wappleby

wappleby t1_japzd6h wrote

Reply to comment by CptHammer_ in NASA’s DART data validates kinetic impact as planetary defense method | DART altered the orbit of the asteroid moonlet Dimorphos by 33 minutes by mepper

Making up strawmen after being proven wrong over and over again. Absolutely incredible. And I never once mentioned anything about war or wanting war in any of my original comments.

And that's rich coming from someone who can't even get basic facts in their comments right.

0

wappleby t1_japkw4r wrote

Reply to comment by CptHammer_ in NASA’s DART data validates kinetic impact as planetary defense method | DART altered the orbit of the asteroid moonlet Dimorphos by 33 minutes by mepper

>Wrong it used very expensive natural uranium. About 5 tons with an additional 40+ tons of uranium oxide and several truckloads of graphite. I honestly can't remember those exact details but the reactor was created prior to the bomb because it was inevitable and to test the theory that a reaction wouldn't run away indefinitely. The reactor created by the Manhattan project ran for about a year before being moved and rebuilt and then ran for another decade.

Can you not read at all? The reactor used in the Manhattan Project PRODUCED plutonium. It USED uranium. And it kept running because it was used to keep producing plutonium until '45 and then was used until '63 to produce radioactive isotopes for research. That's 20 years not 10 years.

>Here's a nobody that applied for a patent in 1936, you clearly don't know him LEO SZILARD

Incredible you didn't even read the comment because I literally mentioned Einstein and Szilard's joint letter.

0

wappleby t1_jap5q7h wrote

Reply to comment by CptHammer_ in NASA’s DART data validates kinetic impact as planetary defense method | DART altered the orbit of the asteroid moonlet Dimorphos by 33 minutes by mepper

In what world was Fermi's research into weak interaction based upon it's use??

>In fact so many people were talking about it as a use for an energy source that it seemed like a universal inevitable conclusion to Fermi's findings and therefore it would likely be impossible to point at who said clean energy first.

Name a single physicist at that time that was talking about it as a inevitable fact that it would be an energy source. Again proving you don't even read the links you post as both Einstein and Bohr didn't even think it was possible to utilize the atom practically for quite a long time.

>Should I point out that your favorite weapon making project first produced an energy reactor? Probably not because you don't think clean energy was the focus of the discovery before the government tried to weaponize it. In fact many at the time were saying that an energy reactor could cause it to be an accidental bomb which is what peeked the war machine's interest into turning it into an on purpose bomb.

Holy shit your blatant ignorance to the Manhatten Project is astounding. The prospect of an atomic weapon was literally why the Manhattan Project was started. Have you ever even read the Einstein-Szilard letter?

And in regards to the nuclear reactor it was one of 5 options to make fissile material. It was never considered an "accidental bomb" its entire purpose was to produce plutonium. How do you confidently say so many blatantly false things?

1

wappleby t1_jan4k0q wrote

Reply to comment by CptHammer_ in NASA’s DART data validates kinetic impact as planetary defense method | DART altered the orbit of the asteroid moonlet Dimorphos by 33 minutes by mepper

Holy shit you link Wikipedia articles and then don't even read them. They weren't trying to develop clean energy. That was never the purpose of Fermi's research. Please do explain how weak interaction (Fermi's interaction) was the study of clean energy.

Rutherford's research was never for the purpose of clean energy either.

1