| U.S. Building new nukes [message #137049] |
Tue, 08 February 2005 16:25   |
 |
IRON FART
Messages: 1989
Registered: September 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Ha! We should call you js4[p] instead. LOL
| Quote: |
Quote from IRC
<[Digital]> get man_fucking_a_car.mpg
<[Digital]> ah fuck wrong window
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Building new nukes [message #137147] |
Tue, 08 February 2005 20:56 |
 |
Doitle
Messages: 1723
Registered: February 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Moderator/Captain |
|
|
I am not a barber,
I split no hairs.
You said 5 seconds so I think we're talking about liftoff here. Earlier we did mention it exploding high in the air. I didn't know exploding high in the air was a totally unique topic from exploding kinda high in the air.
Now, the shuttle is a completely different situation. The shuttle comes in very shallow because eventually it has to land on a run way lol. Airplanes don't come straight down and nose dive into a run way, but missiles do.
If a rocket explodes in mid air the debris come down according to the angle the rocket was traveling in. It's pretty much parabolic if the thrust is lost either through a fuel explosion or a seperation of thrust from the main rocket body. Now these diagrams assume no wind. The wind can only adjust the final ground distance by a bit however the results will in general be as follows. Now you'll notice I did a steep angle launch and a shallow angle launch. The steep angle launch would be what would be employed. A shallow angle launch is really more similar to an airplane take off which is what you encounter in the space shuttle disaster. Essentially it exploded while setting up for an airplane style landing. Our nuclear missiles will not be making 3 point landings so we should not have to worry about any shallow angle physics on them 
Now,
You will notice that the rocket explodes and begins to decend, Accordingly that the explosion is at or near the peak of the parabolic flight path the same time to the peak will be taken to reach the ground. You will also notice the ground path traced is relatively small. There is nothing to compare this with other than perhaps the size of the rocket but the y axis is horribly trunctated... lol Assume this is a bit into the flight. It goes up, kablammo and down.
Now the next example,
You will notice in this example the path along the ground is noticeably longer. This would be the situation in a shallow angle launch. Similar to your Space shuttle analogy. However in the space shuttle example the shuttle would have been coming in on a relatively straight trajectory before the exposion. Upon the explosion the trend of a parabolic decent holds true. You will notice that because of the shallower angle there is a much longer ground path. This is how you get the swatch crossing texas in your picture.
If the shuttle had been coming in at a very shallow angle like a rocket on launch the pattern would have been something like as follows
http://www.n00bstories.com/image.fetch.php?id=1165075491
Now however, this would not be the case in one of these proposed launches. I was just trying to establish a basis so even if I can't convince, which I hope isn't true, but as a contingency on the basis that I can't convince you there is no spray of debris in the event of a failure of a launch.
It's actually no small feat to detonate a nuclear device. The atoms do not like being split and they hold onto their energy like a fat kid holds onto cake. Now, if a nuclear device were to be launched in the middle of a big prarie just outside YOUR TOWN, USA... *Bum bum bum*, what do you think would happen? There would be an explosion no doubt, a plume of fire from the remaining propellent, burning grass, a large crater from the force of the impact. Deep within your crater prolly actually lodged in the Earth, would be a pod. This is your war head. Without being Armed, you have a depleted uranium bullet without the depletion... It would sit lodged in the ground and do nothing to no one. Uranium is mad crazy hard and that is why we use it as a slug in the A-10. No body is going to build a missile with the uranium hanging out the side waving at school children. They build these things into their own little pod. Not only so the war head can easily be removed and replaced like how they build engines on fighter aircraft, but for safety. Nobody wants a big chunk of Gamma death sitting on a table in a lab, in the air or on the ground. That's why they put these things into containment devices. I'm sure you've driven alongside one of these in the back of an unmarked white semi truck or watching containers roll by on a rail way. Especially you Blazer being that you live in the Southwest. All Radioactive Routes lead to New Mexico and Nevada, and your 1/4th of the 4 corners right with New Mexico right? Your also right next door to Nevada.
Now when this device is to explode somewhere in mid flight. We will see a huge fire column of the propellent, we will see a hulk of metal and plastic come flying down and probably propelled by the explosion we'll see this little black luggage looking thing just sailing along. That is your war head. It could be dangerous if it lands on someone as that would surely be fatal. It would also probably wreck a house or car much like a tiny tiny asteroid. It would not spell nuclear death for half of Texas. The situation would be similar to if you've ever seen a Top Fuel Dragster crash. The fiber glass body breaks off, the wheels break off, and you are left with 2 things flying down the track, a human pod in a roll cage, and a 300MPH chunk of metal, the engine. The entire engine is set to rip away from the car and get far away. If you've ever seen it it's pretty cool, you see this thousand pound chunk of metal BOUNCING along the road surface because it has so much force. This is exactly what you have, a flying Engine block. lol... I hope I've quelled your fears for the destruction of our race by attempting to progress weapons technology.
This has been a Doitle production.
With NO THANKS TO THE CHUB GROUP... Way to bail on me guys...
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Building new nukes [message #137618] |
Fri, 11 February 2005 01:03 |
sloppyme
Messages: 2
Registered: February 2005
Location: Puget Sound area
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| j_ball430 |
You don't need a whole lot of radioactive material to create an effective bomb. Plus, if it's scattered across distances, it's not going to cause any damage. You do realize that just about everything is radioactive. Most rocks are radioactive. Shit, even your glow in the dark watches are radioactive.
|
My knowledge of nukes is only what I learned from pushing them around while serving on subs. The latest nukes have been primarily neutron types that leave little radiactive debrie and most buildings would still be intact after they detonate overhead. They don't have quite the blast effect of earlier bombs. However, the huge kill radius is a result of being toasted to a crisp or having too many cells in your body being ruptured from the overload of neutrons passing through. The farther away you are or how shielded you are determins your survivability. Nuetrons particles can really penatrate. Infact, you have neutrons particles (& gamma) passing through your body whenever you expose yourself to the sun. If you spend too much time in high altitude aircraft, you are exposed to a lot more of them.
These weapons are harder to maintain because of a certain gas needed (I'm still not supposed to disclose what type but you can find it easy enough with a little research) to make them effective. These nukes have a shorter life span because this gas dissapates or changes chemically over time.
To my ex wife: The check is in the mail.
To my kids: Hold your horses, I'll be off my computer and start dinner in just a couple minutes.
To my landlord: The lawn will get mowed as soon as I can find where I put the mower.
To my girlfriend: Please rub my shoulders, I'm having muscle cramps because this brutal game has lasted 6 hours so far and neither side has destroyed a building yet.
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Building new nukes [message #137620] |
Fri, 11 February 2005 01:41 |
sloppyme
Messages: 2
Registered: February 2005
Location: Puget Sound area
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Blazer |
That's nice if it explodes when its < 1000 feet off the ground, but what happens when there is a high altitude explosion and there is a load of plutonium etc aboard? It's the reason that we bury nuclear waste instead of shooting it into space...it's not worth the risk.
|
My knowledge of nukes is only what I learned from pushing them around while serving on subs. The latest nukes have been primarily neutron types that leave little radiactive debrie and most buildings would still be intact after they detonate overhead. They don't have quite the blast effect of earlier bombs. However, the huge kill radius is a result of being toasted to a crisp or having too many cells in your body being ruptured from the overload of neutrons passing through. The farther away you are or how shielded you are determins your survivability. Nuetrons particles can really penatrate. Infact, you have neutrons particles (& gamma) passing through your body whenever you expose yourself to the sun. If you spend too much time in high altitude aircraft, you are exposed to a lot more of them.
These weapons are harder to maintain because of a certain gas needed (I'm still not supposed to disclose what type but you can find it easy enough with a little research) to make them effective. These nukes have a shorter life span because this gas dissapates or changes chemically over time. The actual package of explosives & radioactive materials is about the size of a basketball. There is more conventional explosive material then radioactive material. The conventional explosive (like c-4) make up most of the container (sphere) that surrounds the plutonium with the special gas in the center. It is the even detonation of the surrounding c-4 like explosive to such perfection that causes the radioactive material to be pushed to the exact center to get the proper yeild of the chain reaction that happens in an instant.
If this basketball sized core is somehow ripped out of a missle or whatever, it has lost all the timing triggers and electronics that detonate the inner core. So, if a missle should break apart in the sky, you have more to worry about chunks of plastic explosives landing on you then exposure to rad materials. Yes, the radioactive materials can harm you if you inhale or ingest them but they can be washed off so you can survive provided you do so in a timely manner.
Should core detonate because of re-entry friction or impact it would, at worst, only result in a partial yeild. This, as it was told to me, would be quite difficult to achieve since any detonation without the proper or perfect timing sequence will most likely result of sending the radioactive elements & gas in different directions without any nuclear yeild at all. The gas would dissapate and the chunks of rad material could be cleaned up and disposed of.
The burial of nuke waste is mainly to isolate and preserve the containers it is in. You have to remember that some of this stuff has a half life over 238 years. Some materials could be used to make the dirty type bombs so they need to be secure from theft. There may be an event of some sort that would compromise these containers on the surface; deep underground storage reduces the risk of breaching containment while providing greater security.
To my ex wife: The check is in the mail.
To my kids: Hold your horses, I'll be off my computer and start dinner in just a couple minutes.
To my landlord: The lawn will get mowed as soon as I can find where I put the mower.
To my girlfriend: Please rub my shoulders, I'm having muscle cramps because this brutal game has lasted 6 hours so far and neither side has destroyed a building yet.
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Building new nukes [message #137659] |
Fri, 11 February 2005 07:21 |
|
|
That's the debris path of the Columbia when it exploded as it re-entered. Shuttles launched from Cape Canaveral are launched towards the east over the ocean, and the only shuttle that blew up on launch was the Challenger, which blew up over the Atlantic, where the vast majority (if not all) of it's debris fell. Since the smaller Challenger debris fell into the water, then something as heavy as a warhead with uranium, which would be much heavier would also fall into the water.
| Quote: |
And what if instead of exploding high in the troposphere, instead it malfunctions 5 seconds after liftoff and drops a nice big contaminated wreckage in a populated area? Who gets the blame then?
|
No one... Unless someone tries to colonize the Atlantic near Cape Canaveral.
| Quote: |
How many would die that day?
|
None, besides the shuttle crew.
| Quote: |
How many would die the next week after succumbing to radiation poisoning? How many decades would that area be uninhabitable?
|
Since everyone would be shielded from the radiation by hundreds of feet of water, none. And I wasn't aware that the Atlantic was inhabitable to begin with...
.:Red Alert: A Path Beyond Modeler:.
E-mail: sirphoenixx@gmail.com
AIM: Sir Phoenixx
ICQ: 339325768
MSN: sirphoenixx@hotmail.com
Yahoo: sirphoenix86
If anyone needs any help with using 3dsmax, or gmax feel free to contact me.
My Gallery: sir-phoenixx.deviantart.com/gallery
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Building new nukes [message #137993] |
Sun, 13 February 2005 06:41 |
|
|
Uh, no, that discussion was about launching nuclear warheads into space to test them, not disposing of nuclear waste in space. No one mentioned launching nuclear waste until your post.
Also, nuclear waste is currently transported in containers that can survive direct hits from high speed trains, ramming into a wall by a rocket sled, large explosions, sitting in fire for some time, falling to the ground, etc., without any cracks or openings at all.
They'd probably need to be strenghtened and tested for high altitude drops, and higher temperatures/re-entry though.
.:Red Alert: A Path Beyond Modeler:.
E-mail: sirphoenixx@gmail.com
AIM: Sir Phoenixx
ICQ: 339325768
MSN: sirphoenixx@hotmail.com
Yahoo: sirphoenix86
If anyone needs any help with using 3dsmax, or gmax feel free to contact me.
My Gallery: sir-phoenixx.deviantart.com/gallery
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Building new nukes [message #138129] |
Sun, 13 February 2005 19:17 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I thought it was the nuclear waste containers that were built so durably, not the warheads. I've heard a story of when scientists testing one of these waste containers decided to ram it with an 80 mile an hour train. The canister was unharmed, but the train recieved an enormous dent for its troubles.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
