5 ms·
Not before efficiently converting a large amount of mass into usable energy.
by fooker 11mo ago
Not before efficiently converting a large amount of mass into usable energy.
- GenerWork 11mo agoHow could we harness this energy and make it usable?
- einpoklum 11mo agoYou could pen a carefully-worded a letter of demands and send it to some Billionaire? A bit on the risky side, but - hey, you only live once etc.
- fooker 11mo agoIf I knew that, I'd probably have more important things to do than comment it here.
- remarkEon 11mo agoYou use it to boil water.
- 0-_-0 11mo agoIt's almost a meme at this point
- fooker 11mo agoThe real question is if we'll get back hole or antimatter powered steam engines before GTA 6
- Symmetry 11mo agoYou can even dissolve the uranium in the water and use the same substance for both fuel and propellant and so capable of reaching far higher temperatures than those that would cause any engine to melt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket
- jjmarr 11mo agoBut you want that to happen in space and to control the output of energy. Otherwise you just have a bomb.
- fooker 11mo agoThe difference between a bomb and a reactor is just clever engineering.
- jojobas 11mo agoIt's much easier to make a fission reactor than a fission bomb, and much easier to make a fusion bomb than a fusion reaction. They are not even that similar.
- Symmetry 11mo agoIt's way easier to make a fission bomb than a fission reactor. I reactor has to stay in the very narrow window where it's critical but not prompt critical. Even pure fission bombs can be marvels of engineering but the simplest gun-type bomb is easier to build than the simplest nuclear reactor.
- jojobas 11mo agoWithout a precisely timed neutron initiator you'll get a fizzle. Either way, gun-type bombs require highly enriched uranium. A simple reactor can be literally just brickwork of natural uranium and graphite. Reactors are much much simpler to pull off, which is why US had the first reactor whole 2.5 years before a nuclear bomb.
- Symmetry 11mo agoSomething that explodes with the force of 100 tons of TNT is still a bomb, even if it isn't a bomb as impressive as the one you were hoping for. And getting the reactor you're thinking of to the point that it worked without exploding took a lot more effort than you're suggesting.
- idiotsecant 11mo agoIn the same way that atomic weapons and radioisotope generators both convert mass into energy. It's just a matter of slightly different timescales.