44 ms·
* I'd like to know if I got my numbers wrong.* What you got wrong is that, to get to an aircraft carrier, you need a lot of science, and applied science. Gran
by bassman9000 8y ago
* I'd like to know if I got my numbers wrong.*
What you got wrong is that, to get to an aircraft carrier, you need a lot of science, and applied science.
Granted, it's not a collider. But it's not a zero contribution either.
- danmaz74 8y agoTo get one aircraft carrier you need a lot of science. To get the next ones, not so much.
- bassman9000 8y agoThat's plain disingenuous. Maybe you don't need as much as for the initial one, but iterative process exists outside software. There's a myriad of systems to improve, from targeting, radar, communications, to materials and weapons. And you need new technologies that can benefit everyone, e.g. better AI to target incoming missiles, better software to control the turrets to destroy them. And if that's not bleeding edge enough, railguns and, specific to aircraft carriers, catapults. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center_Dahlgren_Division https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Naval_Surface_Warfare_... Plus the development on energy generation to feed these electricity-hungry systems.