Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More Bounce to the Ounce

mceglowski.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: More Bounce to the Ounce

#41

Post by jaggederest »

troybetz wrote: post #14
jebarker wrote: post #4

This is a really enjoyable read. Majiec is a great writer and speaker. A breath of fresh air compared much of modern blog/essay content.

Where modern is post 2000 not 2020! https://idlewords.com/2006/04/argentina_on_two_steaks_a_day.... https://idlewords.com/2014/07/sana_a.htm

Argentina on two steaks a day is quite possibly one of the best pieces of humorous writing, full stop. In my opinion at least, it should be regarded in company with Mark Twain and Jonathan Swift, though maybe not at the head of that particular table.

Re: More Bounce to the Ounce

#42

Post by selimthegrim »

titanomachy wrote: post #16
jebarker wrote: post #4

This is a really enjoyable read. Majiec is a great writer and speaker. A breath of fresh air compared much of modern blog/essay content.

“Pez dispenser for Armageddon” is incredible imagery

I'm personally still chuckling about Mariboro and the shout out to Ferdydurke

Re: More Bounce to the Ounce

#45

Post by sushisource »

kurthr wrote: post #19
psadri wrote: post #17

A version of this idea was mentioned in one of the Three Body Problem books. There, the bombs were pre-positioned along a path and detonated sequentially like dominos, with a vehicle riding the blast waves.

It is more similar to the Medusa method. Lots of ideas have been proposed. One problem is getting the nukes prepositioned (and they won't easily stay in one spot!) with chemical rockets is quite challenging (rather than carrying them and launching them along the way) and also they would actually need to be set in groups of 3 to provide balanced forces along an axis, or alternately along a parabolic helix to compensat…

Would they? Why not just shape your ship like a big torus so as you fly the bombs go right through your central axis?

Re: More Bounce to the Ounce

#46

Post by cfiggers »

Chu4eeno wrote: post #31
mayoff wrote: post #23

This idea is a significant part of Anathem by Neal Stephenson.

Anathem was so chock full of interesting ideas, too bad the last parts of it were so rushed (or at least felt that way to me).

Strong agree. I was especially disappointed because it felt like he was dropping breadcrumbs all through the book and then... Nah, none of that foreshadowing mattered. The central tension of the book is handled by an off-screen deus ex machina, actually, everybody go home.

Incredible ideas. Really, really lousy ending.

Re: More Bounce to the Ounce

#47

Post by klausa »

jebarker wrote: post #4

This is a really enjoyable read. Majiec is a great writer and speaker. A breath of fresh air compared much of modern blog/essay content.

I know you didn’t mean anything by it, but this is the funniest misspelling of the name “Maciej” that I’ve ever seen.

Re: More Bounce to the Ounce

#48

Post by klausa »

jaggederest wrote: post #41
troybetz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where modern is post 2000 not 2020! https://idlewords.com/2006/04/argentina_on_two_steaks_a_day.... https://idlewords.com/2014/07/sana_a.htm

Argentina on two steaks a day is quite possibly one of the best pieces of humorous writing, full stop. In my opinion at least, it should be regarded in company with Mark Twain and Jonathan Swift, though maybe not at the head of that particular table.

That post is single-handedly responsible for me going to Buenos Aires.

(Well that and a Qatar Airways misprice a couple of years back; but I would not have been motivated to jump on that occasion if I had not read the post.)

Re: More Bounce to the Ounce

#49

Post by gavinsyancey »

pfdietz wrote: post #25
IAmBroom wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is among the reason I've thought nuclear waste should be disposed of in space. Send the stuff onto the moon Congrats; you have come up with a way to make nuclear waste disposal 100x more dangerous and 1000x more expensive!

You need to think more clearly about this. Reprocessing is very expensive; $1000/kg and up. Launch to space will likely become much cheaper than this as fully reusable launch vehicles become available. Even if the spent fuel must be armored against accident the cost of launching it to LEO, and then to the moon, is likely to become much cheaper than the cost of reprocessing it here on Earth. Space disposal has the pos…

Currently, the most reliable rockets are maybe 99% reliable but certainly not 99.9%. If you are trying to send nuclear material to space, you have to account for the possibility that

* The rocket blows up on the launchpad

* The rocket gets you part way up, then blows up during ascent

* The rocket fails before orbital insertion, and your nuclear payload re-enters the atmosphere at near-orbital velocity

In all of those cases, you need to have enough shielding to avoid spreading nuclear waste over a very large area -- that adds a lot of mass. And everyone whose jurisdiction you're launching over needs to trust you have enough shielding. And in the case where it fails during orbit insertion and re-enters the atmosphere, you don't have a lot of control on where the nuclear materials end up, which has proliferation issues.

Post reply on HN