^vote for RUSH.

From Wiki: The lyrics in the final track, "Countdown," describe the launch of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 1981, which the band witnessed. The song features audio clips of some of the radio talk recorded during the maiden flight. It was a minor UK chart hit in early 1983.

Went to Magic Mountain in CA years ago and got on a ride similar to this, except it was the giant Viking Ship/Space Shuttle, etc which swung back and forth, as well as up and over. This type of ride has two sides of passengers facing each other, blocked by a central wall (where the pivot arm is attached). As we went up and over, although we couldn't actually see the people on the other side, we could tell that they were spitting, potentially covering people on our side with spit once we swung back down. Everyone was getting pissed and yelling at them to stop. Once the ride ended, we all piled out, ready for a fight, only to be greeted by an army of green-faced, empty-stomached Japanese tourists exiting the other side of the ride. So, yeah....it wasn't spit...

To continue this lesson, it is important to note that most bomb technology doesn't use enriched uranium alone. The other key material compound is plutonium. For all intents and purposes, all plutonium is man made (with only traces of 244 found in nature, of which is completely unsuitable for weapons..Pu244). Plutonium is usually needed in a bomb because of its much lower critical mass. This lower mass makes bomb fabrication easier, but that creation of plutonium is by no means trivial.

You need huge facilities, dedicated to the sole purpose of uranium exposure. Like the video mentions, normal uranium is mostly U238, this junk gains value in the creation of plutonium. Weapons grade plutonium is a special isotope of plutonium, Pu239. This need is very specific, the different isotopes of Pu can have so very serious implications for bombs. Lets go over them as we as we go over how uranium is exposed to make this very special isotope

First, we start off with U238...the fuel stock. This isotope is bombarded with neutrons. These neutrons are occasionally absorbed by the uranium, turning it into U239. U239 is highly unstable, and quickly decays (in 23.45 minutes) to neptunium 239. This will in turn, decay into Pu239 (in about 2.3 days). Sounds easy, right? Not exactly, neutron absorption isn't something you can control with ease. What I mean is, there is little to stop our Neptunium or Plutonium from absorbing neutrons any more or less than the Uranium (in fact, their absorption cross sections are typically much larger...they are more hungry of neutrons than uranium in other words). When this undesired absorption happens, the neptunium and plutonium eventually becomes Pu240...and that is a big problem.

Plutonium Pu240 is HIGHLY undesirable in a bomb. Pu240 is a medium lived isotope of Plutonium, meaning it decays pretty quick, but it is HOW it decays that is the problem. Pu240 often decays by spontaneous fission. Having spontaneous fission in your fission bomb is just as undesirable as it sounds. Firstly, all even number isotopes are poor fission candidates, so for every even number isotope in your bomb, that lowers the bombs over all yield (because they prefer to fission themselves, and for very little return energy). This is further complicated by high densities of Pu240 causing your bomb to prematurely detonate, ya...bad news. The levels of Pu240 represent yet another challenge in the level of heat they generate from their rather quick decay, though, considering the previous 2 issues, this one is less problematic, though still troublesome. And lastly, there is nothing stopping our Pu240 from absorbing yet another neutron causing yet another isotope of plutonium to arises, namely Pu241.

Pu241, being an odd numbered isotope heavier than lead makes it a rather good subject to undergo fission. It doesn't have the same set of problems as Pu241, but it rapidly decays (14 years) into Americium 241, which is not fissile, and has a halflife of 432 years. These factors add large amounts of heat to the bomb, and reduce overall yield, as well as detract from critical mass.

The solution for this is a very low tech, time consuming, laborious process with produces tons of waste and very little plutonium. One has to expose small blocks of uranium to neutrons under a very brief window. The brief window decreases the chances of undesired neutron absorption and negates much (but not all!) of the heavier forms of plutonium being created. After exposure, they are left to decay, then after a few months, are chemically processed to remove any plutonium and other undesirables (this is also very very hard, and I won't even go into how this is done), then re-exposed. This yields gram(s) at a time. To make a weapons, you need 10 killos, at least...for one bomb...if everything went great. This means you need HUGE facilities, HUGE staff, and HUGE uranium resources. Your facility would be obvious and serve no other purpose, use tons of energy, and pile up radioactive waste of the kind no one wants, heavier than uranium wastes...the worse of the worst. No such facility could exist alongside some traditional uranium facility and not be noticed, period, end of story, done.

We haven't even covered bomb making problems, of which killed some of our top minds in our own bomb program. A set of incidents revolving around a specific bomb type, after taking 2 lives, was dubbed the Demon core. These are the reasons over half the budget of the DOD gets soaked up in nuclear weapons, and we haven't even covered some of the more important aspects (like delivery systems, one simply doesn't walk into Mordor). Nuclear weapons are hugely expensive, hugely conspicuous, require massive facilities and require a level of sophistication that is completely absent from the training of reactor nuclear scientists.

Reactor research and materials are orders of magnitude different from weapons grade materials and research. No bomb in history has EVER been made from reactor grade plutonium because the levels of Pu240 and Pu241 (and we haven't even covered Pu238!) are blisteringly high, way to high for weapons. Isotopic separation for Pu would be even more costly than uranium because of their mass similarities (compared to U235 and U238) and need a different set of enrichment facilities specially tailored to plutonium enrichment, of which all the people who knew something about that are Russian and American, and most likely dead or work classified to the highest degree.

The problem of nuclear weapons via reactor development is all a game to ratchet up the fear machine to get a particular end. It isn't a technical problem, it is a political problem. In the end, though, emerging technology could make enrichment easier anyway, so many of the issues I mentioned might eventually fall to the wayside (not within the next 10 years I imagine; for interested parties, google laser enrichment...coming to a world near you, but not exactly tomorrow, it's awesome stuff though). Eventually, the US is going to have to get used to the idea of more and more nations owning the bomb...but that issue is completely unrelated to reactor design and research. Reactors and nuclear weapons share about as much in common as cars and space shuttles...trying to link them as a dual proliferation argument is a political game and doesn't map on to them technologically.



I should note that I am not yet a nuclear engineer, but I did stay at a holiday inn express.

I think we have to take certain things for granted because not everything can be proven empirically. There is no way to empirically prove that the Universe is actually real. To say that it is real you have to rely on your senses and reasoning. You can't say those are valid without using viciously circular logic. "My reasoning is valid because my reasoning says so" Without assuming certain things, apriori, the world would be unintelligable. Neither could you do science. To do science you have to assume the uniformity in the nature. How do you prove it? By assuming the future will be like the past. What is the evidence that the future will be like the past? The past. It's the same vicious circularity.

As far as Gods existence goes, I never assumed either way. I knew I didn't have enough information to say either way, so I was agnostic by default. I only changed my mind when I received evidence. I wasn't under any pressure to do so, nor was I even looking to do so.

So, while science has a pitiless indifference to how you feel in regards to what is true, it is not the sole arbitor of what is true. This idea that empiricism is the only way to determine truth cannot be proven empirically, ironically. It is an assumption that materialists make with no actual evidence. The argument seems to be that since we can build a space shuttle, empiricism must the way. Yet, that isn't a logical argument. Empiricism might be useful, but it isn't the only method of inquiry that is useful. Everything has its place, and empiricism has a hard limit to what it can prove.

Yes, there certainly is material out there. Does that we can see and test material means that material causes are the only possible solution? We can't see dark matter, dark energy, other universes, other dimensions, yet scientists have no trouble postulating about what we can't see. So why not postulate that the Universe has a non-material causation? Why not an intelligent causation? I would say the evidence is a lot more convincing for intelligent design than other Universes, yet science only considers one to be plausible. Don't you think that is irrational?

I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence. Isn't it possible that you are staring at something divinely ordered but don't realize it?

>> ^gwiz665:

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.
I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.
It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.
Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.
If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Challenger, 1986, Explosion, Video, Huffington Post' to 'Space Shuttle, Challenger, Launch, 1986, Explosion, Video, Huffington Post' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'MateDemate Device, Space Shuttle, Timelapse' to 'Mate Demate Device, Space Shuttle, Timelapse, NASA, 747, Jumbo Jet' - edited by calvados

Tyson is talking about arbitrary scales to make a correlation ... he is admitting there is no way to know exactly what is going on.... but it IS inside the 1-2%.

"Everything that we are, that is not the chimp, is not as smart compared to the chimp as we tell ourselves.

Maybe the difference between combining motions for sign language and building a space shuttle isnt as big as we think.

How do we decide? Imagine another life form, 1% different from us, in the direction we are different from the chimp. Think about that."

Now do you see? He is using a what if. You think his what-if is faulty based on what? He is using Occam's Razor and all of his scientific method, and the direction he is heading in is quite logical. Almost perfectly logical.

>> ^direpickle:

What kind of escort did they have flying along with it? No one mentions it anywhere. Just kinda curious.


Superman.

Thanks a bunch!

In reply to this comment by Barseps:
Now this would have been FABULOUS to see in person

^Upvoted^
*Doublepromote
Nice one :

A T-38 that almost ran out of fuel near Dulles International. >> ^direpickle:

What kind of escort did they have flying along with it? No one mentions it anywhere. Just kinda curious.

I wonder what will happen to that Boeing plane that used to carry the space shuttles.

Back in '88 I got to be on the tarmac at an airforce base under a space shuttle strapped to a 747. If you have not seen it you can not imagine how massive that combination is.

>> ^therealblankman:

So if you do something like this, how do you get the footage back? How do you keep track of where the thing lands? A Go Pro camera can't broadcast to the ground from the edger of space so...???


I see in YT description it mentions use of a Spot GPS, I would guess that is how they track its location once it touches down.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

We're not perfect and as was mentioned this is a gray area. There are reasons given in each individual post why the examples you cited were included. Also, we've been around for six years - our culture is a living thing and evolving. With six years worth of video content you are going to find things that support or condemn your position.

We try for consistency and we try to follow the guidelines but citing precedence is my least favourite way of supporting a position on VideoSift. You'll always be able to cherry pick - and it sounds a little too much like "why are you picking on me?"

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm very glad that the community that I choose to associate with doesn't approve of watching people die.

That's a very nice sentiment and one that I share with you. I have always appreciated that every time I open a horrific video here, there's comfort in being able to presume that as disturbing as it may be, the people involved all survived. This is something many people take for granted or just don't care about, but it's something I value highly about VideoSift.

Well I'd just like to point out that a number of the videos I linked in a previous post, near all if not all of them depict(ed) scenes where people were dieing. Many if you follow them to their source have stories about how many died in the accident/event being shown in the video. I do not think the shuttle or WTC footage should be removed, but it does show scenes were people did not survive. And the building burning shows the fire that ended up killing 100+ people when it was all over.
Beyond the clear newsworthy events (WTC, Space Shuttle) what makes the other videos suitable? The soldiers peeing on corpses is much more graphic and in your face with the death aspect than this video is, since you can see the act happening with the corpses (hopefully dead at this point...hopefully) in view of the camera.
I just want some kind of acknowledgement that putting a news reporter before this video would not change the content of the video. Or a ticker bar at the bottom.....or a watermark in the video......the contents and happenings of the video would remain the same.
I see the plane crash video I linked to as exactly like this video. The person flying either had a hardware failure or mistake that caused him to nose dive into the ground. You know he died either on impact or shortly after. The only difference is one is a plane and one is a car. I know we can all put ourselves in the driver's seat of a car, but we can set ourselves apart from piloting due to lack of experience. This may account for the notation on this video, I want to identify whatever it is that this video has that set it apart from the others.
The police shootings are in the same scenario, but most us aren't cops. But most of them show poor choices that led up to it, and maybe we feel we wouldn't make those choices as a rational person...so the video is OK because it demonstrates a level of behavior that will result in your death that none of us feel we will reach. A car crash accident is not left up to willful choice in most cases.