nucleus itself. Rutherford showed that at about 0.01 C the collision of alpha particles with protons is elastic, the charged particles repulse each other, however even before this charged particles repulse each others. The level of scattering is far greater. Once you get over 5 MeV per charge the nuclie can slip into the nucleus itself which places its speed at about 0.06 C. So basically thats the speed limit that you don't want to cross, but again that is for certain nuclei, in which case its much lower, an atom like tritium that has three nuetrons per proton and hydrogen would have more momentum per charge. So at 0.06 C on average whatever type of shield material you have, it will not behave as a shield anymore and the atoms within the shield will begin behaving, when struck, like small atomic weapons. The critical feature is that they will increase temperature and pressure on surrounding materials making for alot of unwanted physics. By increasing the heat and pressure it becomes more likely that surrounding atoms of both ship and impactor begin interact, for example increasing the density of nuclei at the impact point, scattering nuclei, increase the path through the ship that they travel, increasing the level of positive charge, therefore increasing the likelihood that an impactor atom will change course and finally increasing the likelihood that a nuclear reaction takes place. Of course some of the surrounding metal will just vaporize into space, a good thing, but the underlying metal almost certainly deforms, thins or cracks. This is a problem as you increase speed even more, because eventually those nuclei no start interacting with the pressure hull of the ship, this does not mean it collapses or explodes, but the strength of the metal will decrease and eventually fail. Thin layering is not necessarily protective since solid/gas phase transition between the layers can cause them to separate and opening up huge areas to higher risk, just like a poly-wall tire that overheats due to stress and overheating. http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/STFC/16plus/partich1pg3.html Again, space is very thin, but alot of the stuff in space are plasma, good because the electrons will simply travel over the hull of the ship, bad because the dissociated nuclei have no outershell electrons to prevent them from bombarding the shield proton. The solar system is in a rather cold spot in local space, but as you travel you will travel through hot spots and places where ejecta from long since dead supernova cross the path of the ship. These areas almost certainly contain some condensates.

Here is a o.1 scale prototype of a generataional ship Note that kerbal only allows to show so many kerbals so the 24 that are on this ship are not shown. Each cell in the full scale mode has a 250 MW fusion reactor, the ISP is 2500000 (velocity = 25 million about 0.08c) Each reactor is separated by 80 feet in a full scale model and each wall along the line between reactors is about 8 meters of titanium, the fins are for heat dissippation the bottom of the fins are passive liquid sodium photon drives, primary coolant to liquid sodium liqud gas phase water cooling system. The drive are VASIMR type drives. Hull is 10 cm thick titanium, the actual ship would have 500,000,000 units of propellant plus dueterium and hydrogen.

Why are we having this discussion. Suppose the satellite is a meter cube, now suppose the instrument is on the non-impact side, suppose lets be liberal it digs a hole 10M into the ground. Speed is 2 km/sec. Do the math dv = A*t 11 = 1/2at2 22 = at2 t = 22/2000 = 0.011 sec A = 2000/t = 181888 a, of course it does not survive. The energy of the collision itself, assuming the satellite weighs 100kg is 0.5 100 2000 2000 = 200,000,000 joules which means you also have a pretty nice fireball of molten and vaporized materials, not just the impact forces but also the heat.

my #1 rule of cooking, never use the same spoon twice unless its measuring the same thing and you don't stir. Taking a spoon that has been used to measure one item and/or then stirring the pot with it is the best way of contaminating the second item (lowers shelf life, contributes to spoilage). Take it from someone with food sensitivities, its a no-no, think migraine city, food poisioning, etc. I use a teaspoon for measuring sugar because it has a long handle, which means I don't get sugar grains on my hand, I use a table spoon for measuring grains such as for breakfast (but now I simply pour at a certain rate for a certain amount of time).

I just use a teaspoon for measuring (literally a beverage spoon and a soup spoon for a table spoon) for most southern cooking its a heaping of everything (heaping teaspoon of sugar, heaping table spoon of salt. One cajun chef literally used the palm of his hand as a measuring device, which I suspect is more common than seen on TV. A gallon is what my bottled water is, so if I split that 4 ways I have a quart which if you split 4 ways is a cup. Cooking is not physics its what the teacher thinks works well, If I was going to describe what part dithioethane and 30% hydrogen peroxides when mixed creates the most work (as in don't try this at home), you need to use the metric system.

First, I don't use movies as a judge of what is and what is not possible, and second with regard to your physicist claim that is at 0.8 or 0.9c, since we do not have a method of reaching that velocity we have to consider the potency to catastrophic impacts at lower speeds. If we ignore reaction mass, the very best you can do (c2/2) = 0.707c, That is not accounting for the mass on board to slow the ship down. The BH drive is producing EM which generations N per 300MJ of Energy. If the wormhole is initially 1/2 the ships weight, and E = mc2 the 0.5*9E16 = 4.5E16 joules. The average accel mass is ~0.8 and average decel mass is 0.6 which means we use 2.6E16J per starting ship mass on accel leg and 1.9 on the decel leg. Therefore on the accel leg you can produce 86666667N per starting mass over and average relative to starting mass of 0.8 which ends up begin 108333333 or 0.36C and deceleration at 105555556 0.35C. That assumes that all radiation is perfectly radiated backwards behind the ship. Assuming the perfect angle is theta and the average radiation vector is 45' then the cosine of 45 is the efficiency which at 0.707 is going to set that theoretical maximum at 0.25c. Some of the radiation will be used by the ship, and wasted. Also as the blackhole shrinks it eventually becomes unstable and has to be ejected, so at best you are probably looking at 0.2c. 0.8 or 0.9c is a mindless fantasy. Of course if you did not need to decelerate and you did not care about loss of life or material to explosion, i.e. you had a supernova mindset you could have some particles reach near the speed of light.

Typically nuclear reactors have chill water ponds associated with them.

That is only true above FL180, below FL180 its feet, for this reason you need to check with your local ground station to get barometric pressure, otherwise you may fly into another aircraft. Or to state otherwise if you were flying along at FL305 you could fly into mount Everest which is around 30000 feet, but if you were traveling at FL145 and you have the local station update for pressure, you should not accidentally hit a mountain that is 14,115.2 feet in elevation. And if you had mistakenly placed your autopilot at 14100 instead of 15100 when they find your smashed hull it should be 14050 to 14150

I'm just saying, it has it conveniences. Monitors are measured on the diagonal, from the top left to the bottom right, very difficult to estimate accurately. I forgot to add, that my full stride is exactly 6 feet per cycle (not 2 meters). Yeah I have walked off construction, we had a contractor move a wall once, he placed it in the wrong place, by walking off I new that he has mismeasured the corner, and his crew dig it up and move the forms. You know if you walk onto a construction site with a tape measure the contractor will likely toss you out but you can casually walk off a length. You'de be surprised at some of the dumb stuff I have seen contractors do, this is after all a right-to-work state, they don't have any real certification for some of these guys and they often hire illegals to do the actual work. The measures of fluids cup, quarts and gallons versus liters, I think metric is clearly bettter, but for lengths there are advantages to both systems.

he forgot the solar panels.