Er, as I understand it, the US has managed to successfully destroy targets representing ICBMs and orbiting satellites.
Also, many nations invested and are investing in anti missile missiles to defend against ICBMs. The US and USSR signed SALT to limit how many they could have, allowing them to defend one target each (noticeably, the Soviets chose Moscow, as a decoy). Nowdays, lots of places are getting Aegis systems.
I don't see why this would be the case if they weren't useful.
As I understand it (and I may be a few years out of date), the hit rate for systems like Aegis are actually abysmally low. They hit like 1 out of 4 missiles.
They're worth investing in because A) people hope they will get better and B) even reducing missile hits by 25% would save thousands of lives in the event of a nuclear strike.
Gorrath said:
Indeed I am, though I didn't want to use the Patriot as an example as its success rates are highly debated, especially for the first Gulf War.
Yeah, but they are the sort of system you mean, and they were the only system whose name I could remember. Also, I haven't done a ton of research on this or anything - I just happen to remember an episode of the West Wing that talked about how difficult it was to take out intercontinental nuclear missiles.
haha!
That's why my DNA is encased like the spore of a mushroom, making it possible for my DNA to travel with it's mushroom brothers through the vast ocean that is space. My body will be destroyed, but I will live on, not as an earthbound mammal but a bright child of the stars!
Join me, my friends, join the mushroom!
As I understand it (and I may be a few years out of date), the hit rate for systems like Aegis are actually abysmally low. They hit like 1 out of 4 missiles.
Depends what you mean by "hit". Skin to skin contact is a lot harder than destroying a missile with a nuclear warhead. Not something you are allowed to really test nowdays, though.
Heronblade said:
Just checked with wikipedia, according to it, Little Boy had about 9.3-13.3 grams converted to energy in total, about 0.6 grams of which were converted to kinetic and heat.
Hmmm, it says "Approximately 600 to 860 milligrams (9.3 to 13.3 gr) of matter"...I'm not sure how to read that, looks like a mistake more than anything else.
Right, and that's because such technology would definitely be used to make energy more cheaply available to the general public, as has been demonstrated by the heavy investment of governments and corporations into the research and construction of thorium reactors [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel]. Oh wait..
*reads thread* That just about covers it. Seems the only thing left to say is:
"Well, just goes to show the solution to nearly any physics problem is 'shoot it with lasers'."
It would certainly be a reason to abandon nuclear power.... probably be as expensive as hell though. Also you need to expel as much energy as you create or you'll have an overload. Transformers will be blowing up all over the country. Depressing as it is even if they perfect creating a fusion reaction there is still those hurdles to overcome. Not to mention the damn politicians.
P.S. The only currently working model for a warp engine requires far more energy than any fusion generator can provide. In fact, in order to travel across the milky way galaxy, a ship using such a drive would burn through approximately the equivalent of all of the energy contained within all of the matter in the observable universe.
This is not new, it's just the first time a laser driven fusion reactor has succeeded on that scale. Conventional Tokamaks have been doing it for years. ITER [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER] under construction in France will be doing it on a really large scale, 500 MW for 50 MW in, for sustained periods. Not quite commercially viable, but the next stage, DEMO, will be designed as a commercial pilot plant.
Right, and that's because such technology would definitely be used to make energy more cheaply available to the general public, as has been demonstrated by the heavy investment of governments and corporations into the research and construction of thorium reactors [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel]. Oh wait..
Well, that is what happens when we allow ourselves to be lead by the least of us.
Greedy, materialistic, unenlightened narcissistic diseased egos are in firm control, this is something that should not be.
We have the resources, the technology and the know-how to make this world into a paradise, but the greedy few, of which every western civilization is a part of, mind you, will never share.
We don't like your kind here
with your silly "logic" and "rationality"
I think you should leave.
Quick guys, lets squash him before he ruins our hype
But in all seriousness I always found fusion too impractical
To gain sustainable fusion you need mimic star
And even if we scale it down there is a minimum of mass before fusion process stops
(because otherwise we will use high amount of energy to sustain artificially conditions at which fusion happens)
So what size the smallest self-sustainable fusion generator will be?
The Moon? Phobos? Deimos?
Even in case of Deimos it is object with radius ~5.5km.
It is huge.
Why in space?
Because of the way we will harness the energy of fusion process.
Modern fission reactors basically are steam generators.
So as far as I imagine that whole contraption, it works something like this.
We have plasma ball in the middle (that is constantly fed by dropping H into it)- in low-g environment we don't need to suspend it artificially in one place, it will stay more or less in one place on its own
It is surrounded (at safe distance) by combination of sturdy solar panels (to generate electricity from radiation) and cooling pipes that will run heated coolant through steam generator(s) (to harness heat part of energy).
But what we need is a way to cool down coolant afterwards. How?
On Earth one such solution would be building fusion power plant in low temperature locations (near North pole for example)
But even -90*C can't be compared to -270*C of outer space
So cooling the whole thing would be faster and simpler (because we avoid heating our own planet) in space rather than on Earth
But that again introduces new problems- construction of huge space station and logistics of providing it with necessary resources and personnel, not to mention the problem of energy transportation back to Earth (high powered laser? But what would be energy loss of such laser passing atmosphere? definitely not low. And what if calculation error/sabotage brings this laser on inhabited area? Energy would be still more than sufficient to ensure some serious damage. would nations accept doomsday canon hovering over their heads? And who would own this fusion reactor?)
Ok, I'll stop here because I'm sure I'd start paranoid rant otherwise
Even if we can initiate self-sustained fusion reaction, it doesn't mean we will instantly solve our energy problems
Until we can build efficient fusion power plant next to the city, this technology seems impractical.
I only hope that my understanding in physics is extremely limited and actual practical problems related to fusion technology are already solved by bright minds of mankind.
Just checked with wikipedia, according to it, Little Boy had about 9.3-13.3 grams converted to energy in total, about 0.6 grams of which were converted to kinetic and heat.
Hmmm, it says "Approximately 600 to 860 milligrams (9.3 to 13.3 gr) of matter"...I'm not sure how to read that, looks like a mistake more than anything else.
It means 600 milligrams is equivalent to about 9.3 grains, and 860 mg is about 13.3 gr. A grain is 1/7000 of a pound. That kind of measurement is used with things like reloading powders in guns, or at least that's where I've seen it primarily.
Just checked with wikipedia, according to it, Little Boy had about 9.3-13.3 grams converted to energy in total, about 0.6 grams of which were converted to kinetic and heat.
Hmmm, it says "Approximately 600 to 860 milligrams (9.3 to 13.3 gr) of matter"...I'm not sure how to read that, looks like a mistake more than anything else.
It means 600 milligrams is equivalent to about 9.3 grains, and 860 mg is about 13.3 gr. A grain is 1/7000 of a pound. That kind of measurement is used with things like reloading powders in guns, or at least that's where I've seen it primarily.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
