3 ms·
> I'm neither an aero engineer nor a nuke weapons designer but I am pretty sure that nuclear weapons are a whole lot more complex than a plane. Depends on the
by noir_lord 7y ago
> I'm neither an aero engineer nor a nuke weapons designer but I am pretty sure that nuclear weapons are a whole lot more complex than a plane.
Depends on the plane I guess, Cessna 172 or F-34 or 787 and the nuke (last gen two stage fusion or Little Boy).
The nuke is harder to build because of the requirement for fuel purification but the actual engineering has to be in the same order of complexity as a modern airliner surely.
I mean we built little boy in the 1940's we definitely couldn't have built anything like the F-35 then.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tempguy9999 7y agoSorry, a bit wasted ATM and it bled through. I meant the exact opposite, that planes are likely a boatload more complex than nukes. A fission nuke is at heart 2 lumps of metal that get squeezed together. How would one explain a plane in such terms? Sorry for the crappy mistake.
- noir_lord 7y agoI did wonder. That said the engineering on a nuclear warhead is still exquisite (if such a word is accurate for such a horrible device), requiring insane tolerances and timings to ensure everything works properly. So it’s a different kind of complexity I guess.