/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3089581
this here is the issue lurking in the background.

say we don't build one, say the proliferation risk is too high. say we agree with the EU and russia not to build one.

...well...uh..china's well on it's way to booting one up. once they get one going...sucks for us, the proliferation potential is here anyway (and might be more since the chinese probably don't care as much) and we screwed ourselves out of a fantastic energy source.
At this point it's a fight against inevitability. better to build some and have a very clear understanding of how to find those trying to misuse it, then sit on the sidelines and watch it happen anyway

>>3038920
>>3038920

>implying QM isn't some crazy shit

U233
does it spontaneously decay into U232 in small amounts?
that is to say, a solid 200gram chunk of the stuff, what kind of radiation should it be emitting? it's normally alpha, but U232 impurities would put out some hard gamma radiation.

or is U232 only produced in small amounts as part of the thorium fuel cycle, and thus would probably decay away in a few years

IF HE'S LEGIT;
he's going about this like an idiot, thinking he can lock down the manufacturing process and make royalties off of every one sold. every major company is going to make their own version and beat the shit out of him in court if he tries anything. he's just making himself look bad


IF HE'S NOT;
he's pretty lousy at scamming, it's painfully obvious.

>get them to watch bill nye the science guy + the magic school bus when they're like 3 years old
>they are ingrained with a deep passion for the sciences

>make sure to be somewhat strict on them, but extremely supportive of unique ventures or projects their crazy little minds might come up with

>they graduate from college with a prestigious degree
>SON I AM NOT DISSAPOINT

and i won't have to push them one bit.

>>2836854
the biggest and possibly only real problem is the engine design, yes. but then again the objective to date hasn't really been on larger engines

also the nuclear reactors on aircraft carriers are pretty well built, and not prohibitively expensive.

the cheapness comes from the fact that there is no necessary materials design, it's mostly just mapping out the components and wiring, adding some struts, designing the best fuel tank ect.

the advantage is that everything it needs uses techniques already developed from R&D of other rockets. it's not an upgrade so much as a sidegrade.

answer my riddle

/b/tard, /v/irgin, /co/mrade, /sp/artan, /x/phile...

what's /sci/?