/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3683892
don't fucking date where you work, idiot. It literally always turns out terrible.

>>3678859
draw your Kirchoff voltage loops, solve for the missing value, this is basis bro.

>>3658309
As long as your rover doesn't crash into our SSGNs, doing deep sea patrolls is not fun.

Also
>Doing underwater patroll
>liberty at some random station
>see station full of russian spies
>go back to boat and sleep

>>3656429
Jesus if that shit ever malfunctioned, routine repairs would be a nightmare to do, what with it being stuck underground, I hope they have some sort of access system to keep it well maintained!

>>3655904
Sup bro, USN here. The problem with shrinking reactors from our point of view is the sheer radioactivity/concentration of radioactive material needed, I mean these reactors would be pretty fucking densely packed to give that sort of output. I mean even if you cheat the shielding requirements, and magically could get the masses fissile.. ugh that shit would a pain in the ass to maintain god damnit.

>>3561447
Put it this way. I am in an intense program meant to teach me 4 years of nuclear operating in 12 months. I am on an hours set of 15-2,s which is 15 hours a week, 2 hours before academic days, and that is a decent amount (I could be like the derps on 30-5s (30 hours a week, 5 hours a day) but 17 hours a day will quite literally burn you out, and you will die from the lack of sleep. Don't try dumb shit like that.

>>3556576
The big problem with polar nuclear reactors would be they are too damn hot and might melt, though there has been research done on land based prototypes such as Idaho's older research reactor. It could be done however.

>>3552716
Yes, but conventional turbines usually don't go BOOM and leave a site contaminated for millions of years. I have a respect for the atom, which if you don't, and you plan to even think about using atomic energy, should make you think again.

>>3552706
You could always attempt to re-engineer the old Natulus reactor, though modern technology has slimmed reactor cores down drastically.

>>3552631
Damn straight, because apparently liquid metal reactors are "Never going to be used here", but my points are still valid, the soviet accidents being proof of the sheer power of atomic energy, and what happens when you do not have 100% reliability in your plant operations.

>>3552596
Also
>implying that tropical plantations aren't practical
>implying that a key island with potential control over the Pacific isn't practical.

>>3552580
Uh, in my case its from both my boss (LT Cmdr/Master Chief) and from several people in the nuclear regulatory board. There are off the shelf designs being constructed. Thorium is unproven prototype design.

>>3551556
>
>Subsea reactors are actually in the works as we speak (pic related) due to the benefits of being immersed in coolant, in a location terrorists aren't equipped to reach and there being no regulations/a legal grey area when it comes to industrializing the sea

As someone who is working with underwater reactors... lets just say you have no idea the work you have to put into a submarine reactor to prevent accidents. The soviets didn't and they lost massive ammounts of submarines due to reactor accidents. Don't fuck around with nuclear energy that way.

(also the need for absurd uranium but that's a whole nother ball of wax)

>>3526331
SSGs have been around since the 1950s, SSBNs were made in the late half of the 1950s, and then mass produced from 1960 onwards.

>>3525935
we have satelites which can look down on the Earth for a lot cheaper than a moon base, fuck I know 3 guys who work on the Navy's own observation satellites.

Also, ICBMs are already cheap as hell, and submarines already provide the threat of instant annihilation for low low prices, and the non expensive cost of making a missile space resistant (going from the moon to Earth is a pain on modern electronics don't you know

>>3511867
but.. if you need to be quiet oh god this is literally setting off multiple alarms, are you planning terrorism, or something, because jesus this could end in death or being shot what the fuck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lockheed_ER-2_809_in_flight.jpg? I mean between this, weather balloons, and simulated chambers, we have everything we need for high atmosphere research!

>>3511751
Not if you are even marginally compentent at separating the exhaust/work with a team, because dive helmet work is the one thing you NEVER do alone, they drill this into you at sub work. (Do you lack access to shore power stations, or a team with a boat which could monitor the air intake?)

>>3511729
but just haul around a diesel generator, you have an existing infrastructure, power generation that is known, and no dealing with highly ... experimental power sources.


an I work with massive lead acid batteries (the only ones of worth for super high energy storage, since Protyotype's Lions aren't worth jack since they won't be out in the fleet til the 2010s. So stop trying to compare lower power density sources to high density ones.

>>3511713
I do know, and I'm more terrified of being killed from an exploding transformer or some idiot not folling procedure, but alpha particles are nasty as fuck if you breath them in.

>>3511685
it depends, fissile elements are annoying and borderline "uh it may be noforn," but the usual suspects of Uranium, Thorium, Neptunium, and possibly more. Radioactive elements are much greater.

>>3511693
HAHAHAH we will never use foreign nuclear, as long as half of retired Reactors is NRC staff, I can pretty much make this a promise, because westinghouse et all will still exist even if they just make replacement parts for the fleet or civilian side.

>>3511651
>just alpha particles
why do people joke about radiation, your level of risk tolerance is way too damn high.

>>3511681
India might, but I couldn't trust india because someone will fuck up somewhere and there will be a damn accident, but to be honest, with reprocessing, the conventional cycles produce known energy with known risks, and are a much better (and cheaper) solution than wasting possible fusion investment money on alternate reactor research. Hell, we could use this money to research conventional reactors or to better produce medical reactors.

>>3511603
And you are dumb for not realizing that energy is not that simple. There are political costs, research costs, long and short term costs, you can't just use pure numbers, the real world will come in and bite you on the ass every damn time.

>>3511658
batteries are toxic and very fucking heavy, while the weight of fuel cells is less than batteries, and thanks to more recent advances in fuel cell chemistry, its been proven you can make profit on fuel cells with a decent amount of work.

>>3511636
Indeed, the high quality cells that google owns aren't cheap, but they provide long term low cost energy!

>>3511665
quantum mechanics
huge math about how some elements have instabilities and can be split goes here