NuclearNut

Looks like they have either a nice rocket to put satellites in orbit, or a nice and new ICBM. I wonder how much overlap their civilian space program has with their military missile program. Regardless, with the new deal we have with them the development of nuclear weapons are off the table for them so the probability of re-use as a weapons system is probably low. Regardless of that musing regarding ICBMs, I wish them luck with their civilian endeavors, let's just hope they do not decide to act like the DPRK with their newfound capability.

Source please. Also, finding "systems with promise" could mean many things to as little as finding "yep, that star is the right size" and nothing more.

I present to you, the LB-2AT-3LMK2-V6 (Light Bomber Powered by two Atomic Turbojets with Three Long MK-2 Bays Version 6)

You know, while playing your mod I noticed something odd, it seems that all weapons are tactical. Now let me explain, while flying around one of my LB's I was dropping those B83s on various ground targets, and then later tested out the Tsar some more using an HB to carry it. I noted that the Tsar was really just another tactical weapon, it could be used the same, and even if it is massive, it could be easily deployed. This was interesting to me from the fact that usually I think of nuclear weapons as "strategic or tactical", it now appears that that distinction is merely a matter of use, not of yield. Anyway, having fun testing out the nukes, and it appears as if you fixed the problem with the nukes not working correctly.

I think they should add a nuclear ramjet or turbojet to solve the exoatmospheric flight problem. It would be simple, easy to implement, and provide the player with something more to lug around to other planets.

I noted your Tsar Bob-a has a weight of only 3 metric tonnes, the real one, if I am not mistaken, weighed 28 metric tonnes.

Was that massive bug the fact that the mushroom clouds had the annoying tendency to appear in locations they should not be appearing (ie, a nuke impacts on target, blows up normally, and somehow another mushroom cloud pops up 20-30 kilometers away from it at the same time)?

Awesome, once you have Nuclear Cannons out I will no doubt find a way to shove it into a tank. And another question, are you going to make the mushroom clouds rise slower? Right now they disappear almost instantly. (sorry if this is bugging you)

And some nice color videos of nuclear bombs exploding, note the beautiful flash and how it illuminates the surrounding terrain. Oh, and remember, nukes look like flashbulbs in space and do not form mushroom clouds when detonated at high altitudes in atmo, so if it would be possible to do that, that would be awesome.

And that handful of people were reached for in essence, free. It is good advertising.

NEVER go to the comments section on anything regarding nuclear energy. You WILL lose hope for humanity as you slowly see people who are worrying about their nearby reactor "going critical" (critical means operating stably in nuclear engineering speak) and stating absurd things about nuclear reactors.

To be honest I think it is a phase, kind of like the luddites who smashed the factory equipment during the industrial revolution. To be conservative, that is to not want your life to change that much, is quite natural. It is also wrong. We must change, and to hold back progress is not merely causing stagnation, it causes regression. Progress will still occur if those opposed to it support it or not; necessity tends to be a very persuasive voice. I wish we had just gone with nuclear energy at first, and not prevented it from developing. If we went with nuclear, there would be no rush to do something about global warming, something would have already been done. That report is from a conspiracy theory website thinly disguised as a research website. That other report on chernobyl, which I regret to say I have read, is not valid or honest. It rabidly ignores all of the basic rules of health physics and contradicts the WHO report. The number, from memory, using the LNT model (which overestimates things) was around 4000. That is really nothing, even half a million would be nothing. The WHO reported that outdoor air pollution was responsible for over 2.6 million last year only , nuclear fission makes up around 10% of all electricity production. Even if you had a chernobyl every year you would still not have more deaths from nuclear energy than air pollution. Chernobyl, while not completely optimal, is not much more of a problem than it was ten years ago, what needs to be done is to seal it in a nice cap of high grade concrete and leave it. To remove the corium would be more or less an impossible task, and to leave it as it is is foolish.

I presume it is called the Long March because it has a payload mass fraction of 10%? Regardless, I hope it succeeds, the more space research conducted, the better.

So I have been having fun in KSP, setting up a mun base and thought, in words very close to these "I wonder if I could build a nuclear power plant there?" So I have been designing something to bring there. I tend to like to sorta RP my engineering choices, and because this was a nice NPP I intended to bring there I decided I would include a confinement (containments are for wussies) building and a control room. So I built it, below are some pictures of it. It should be noted that I intend to make the top a landing pad for transports and add landing legs to the bottom The exterior of MR-1 The control room of MR-1 Now I set this up, and I had a minor problem, The reactor seemed to have an awful tendency to overheat, and for some reason the radiator units did nothing even while the unit was melting through the launch pad. (I seriously wonder why the KSP version of the NRC has not knocked on my door and asked me to stop my nuclear operations at this point) So I am asking this, is there any way to transfer the heat to the radiators I set up surrounding the confinement building, or do the radiators have to be touching the reactor unit?

The problem with those studies is that those clickbait titles are the things that get readers, the things that rake in the money. You also must get it out ASAP, get it written well, and make it understandable to readers. Every time I visit a news website and thy have a front page article sensationalizing a minor incident (minor corrosion and leaks in the PCL seem popular) at a nearby reactor that should not even get mention outside of some monthly safety report from the reactor company I bang my face against a wall. That wall is being replaced because a forehead sized dent appeared in it.

When you look at a car and think. "If you fit a pair of wings, a few tail fins at the end, a jet engine, and a NTR to it, you might just be able to get it to orbit.

The reason, the only reason really, is to establish self sustaining populations in space to increase survivability. It should also be noted that, as of today, humans are the only things that can effectively repair things, robots do not do so well by themselves, so that is a possible reason to send humans into space, assuming you happen to have mining in space too that is. However if your goal is science, there is little to no reason, probes generally are not doing anything that intensive and thus do not need as many repairs as industrial equipment.

And then someone determines that they are fed up with loosing and use nuclear weapons to solve the problem while their enemy got rid of them because they thought they did not need them because everyone would fight virtual "wars". War more or less does not have rules, that is the reason it exists. Once you attempt to add rules that are not logical or easily enforceable, then people ignore those rules in war. If there is a perceived need to use gas weapons, than gas weapons will be used, if there is a perceived need to firebomb civilians, then those civilians will be firebombed. Regrettably war does not work well with rules. To create an analogy, attempting to make rules of war is like attempting to make rules for school fights or gang violence, it will not work out. That is not to say that sanctioning others for improper action during war does not work, but it is to say that when push comes to shove in war international law will take the back seat.

Where is he? Hmm, that is an interesting question, one could say that he is back on Kerbin, living a whole and wonderful of exploding rockets with dangerous quantities of nuclear materials on them, that is of course if you were located around ten light years from the sun. If you are around say half that distance to kerbin you will see that he died a horrible death from an accident involving a fifteen kiloton nuclear device, a decoupler, a mini shuttle, a much larger spaceship, a Mechjeb AI unit, and my own idiocy. It should be noted that half of all kerbals that die on missions die under similar circumstances.

That seems... a tad cheap for anything that ambitious. So I did the calculations myself: (1000/5)90x10^6 Which gives us 18x10^9, or 18 billion dollars. Can someone confirm if that is correct? It should also be noted that these things tend to get mired in what most will pass off as "mere technical details" as those details tend to be a significant problem in construction (eg. corrosion in early nuclear reactors). Thus it would be reasonable to double the cost of the hardware construction to include the reactor or transmission equipment needed to power the elevator, the R&D costs for the elevator, and the inevitable unexpected costs. But it is still impressive, only four times as expensive as an AP 1000 in the US. Though the question now is, how safe would it be, and how long would the cable last, and then we can see how much it would cost compared to conventional launch..