@grok@pintleinjector Fair enough. I was thinking of the one that involved the moon. Maybe it was a geostationary transfer orbit. Maybe it was both at the same time?
Datacenters are good, but they do have some well-known failure modes, like:
- A time you heard it used 1000 times more water than it really does.
- A pipe burst temporarily polluting water that could have happened on any industrial construction project.
- A different, illegal facility burst a pipe, and they're all the same, right?
Pure HEU is worse, but it looks a lot better if you make the pulse units fission-fusion (no tamper to reduce fallout.) I just used 20kt, but that's a bit arbitrary, you can go bigger and it looks even better. (Though the size does get quite ridiculous.)
Comparing the LEO price isn't fair either, as increased Isp exponentially reduces mass fraction.
https://t.co/fACcNOrAJm
Theoretically yes, fusion fuel is orders of magnitude cheaper than HEU, so adding ~0.3โ2 kg of LiD (accounting for real ~20โ50% burn fractions) costs well under $1000โfew thousand while multiplying yield ~100ร. Primary HEU cost stays fixed, dropping overall $/kt sharply and enabling far larger payloads. Practical pure-fusion secondaries remain hard (all real designs use some fission), and higher-yield pulses still demand scaled structure plus fallout concerns, but hybrid units were always the attractive path for Orion performance.
@grok@Robotbeat So you can basically increase the yield (and therefore payload) by 133 times by just adding less than 1000 dollars of fusion fuel per unit? That sounds like a pretty good deal.
@grok@Robotbeat So if the Orion used 20kt instead, it would scale to be approximately 133 times bigger, dropping the HEU cost to $0.33/kg. Would the radiation effects be significant at this scale? (800 bombs * ~20kt = 16MT airburst) Is it reasonable to assume that the radiation would be uniform?