Delta Clipper and other single-stage missiles impossible?

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

What people establish, that people can change if they decide.

Hahahaha no. You're mistaking people for people. Good luck getting Germans and Americans to relax their standards for handling nuclear material so that, for example, Chad or Gabon can build a nuclear power plant that they can afford, and buy Uranium for it. Not gonna happen. Hoping that it would cannot be described with any other word than "stupid". Actually wanting that to happen could only be described as "idiotic", because those standards are there for a reason. They make things safer for everyone. 

Besides, there are physical constants, too. The need for nuclear engineers to operate nuclear plants is one of them. Without high-level education in the country, you won't get a working plant. Period. Nuclear power involves far more than reactors. Even in a completely unregulated environment, you can't just go to the local construction company and say "you guys get your shovels and build me a nuke plant". 

14 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Any document has an issue date. All of them get expired and replaced.

Wrong again. Most documents stay in force until the signatories decide it should stop. If it works for them, or if they cannot agree on a replacement, this will not happen. You know when the convention banning using explosive bullets less than 400 grams was made? 1868. And it's here to stay. As a rule, big international legislation is here to stay. It's easier to work around it than to convince everyone to change it (if you think otherwise, go out there and try). 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Guest

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Good luck getting Germans and Americans to relax their standards for handling nuclear material so that, for example, Chad or Gabon can build a nuclear power plant that they can afford, and buy Uranium for it. Not gonna happen. Hoping that it would cannot be described with any other word than "stupid". 

I remember the world without the Kyoto Protocol, but with golden standard of currencies. Do you?
I remember all three START treaties and several lesser ones.
These youngsters are so impatient...

[Guest]

How is this relevant, exactly? Yes, treaties are signed. Some have an expiration date. Just because you've seen the world before them (I suspect not really, if you know how the world worked either then or now, then you haven't shown it so far) doesn't mean you have any idea on how international agencies impact nuclear regulation and where nuclear power plant costs come from. I have taken university courses in nuclear physics and safety (which involved talking about power plants). Did you? 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Guest

[kerbiloid]

18 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

I have taken university courses in nuclear physics and safety (which involved talking about power plants). Did you? 

Yes. Before you did.

[Rakaydos]

Since this has effectively become a climate thread, let me suggest a killer app:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-plan-to-recycle-waste-carbon-dioxide-co2-into-plastic

Into DISPOSABLE plastic bags, straws, and packaging.

Don't recycle, just throw it away- you've already done your part. The landfill becomes a carbon sequestration point.

[kerbiloid]

37 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Don't recycle, just throw it away- you've already done your part. The landfill becomes a carbon sequestration point.

Fill the empty oil and gas wells with plastic garbage.
300 mln years later they will become a new coal, and descendants will thank us.

[Terwin]

On 10/16/2019 at 10:29 AM, Dragon01 said:

Actually, it is. Oceans are absorbing CO2, and any analysis needs to account for them. The rate at which they do so is very much nontrivial. This is a potential concern, too, because despite their impressive capacity (and don't forget seaweed!), if they become too acidic, then we're in for a really bad time.

I have heard this(if oceans become too acidic we are in for a really bad time) a lot, but no one really goes into details.

Currently the ocean has an average pH of 8.1, which is a fairly strong base.  Pure water has a neutral pH of 7.  Ground water ranges from pH 6 to 8.5, and the EPA says drinking water is 'safe' between 6.5 and 8.5  (with apple juice at pH 3, milk at 6.2, and baking soda at 8.5 for reference)

Ref: https://www.thedailystar.net/health/what-should-be-the-ph-value-drinking-water-138382

A lower Ph would mean it takes more energy to precipitate calcium out of sea water(because there would be less of it per volume), but there is also a lot of calcium carbonate just sitting around on the ocean floor(limestone, all those discarded shells, including all of those 'white sand beaches' which are actually made of coral after passing it through the digestive system of a parrot fish) that could be re-used directly by anything mobile enough to scoop it up.  

 

The biggest change I see in oceans becoming more neutral(aka ocean acidification) is a relative shift away from shelled invertebrates and towards soft-bodied invertebrates as the energy cost of the shell increases(thus reducing it's marginal utility).  Is this 'really bad time' an expectation that all current edible species from the ocean will die out and be replaced by inedible species?