inquiry? i must have missed it, sorry; let me look for it

90,000 deaths, 380,000 injured, 19,000 missing.

check ur @ s

May as well have been a thermal nuclear warhead.

High quality paper living in crammed spaces and not a god damn contractor following regulations.

You talkin about PACER, coolithic?

@Coolitic, PACER is like so many other technically feasible projects that we all thought would happen by the 21st century. Maglevs spanning the country, Hyperloop, flying cars, hydrogen infrastructure, space colonies, Thorium, self-driving cars etc. All of these are technically feasible. However, futurists are too often poor engineers and they forget that economics, not technical details make a program feasible. A company must be able to make a profit in order to pursue such projects and the largest portion of that profit equation has to do with the costs of liability and managing risk. Unless a company can find a way to externalize that risk, the program usually is never fielded.

but a big-ass cave serves as a good means of confinement

MA is doing some big brain shrooms again.

true, but anything nuclear has been given a stigma which makes the risk for developing and fielding the 'first' of anything too much of a risk

it's why most nuclear reactor designs in service today are literally 'boomer tech'

I like Canadian nuclear stuff, been there a few times. They're like big glowy swimming pools.

no one wants to be the one to stick their neck out and go through the NRC circus

I have no idea the context and I hate entering the middle of a conversation that seemed to have started half a day ago.

https://tenor.com/view/antm-missj-jayalexander-missjay-wtf-gif-5883733

Climate evangelists should be the biggest advocates of nuclear power technology, but of course they're silent about actual solutions to the problem

that is true. they have actually done more to HURT nuclear by instead channeling that money into dozens of other less promising alternatives

We need our bald eagle culling machines though

Academics in my experience love nuclear energy, I'm a huge advocate for it. The UK is actively making it harder for it from what I seen.

generally, there are two reasons you do testing; 1) to determine if feasible; 2) to seek how much of a beating your product can empiracally take

academics focus too much on No. 1

Big oil companies fund misinformation and fearmongering campaigns about nuclear energy to preserve their chokehold on the energy industry, and retarded boomers lap it up

No. 2 is what proves you can reasonably meet a requirement and how much liability

nah, they don't actively fund misinformation campaigns. hell, BP is one of the major players that developed LNG tech

that's a function of marketing retards that don't know their ass from their elbow

Boat

not white enough

I've always beleived that it is far more feasible to build a container for nuclear waste that can survive catostrophic failure of a launch into space rather than bury the shit and hope to hell a container lasts for 10k years without problems.

One you can test the HELL out of until you are satisfied with the risk

the other cannot be tested

unless you have 10k years to stand around and wait

https://youtu.be/Ll82POMkb8g

I am selling CRAM for 20 gold coins a bucket

Would you like some CRAM

Has anyone seen any development of games that incorporate Simulation/Stimulation of real world design requirements?

Just fling nuclear waste into the sun

Problem solved

Kerbal Space Program has kind of this idea in that it tries to provide parameters that are as close to real world as possible so you can test your designs

Mission Passed

respect gained

problem is getting it into orbit

Let the private sector develop the spaceflight tech as they are already doing, then just contract them