Shpaget

Every time imperial vs metric comes up, this is an argument given for imperial, and it's just completely wrong. No, it's not. You personally may find it easy to use because you've grown up with it. If you told me you're 5'7'' high, I would have no idea what you were talking about and if you're very tall or very short, until I convert it to metric. Decimal nature of metric system provides more then enough flexibility for every use case. Funny you should mention it, since once you start working with periods shorter than one second, that's all you'll ever find. Thankfully, there is no such thing as an imperial unit named drop, defined as time it takes for one drop of goat milk to melt due to energy released by a sockfull of cotton seeds (defined as 13876) sprouting on a warm spring day (undefined) in the outskirts of Gordonsville, Tennessee; roughly, but not quite equivalent to 3/64 of a second. Using milliseconds, microseconds, etc is standard way to use decimal time in various science disciplines, but I personally use decimal time even for longer periods. Often for work purposes I need to tally up various time periods. I find it much easier to add 3:15:00 + 2:30:00 + 4:45:00 as 3,25 + 2,5 + 4,75 (the raw data is in 15 minute increment since it's good enough for this purpose, but I'd do it the same way even if I had to work with better precision). Once I have my decimal sum I convert the decimal part to minutes (that's what's required). It's much easier than to constantly keep track of base 60. Sign me up for decimal time. I will admit that there is one significant drawback of decimal time. Time is closely tied to day and year length, so we can't be as arbitrary as we may like to make the perfect system. Also redefining second would have an effect on almost all other SI units.

Even mentioning systemic issues is a clear indicator that they realize that they have them. "Potential future sytemic isaues doesn't make sense" Also "review of corrective actions" makes sense only in context of past actions.

You mean stab?

Loonar?

What is this? An engine for ants? It has to be at least... three times bigger than this!

It's not a matter of can we make more, it's about cost of reactivating facilities, and politics around the whole thing, since funding anything nuclear sooner or later becomes political. As DDE said, Pu-238 is not suitable for bombs. There are military applications, of course, but pretty much exclusively for RTGs. That's good to hear, although 400 g per year is not a whole lot. So I did a little more reading, and apparently most of the available US stockpile is not meeting NASA specs for RTGs, but could still be used if enriched with some high quality newly produced stuff (couldn't find numbers on ratio of new to old needed). I found this PDF by Idaho National Laboratory. Mind you it's from 2005, so a bit outdated. https://web.archive.org/web/20110928034832/http://nuclear.inl.gov/spacenuclear/docs/final72005faqs.pdf Page 3 has a table of available stockpile, as of that time, and it was only 39.51 kg of Pu-238. Since then, about 8 kg was used for New Horizons, 5 kg for Perseverance, meaning available amount is down to 27. Of that remaining 27 kg, about 3 kg was lost to decay. So US has only enough for a handful RTG, plus some for ground testing/calibration. Not so bad news is that there's 300 kg of Neptunium-237, which is used to make Pu-238, but that is still not a whole lot.

Aren't we out of Pu238? As in, down to low double digit kg worldwide? Wasn't already New Howizon project struggling to procure enough of it? If my memory serves me, and this is correct, we just can't send more probes because Pu shortage sets a hard limit on all project that would need it, and everything gouing to deep space needs it

Solidworks can produce variety of file formats, including STL, which is quite common for 3D printing, but will require additional software to slice up the model for a specific printer.

You two are being kind of negative about that.

Was the answer that was eventually given any form of "Are you dim or halfwit?"? This is on par with that one gov oficial talking about islands tipping over due to increase in population, or something.

When it is time, it is time, but it's never easy. Now I'm crying for a dog and their human, neither of whom I've ever met. Sorry for your loss.

Explosive bolts. They blow themselves up when the time to go up comes up.

Absolutely no sarcasm. Well that explains it, but severely handicapping your opponent and then developping tactics and drawing conclusion based on their poor performance will lead to dissapointing results once you face a full strength opponent in a fair fight. The matter of fact is that there are some things that computers are just better at than humans. Playing chess is certainly one of them. They have become better than humans at games even more complex than chess, such a Go, where evaluation which player is in better possition is less tangible than counting pieces and is much more positional.

You can beat a computer at chess? And it took you two days of practice to achieve this level of skill? In that case, whatever you may be doing for a living, you're in the wrong bussiness, since you're apparently the best and most talented chess player ever, by far. The very best grandmasters get crushed by engines, and that has been the case for decades. War by attrition only works if you have more resources, and chess engines love exchanging pieces and simplifying the situation when they are up a piece. As for AI struggling in unfamiliar situations, there are several examples of chess engines that were never told and programmed how to play chess well. They were only told the rules. Those chess engines figured it out themselves and are now capable play exceptionally well.

Sprint was never supposed to hit the target. It just had to come in the general vicinity. It was a nuke, after all. In any case, why are you so dead set on Sprint? It has been obsolete for 45 years.

Why don't you do the calculation yourself? Everything you need is in FlashJebs post.

Haven't you been here long enough to learn that you literally can not use a catapult to chuck stuff into orbit. If your candidate planet also happens to have lots and lots of CO2, and much, much more N.

That's how much of U underwent fission. As for mass to energy conversion, less that one gram is correct. Since OP is talking about anihilation, the latter number is what we care about. As for how much anihilation can be going on, Rocketdyne F-1 is the most powerful single combustion chamber engine ever flown. You could use that for ballpark comparison and calculation. Keep in mind that F-1 had regenerative cooling of the combustion chamber.

Not considering the upfront cost of the system, it could be marginally beneficial, the difference being lower starting mass of the probe. Of course, the number of such missions would need to be insane to justify such a megastructure, and mega it certainy would need to be to reach speeds needed for space exploration purposes.

Do you need help with figuring out the logic or writing the whole thing?

Met my first antiwaxxer. Had I played the "drink a shot for each facebook argument" I'd be under the table.

I mean real children kidnapped, or bought from parents, and forced to work for no pay, living on starvation sized portions of inadequate food, beaten for refusing to work or trying to escape. No joke, no exageration or hyperbole. Real slavery in the most disgusting form. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/12/mars-nestle-and-hershey-to-face-landmark-child-slavery-lawsuit-in-us

Chocolate industry has been using child slaves for decades without problem, with only recently the issue being raised at all.

Basically, anywhere, everywhere and back. Long way around, if you please. Multiple times.