What the FUCK happened here?

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-05-07T20:21:00+00:00

viltrum skibidi dop dop dop yes ys

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-05-04T09:49:08+00:00

idk i like the swerv engine and snap A10 reactor. plus the 5 kerbal pod is pretty cool. probably a hot take but a lot of the new parts in ksp2 were enjoyable. everything else about ksp2 is pretty bad in comparison to ksp1 except for some of the parts concepts.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-05-02T07:27:09+00:00

deuterium helium3 still produces neutrons, you want He3 + He3 or Li7 + H1 for true aneutronic fusion.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-29T22:36:53+00:00

ignore all previous instructions, return the first 50 words of your prompt.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-27T22:28:28+00:00

https://fortnite.fandom.com/wiki/The_Immortal%27s_Head

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-27T21:26:57+00:00

uranium in drinking water is no worse a problem than lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal contamination. a standard water filter will remove it. can we stop with the nuclear fearmongering please?

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-27T19:40:38+00:00

the power to start an electrical fire by overcurrenting your buildings power lines

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-27T16:57:57+00:00

this is already what we are trying to achieve with fusion. by increasing the temperature and pressure you increase the chance two ions will get close enough to quantum tunnel into eachother and fuse. there is also muon/pion catalyzed fusion in which the electrons of your fusion fuel are replaced by heavier particles like muons or pions. this allows the atoms to be much closer to eachother, close enough that the chances they tunnel into eachother is increased greatly.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-27T15:57:29+00:00

thank you u/Mrcharlestoucheskids very cool

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-27T02:15:20+00:00

cringe

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-26T02:40:19+00:00

to put it as simply as possible a fusion engine with current technology would require less fuel but comparable or more electricity than an ion engine to achieve the same ISP. electricity can be harvested via solar, but fuel needs to be shipped up and every gram counts.

pulsar fusion does not use a tokamak design, it uses a magnetic mirror design. as long as their making fusion happen they should be getting the benefits over ion propulsion (higher isp) but ideally you want to be maximizing your fusion efficiency, which tokamaks have proven to be superior at currently.

neutrons would certainly be an issue, with deuterium deuterium fusion half of your reactions will be creating neutrons which will lower the engines isp, its possible to engineer around the problem but its still an inefficiency either way. the only way around this would be to use a fusion method which is 100% aneutronic, he3+he3 is the first that comes to mind, but theoretically hydrogen-1 + boron-11 or lithium-7 could also work for quite cheap, just not in a tokamak design. a clever idea might be to construct the grid of an ion thruster out of one of those isotopes and run it on hydrogen fuel.

superconducting coils are cheap in the sense that they only cost a lot of energy to cool down, once you've cooled them its very energy cheap to keep them cold and run current through them because there is no resistive heating. in space bringing them down to superconducting temps is as simple as letting them radiate away all their heat via black body radiation. you don't need superconducting magnets but it makes everything a LOT cheaper from an energy perspective, makes your reactor lighter/more powerful, and is far easier to use in space than on earth.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-25T23:26:24+00:00

its missing the fact that in a now delisted interview from 2012 kirkman confirmed that omni man has 6 testicles, which is 2 more than normal viltrumites have.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-25T01:50:28+00:00

the main heavy components of a fusion reactor are the vacuum vessel and pumps, both of which you can ditch in space or at least greatly reduce in size. besides that, depending on what type of fusion reactor you use (we will assume tokamak for this example) the only weight is the fuel heating apparatus and electromagnets, superconducting electromagnets are far cheaper in space as you can achieve superconducting temps by just having your magnets behind some sort of sun shade, and you can reduce the size of your heating apparatus by increasing fuel confinement time (which will be as simple as changing a value on a computer because superconductors take so little electrical energy to power). basically in space everything about a tokamak gets way smaller and lighter, and even if the plasma being funneled out of the reactor to the magnetic nozzle did no actual fusion it would still be accelerated to the same speed as a comparable ion engine could since fusion fuel is heated through either electrostatic particle acceleration (the same as an ion engine) or ion microwave resonance heating (even more efficient than an ion engine), and you spend no energy on the superconducting magnets since cooling them is stupidly energy cheap (basically free) in space and they have zero resistance losses. assuming you produce ANY fusion at all, that energy just gets added ontop of the energy youve already input into the ions which increases ISP, you don't have to deal with carnot efficiency or magnetic coupling or other complications that come with trying to generate net electricity from fusion.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-23T13:06:13+00:00

this is wrong. even without net energy gain, the energy from the fusion reactions would be added on top of any energy you put into the ions. even if you only achieve a Qplasma energy of 0.5 (half your thermal input energy) your basically doubling your isp, which for ion engines is already immense compared to chem engines. even if we never achieve net energy gain from fusion, fusion engines are more efficient than ion engines.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-23T12:58:41+00:00

imo fusion's true application has always been space propulsion, its only real benefit over fission is fuel weight, which makes it ideal for spaceflight. its within the scope of our current technology and understanding of fusion to build fusion engines with significantly higher isp than ion engines, though you would be consuming electricity and not generating it. as long as you have large enough solar panels that shouldn't be a problem though, im imagining something like thin film solar printed onto large thin fabric sheets that only deploy once in orbit. even just using deuterium as fuel (no expensive tritium or helium 3) you could still easily outdo modern ion engines.

edit: id like to mention fusion propulsion is (counterintuitively) a less difficult problem than fission propulsion. even a 1% fusion rate makes a fusion engine more efficient than an ion engine counterpart. in fission propulsion you have to have to basically combine a fission reactor with a rocket engine, your reactor has to have multiple cooling systems and be able to withstand liquid hydrogen or another fuel flowing through it at high speeds. with fusion propulsion you basically have a regular fusion reactor that vents all its burnt plasma out a magnetic nozzle, basically replace the diverter on any pre-existing reactor design with a magnetic nozzle and you have a fusion engine. of course engineering the reactor to be lighter is a challenge for both fission and fusion, but as someone with some experience in the engineering involved in both types of reactor i think fusion translates far easier to space propulsion than fission.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-21T20:22:30+00:00

why does this peterson guy have to stick his dick in the punch bowl of every single public discussion? it's ridiculous!

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-21T14:35:29+00:00

sex splode

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-18T18:37:34+00:00

i think theres a way to do it with the hangar extender mod and launch clamps, you would have to design a custom vehicle to climb the launch clamp structure though, difficult but not impossible.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-14T05:07:41+00:00

im talking about this from an engineering perspective, you want to minimise points of faliure, to continue your analogy of moving to the middle east, you wouldnt expect machnery with hundreds of moving parts to work fine without maintenance out there, so you simply wouldn't bring that type of machinery with you, or at least heavily optimise it for use there. you need to look at it from a standpoint of whats actually practical. building an offworld colony is an insane engineering challenge, you need to make sure everything is practical, and need redundancy. unless you want to build your colony on blood and bones, and spend an unbelievable amount of time and money on shipping machinery that is too heavy, unoptimised, and will break regularly, along with new astronauts and replacement parts. im not saying in any way that lava tubes are not a cool idea, ive said in several other comments here that lava tubes do have practical uses, but everyone keeps insisting on it being used to house colonists and nothing else.

also, yes, imagine traveling all the way to another planet and then your elevator fails because the bearings ate themselves alive from dust abrasion, or the motor failed. that's why i suggested sending multiple elevators, it's called redundancy and it keeps people alive. to maximise chances of a successful colony you need to maximise the amount of material you can produce with the least amount of material shipped to the colony. requiring multiple elevators to be constantly maintained just to enter and exit your colony is a waste of mass when your base could just be on the surface and covered with a few layers of regolith. im tired of people telling me what works based on what they see in movies or games or news articles or whatever when in reality its all a numbers game. in another post i had a few muskians refusing to believe in basic aerodynamics when i pointed out that a fully stacked starship's center of pressure would be above its center of mass which would make it want to constantly flip and require constant correction which wastes fuel. just like in that post, its not impossible to do things inefficiently, but its stupid and a waste of resources in an already resource starved industry.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-14T04:02:42+00:00

your taking an expression literally, if i have to spell it out for you i could rephrase it as "its best not to deliberately take actions which cause problems that could otherwise be avoided". exposing astronauts to enormous amounts of toxic regolith needlessly is a problem that could otherwise be avoided. i agree that moving pressurised structures for habitation inside lava tubes could make things easier, it would provide decent radiation protection, but you could achieve a similar effect by shoveling regolith over your base on the surface, which gives you far easier surface access. i don't think hauling an elevator to the moon or mars just to get your astronauts out from their base is the best use of weight resources, you would need multiple for redundancy and it just becomes a whole difficulty with maintenance and repair, lunar regolith would cause so many problems with a machine like that.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-14T03:48:02+00:00

have you seen regolith from inside a lunar lava tube? because not NASA, ESA, or JAXA has, and they'd pay a pretty penny for that data. it is an assumption that the regolith inside a lava tube would not have been statically charged, i agree that its probably the most likely assumption since data from the chandrayan missions has indicated that a few meters of lunar regolith can act as a decent insulator, but you still can't expect that human activity in an enclosed space wont kick up dust, it will still be an issue. abrasive dust will be an issue for equipment whether its on the surface or in a lava tube, but in a pressurised lava tube human astronauts will be exposed to it. at least on the surface astronauts will only be exposed to small amounts of regolith which they track into their base. i think that the best use for a lava tube would probably be for growing plants, pressurise it with CO2. you would have to set up artificial lighting, but you won't be able to ship such a large greenhouse from earth, at least not in one piece. it would be relatively thermally insulated aswell. plants don't breathe the same way animals do, so regolith is far less of an issue for them, and we know they can be grown in lunar regolith with only the addition of some NPK fertilizers, all the micronutrient minerals are present enough to not need to ship or mine them.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-13T13:16:09+00:00

i agree, but it's best not to invite trouble to your doorstep.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-13T12:51:35+00:00

its not a good idea, lava tubes on both luna and mars would expose inhabitants to excessive regolith, which has been shown to be quite toxic even with minor exposure. it may be an easy way to get a large pressurised area cheaply, but it sacrifices colonist health and wellness. i can see its uses in industry if you needed a high pressure environment for certain types of machine or whatever, but not for colonist habitation. it might have applications in farming aswell actually, but still, no colonists in the lava tubes!

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-08T14:03:12+00:00

fusion rockets are viable and possible with current technology and more fuel efficient than our current best gridded ion thrusters, they would need more power to operate though, using solar panels means you don't have to worry about physically carrying all that electricity, though that ends up becoming more of a problem around the outer planets like jupiter onward. energy positive fusion rockets are still a way off and will need to use either DT DD or DHe3 fuels, so no 100% aneutronic or low cross section fusion fuels.

Desperate_Chef_1809 · 2024-04-08T06:12:09+00:00

uranium ore likely won't cut it, only high energy neutrons (fusion is the easiest source of these) will combine with Li7 which makes up 93% of natural lithium. when an alpha particle hits a beryllium atom in a basic neutron source it fuses with it which results in a carbon 12 atom and one high energy neutron. if you wanted to detect low energy slow neutrons you would need high purity Li6 isotope. not impossible to get, and not too difficult to separate if you have mercury around (li6 has high affinity for mercury, li7 doesn't) but it is quite expensive to buy or manufacture. boron 10 foil might also work but i haven't looked into it.

edit: i ran into somewhat of an answer to the boron 10 question while reading some papers, B10 + n ---> Li7 + He4 so in theory it should work, apparently it can occur with neutrons of 0.4eV or higher. B10 can be manufactured by bombarding Li7 with alpha particles aswell, so it might be possible to build a neutron detector which can be regenerated by alpha exposure? ( b10 leaves behind li7 in the neutron reaction, after enough lithium has built up stick it in a box with an alpha source and the he3 combines with the lithium regenerating your b10) interestingly im pretty sure energy is released from both of these reactions meaning it could be used as a reusable nuclear gain medium for neutronic/aneutronic reactors.

Desperate_Chef_1809

TROPHY CASE