I'm dubious that they can generate enough revenue from solar to offset the charging costs, but who knows.
Why wouldn't they be able to? Solar panels pay for themselves in 7 years. You know they'll sit there making money. If you deploy enough of them, then you're not a power plant to the grid anyway. And if you're buying land for super-chargers, then you've got a bunch of idle roof-space.
Maths. A tesla battery is 85kWh. So a standard half-charge is around 40kWh. From what I can find average solar panels produce around 10W per square foot. Assuming an average of 12 hours of sun a day, you'd need 4000 square feet of panel to break even for a single charge per day. The panels are around 15-20 square feet each, so that's 200 panels. Very expensive high-efficiency panels can be more efficient, but the highest I've seen were around 30w a square foot so you'd still be looking at over 1000 square feet.
For one (half) charge. Per day.
This doesn't even account for, say, clouds. Or god forbid multiple cars charging.
No, they're losing money on the superchargers.
You've made an error, somewhere. Assuming a 12% efficiency and a solar constant of 1000 W/m^2 (approximately the solar irradiance on a clear day at local noon in the continental US, according to Wikipedia), we have 120 W/m^2. That's a pretty conservative cell efficiency, but we're using mass produced cells so it's a reasonable approximation. Allow for an average of 6 hours of operation per day (it'll be more, but not all of it will be at full irradiance, either, as the sun sinks in the sky). This yields 720 Wh/m^2. Filling a Tesla battery would therefor require 118 m^2, which is 1270 sq. ft. according to Google.
That's a substantial amount of energy and I also doubt Tesla is breaking even on these (if they were, they could toss the cars and sell the electricity at a substantial profit). But 4000 sq. ft. for half a charge in a day seems wrong.
12% is pretty bad for anything besides bottom of the barrel panels from China. I'd hope Tesla is going for something more in the 18-22% range, not that it makes much difference in the final calculation.
Exotic geometries or materials can get you into the 40s, but those are way too expensive for anything besides spacecraft at the moment.
Can we work on making it not an ecological disaster of a plant too? I'm cool with nuking it's genome until it needs less fertilizer and pesticides too.
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
Wait for all the "GMO free" cigarettes. Now with extra carcinogens!
Russia’s space agency said Tuesday it will launch a “full-scale” exploration of the Moon as part of a long-term mission to get a human being on the lunar surface for the first time in decades.
I'm all for Space Race 2.0 and hope that NASA gets some spite-funding out of this.
Isn't there an international treaty against nations claiming celestial bodies?
There is, but it's kind of like the Antarctic treaty where if anyone was actually technologically capable of extracting the resources from them they would claim it. The treaty in question does give the power to regulate industry in space though, hence the upcoming ASTEROIDS act: http://www.spacepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AsteroidsActHR5063.pdf
Isn't there an international treaty against nations claiming celestial bodies?
There is, but it's kind of like the Antarctic treaty where if anyone was actually technologically capable of extracting the resources from them they would claim it. The treaty in question does give the power to regulate industry in space though, hence the upcoming ASTEROIDS act: http://www.spacepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AsteroidsActHR5063.pdf
I was expecting "ASTEROIDS" to be some clunky acronym for something. I was not disappointed!
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Isn't there an international treaty against nations claiming celestial bodies?
There is, but it's kind of like the Antarctic treaty where if anyone was actually technologically capable of extracting the resources from them they would claim it. The treaty in question does give the power to regulate industry in space though, hence the upcoming ASTEROIDS act: http://www.spacepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AsteroidsActHR5063.pdf
I was expecting "ASTEROIDS" to be some clunky acronym for something. I was not disappointed!
Hey as far as congressional bacronyms go it's pretty good! Only one omitted 'for' and the rest of it makes logical sense.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Isn't there an international treaty against nations claiming celestial bodies?
There is, but it's kind of like the Antarctic treaty where if anyone was actually technologically capable of extracting the resources from them they would claim it. The treaty in question does give the power to regulate industry in space though, hence the upcoming ASTEROIDS act: http://www.spacepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AsteroidsActHR5063.pdf
I was expecting "ASTEROIDS" to be some clunky acronym for something. I was not disappointed!
Hey as far as congressional bacronyms go it's pretty good! Only one omitted 'for' and the rest of it makes logical sense.
German physicists are preparing an experiment to look for "hidden photons", which are a proposed dark matter counterpart of conventional photons. The strangest part about them? They have mass.
Hidden photons are predicted in some extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics, and unlike WIMPs they would interact electromagnetically with normal matter. Hidden photons also have a very small mass, and are expected to oscillate into normal photons in a process similar to neutrino oscillation. Observing such oscillations relies on detectors that are sensitive to extremely small electromagnetic signals, and a number of these extremely difficult experiments have been built or proposed.
Crouching neutrinos, hidden photons? I dunno, that attempt was pretty weak and I think better can be done.
The whole dark matter thing is pretty bizarre to me. The idea that we can't detect 85% of the matter in the universe is so strange. I mean if dark matter does exist, and there is 5 to 6 times more of it than what we call conventional matter, doesn't that by definition make "conventional matter" (and us by extension) the exotic matter of the universe?
In what way is a photon that doesn't travel at the speed of light, has mass and isn't made up of the same type of matter as regular photons actually a photon?
Is it just a case of there being something like a square root in an equation somewhere, and the end results of the negative roots are named after there positive cousins? So they're kind of fitting the same sort of parts of an equation as their light variants whilst being nothing alike?
The matterarchy is always trying to keep the dark matter down, even though those masses make up the majority of the population. All because they are under represented and don't have enough influence.
In what way is a photon that doesn't travel at the speed of light, has mass and isn't made up of the same type of matter as regular photons actually a photon?
Is it just a case of there being something like a square root in an equation somewhere, and the end results of the negative roots are named after there positive cousins? So they're kind of fitting the same sort of parts of an equation as their light variants whilst being nothing alike?
It's probably just a simplification to make it easier to describe how it interacts with other particles. Kind of like how a Muon is similar to an Electron, but heavier (though still baryonic unlike dark matter is thought to be) and it interacts with its corresponding heavy baryons much like an Electron would. The interaction is still somewhat different from an Electron due to a Muon's increased mass.
From what I understand, the leading hypothesis for dark matter proposes supersymmetric particles that don't interact with normal matter electromagnetically, only gravitationally.
Because I lack any capacity to fully understand the arguments going on I always secretly assume that dark matter is just some sort of mathematical failure on the part of physicists.
They think they're so smart but they didn't carry the 2 and now they think there's 85% of the universe missing.
Probably it's something that will seem mundane in retrospect that's just very difficult to detect right now.
There are 2 really big stars off to the left of everywhere we've been looking.
Because I lack any capacity to fully understand the arguments going on I always secretly assume that dark matter is just some sort of mathematical failure on the part of physicists.
They think they're so smart but they didn't carry the 2 and now they think there's 85% of the universe missing.
Probably it's something that will seem mundane in retrospect that's just very difficult to detect right now.
There are 2 really big stars off to the left of everywhere we've been looking.
This argument comes up every single time a brown dwarf is discovered within 20 lightyears of Earth.
And it's wrong - it's wrong by virtue of wildly underestimating that mass scales as a cube of volume. Brown dwarf stars are very small, and very light. But it was predicted all the way back in the 70s or so that maybe a large amount of "cold" regular matter would explain galactic missing mass. The problem is, galactic missing mass is a 100:1 problem, so the sheer quantity of cold regular objects would have to be vast, and somehow not heating up. And all these lighter objects are exponentially less massive then regular stars, so you'd have exponentially more of them to make up the difference - i.e. you'd have 1000s of brown dwarfs within 10-20 lightyears of Earth.
And that's the thing: we know how we detect cold regular objects at a distance. We observe them occluding brighter objects. The fact we can is a triumph, and the fact we still make surprise discoveries is exciting, but to explain the missing mass of galaxies you'd have so many of these objects out there that you'd be detecting them all the time and they wouldn't stay as uniformly distributed as dark matter has (since when they collide, they wouldn't pass through each other harmlessly).
My favorite alternate explanation is that the gravity from galaxies in other universes is bleeding through into ours and giving the illusion of dark matter. It's elegant in that it explains the weakness of gravity and the existence of dark matter.
I'm certainly on board with idea that dark matter isnt necessarily matter but a mistake in our understanding. I hope that to be the case even, because our current understanding of physics is depressing when it comes to the long term survival of humanity. We're basically fucked without at least a subluminal engine if not full blown FTL. The law of large numbers is basically the sword of Damocles hanging over Earth.
Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire told reporters.
I should point out that I have no context for how mind-blowing this may or may not be.
Very promising and I hope it really does work out, but...
In a statement, the company, the Pentagon's largest supplier, said it would build and test a compact fusion reactor in less than a year, and build a prototype in five years.
So we're down to 5 years out instead of the standard 10 years out that it's been for the last 30 years. Progress!
Edit: And I'm guessing the way this actually creates electricity is still the same "heat water to steam that turns a turbine" way that fision and coal power uses to make electricity? Is there any viable way to get away from that method of turning energy into electricity?
Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire told reporters.
I should point out that I have no context for how mind-blowing this may or may not be.
I'm suspicious. Who cares about the size of the reactor? IIRC they were only just able to create a fusion reactor that actually generated more
energy than it took to fuse the atoms in the first place. And even then only technically. Energy out was more than the energy in from the lasers they used, but the energy into the lasers was far more than out of the reactor.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire told reporters.
I should point out that I have no context for how mind-blowing this may or may not be.
I'm suspicious. Who cares about the size of the reactor? IIRC they were only just able to create a fusion reactor that actually generated more
energy than it took to fuse the atoms in the first place. And even then only technically. Energy out was more than the energy in from the lasers they used, but the energy into the lasers was far more than out of the reactor.
Articles about new technology love to talk about how small things are. And it's called the 'compact fusion experiment', so they probably feel compelled to mention its relative compactness. Of course they don't mention how much shielding the thing will need or how heavy it will be, so I doubt they're going to be riding around on flatbeds.
In any case, the article says that the reactors are 10 years away, which is always exactly how far fusion power is. Not that I wouldn't love for power-producing fusion reactors to actually exist, I just refuse to get my hopes up about it anymore.
Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire told reporters.
I should point out that I have no context for how mind-blowing this may or may not be.
I'm suspicious. Who cares about the size of the reactor? IIRC they were only just able to create a fusion reactor that actually generated more
energy than it took to fuse the atoms in the first place. And even then only technically. Energy out was more than the energy in from the lasers they used, but the energy into the lasers was far more than out of the reactor.
Articles about new technology love to talk about how small things are. And it's called the 'compact fusion experiment', so they probably feel compelled to mention its relative compactness. Of course they don't mention how much shielding the thing will need or how heavy it will be, so I doubt they're going to be riding around on flatbeds.
In any case, the article says that the reactors are 10 years away, which is always exactly how far fusion power is. Not that I wouldn't love for power-producing fusion reactors to actually exist, I just refuse to get my hopes up about it anymore.
I mean, go go fusion. I hope they keep pouring money into researching it.
But until we can fuse 1-Hydrogen they're still all running on scarce resources and not going to solve our energy problems.
Apparently 2-Hydrogen is not as rare as I thought. Like 150ppm in ocean water is a lot of fucking deuterium.
Aioua on
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire told reporters.
I should point out that I have no context for how mind-blowing this may or may not be.
Very promising and I hope it really does work out, but...
In a statement, the company, the Pentagon's largest supplier, said it would build and test a compact fusion reactor in less than a year, and build a prototype in five years.
So we're down to 5 years out instead of the standard 10 years out that it's been for the last 30 years. Progress!
Edit: And I'm guessing the way this actually creates electricity is still the same "heat water to steam that turns a turbine" way that fision and coal power uses to make electricity? Is there any viable way to get away from that method of turning energy into electricity?
We're really, really good at turning steam into electricity, though. The only form of power I can think of that isn't just "turn kinetic energy of some form into electricity via huge turbines" is solar.
Very promising and I hope it really does work out, but...
In a statement, the company, the Pentagon's largest supplier, said it would build and test a compact fusion reactor in less than a year, and build a prototype in five years.
So we're down to 5 years out instead of the standard 10 years out that it's been for the last 30 years. Progress!
Edit: And I'm guessing the way this actually creates electricity is still the same "heat water to steam that turns a turbine" way that fision and coal power uses to make electricity? Is there any viable way to get away from that method of turning energy into electricity?
We're really, really good at turning steam into electricity, though. The only form of power I can think of that isn't just "turn kinetic energy of some form into electricity via huge turbines" is solar.
Yea and note that I think those mirror farms that reflect sunlight to a point to boil water to make steam are more efficient than the panels. Basically we know how to spin magnets really well. I think the only other game in town is the photoelectric effect which we have more problems with.
Edit: And I'm guessing the way this actually creates electricity is still the same "heat water to steam that turns a turbine" way that fision and coal power uses to make electricity? Is there any viable way to get away from that method of turning energy into electricity?
A peltier junction is one way to generate electricty from heat, but that requires a thermal gradiant to work. The reactor generates a lot of heat so you need to cool the outside and water is generally the best way to do that. Now you might as well capture some work out of that steam generation by hooking it up to a turbine. But if you require the cooling whether you use a peltier or not and are going to use the steam turbines anyway, why complicate things with the added peltier junction layer when the materials it's made of won't last as long as a simple metal casing. Plus a peltier generates DC vs a turbines AC.
I've heard of a couple other ways they're thinking of for direct electrical generation, but I don't remember the details. I suspect with current tech the efficiencies are probably a lot lower than steam generators too.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Very promising and I hope it really does work out, but...
In a statement, the company, the Pentagon's largest supplier, said it would build and test a compact fusion reactor in less than a year, and build a prototype in five years.
So we're down to 5 years out instead of the standard 10 years out that it's been for the last 30 years. Progress!
Edit: And I'm guessing the way this actually creates electricity is still the same "heat water to steam that turns a turbine" way that fision and coal power uses to make electricity? Is there any viable way to get away from that method of turning energy into electricity?
There are ways to harvest the ions (and the X-rays produced by bremsstrahlung when those ions deflect the electrons in the plasma). OTOH, much of the energy produced by the fusion reactions in question is in the form of high energy neutrons, which pretty much convert to heat (or breeding tritium, if you want that). So not having a thermal generator would just be throwing away all that energy. While there are fusion reactions that don't produce much (or any) neutron radiation, they are some combination of stupidly hard, extremely inefficient, or they require fuel from, like, Saturn.
Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire told reporters.
I should point out that I have no context for how mind-blowing this may or may not be.
As far as how mindblowing working fusion is, it could pretty much solve all our energy-related problems simultaneously.
Really the big thing about that article is that the unit could efficiently be a reasonable size (trailer sized) instead of like enormous sized (football stadium) so a ramp up into actual power production would not take decades to get your product on line.
So question about fusion reactors.
Say your magnetic containment of the plasma fails. How much energy is in there at any given moment? Are we just gonna blow up the reactor, or the whole building, or the whole block, or the whole city?
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Posts
12% is pretty bad for anything besides bottom of the barrel panels from China. I'd hope Tesla is going for something more in the 18-22% range, not that it makes much difference in the final calculation.
Exotic geometries or materials can get you into the 40s, but those are way too expensive for anything besides spacecraft at the moment.
Can we work on making it not an ecological disaster of a plant too? I'm cool with nuking it's genome until it needs less fertilizer and pesticides too.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
http://time.com/3422475/russia-moon/
I'm all for Space Race 2.0 and hope that NASA gets some spite-funding out of this.
Russia suddenly cares about treaties?
There is, but it's kind of like the Antarctic treaty where if anyone was actually technologically capable of extracting the resources from them they would claim it. The treaty in question does give the power to regulate industry in space though, hence the upcoming ASTEROIDS act: http://www.spacepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AsteroidsActHR5063.pdf
Project Orion and all that?
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
I was expecting "ASTEROIDS" to be some clunky acronym for something. I was not disappointed!
Hey as far as congressional bacronyms go it's pretty good! Only one omitted 'for' and the rest of it makes logical sense.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
The funniest thing is that "Space" is used twice
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/oct/13/dark-matter-could-light-up-giant-mirror
A photon with non-zero mass is kind of mind blowing. It wouldn't propagate at the speed of light and it would travel through time.
Can anyone wrap their head around this?
The whole dark matter thing is pretty bizarre to me. The idea that we can't detect 85% of the matter in the universe is so strange. I mean if dark matter does exist, and there is 5 to 6 times more of it than what we call conventional matter, doesn't that by definition make "conventional matter" (and us by extension) the exotic matter of the universe?
Is it just a case of there being something like a square root in an equation somewhere, and the end results of the negative roots are named after there positive cousins? So they're kind of fitting the same sort of parts of an equation as their light variants whilst being nothing alike?
It's probably just a simplification to make it easier to describe how it interacts with other particles. Kind of like how a Muon is similar to an Electron, but heavier (though still baryonic unlike dark matter is thought to be) and it interacts with its corresponding heavy baryons much like an Electron would. The interaction is still somewhat different from an Electron due to a Muon's increased mass.
From what I understand, the leading hypothesis for dark matter proposes supersymmetric particles that don't interact with normal matter electromagnetically, only gravitationally.
They think they're so smart but they didn't carry the 2 and now they think there's 85% of the universe missing.
Probably it's something that will seem mundane in retrospect that's just very difficult to detect right now.
There are 2 really big stars off to the left of everywhere we've been looking.
This argument comes up every single time a brown dwarf is discovered within 20 lightyears of Earth.
And it's wrong - it's wrong by virtue of wildly underestimating that mass scales as a cube of volume. Brown dwarf stars are very small, and very light. But it was predicted all the way back in the 70s or so that maybe a large amount of "cold" regular matter would explain galactic missing mass. The problem is, galactic missing mass is a 100:1 problem, so the sheer quantity of cold regular objects would have to be vast, and somehow not heating up. And all these lighter objects are exponentially less massive then regular stars, so you'd have exponentially more of them to make up the difference - i.e. you'd have 1000s of brown dwarfs within 10-20 lightyears of Earth.
And that's the thing: we know how we detect cold regular objects at a distance. We observe them occluding brighter objects. The fact we can is a triumph, and the fact we still make surprise discoveries is exciting, but to explain the missing mass of galaxies you'd have so many of these objects out there that you'd be detecting them all the time and they wouldn't stay as uniformly distributed as dark matter has (since when they collide, they wouldn't pass through each other harmlessly).
it is probably three stars, and they're behind us but we won't notice until we close the medicine cabinet.
http://www.space.com/3319-astronomers-create-3d-map-dark-matter.html
My favorite alternate explanation is that the gravity from galaxies in other universes is bleeding through into ours and giving the illusion of dark matter. It's elegant in that it explains the weakness of gravity and the existence of dark matter.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Lockheed Martin says Fusion Power is a go.
I should point out that I have no context for how mind-blowing this may or may not be.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
So we're down to 5 years out instead of the standard 10 years out that it's been for the last 30 years. Progress!
Edit: And I'm guessing the way this actually creates electricity is still the same "heat water to steam that turns a turbine" way that fision and coal power uses to make electricity? Is there any viable way to get away from that method of turning energy into electricity?
I'm suspicious. Who cares about the size of the reactor? IIRC they were only just able to create a fusion reactor that actually generated more
energy than it took to fuse the atoms in the first place. And even then only technically. Energy out was more than the energy in from the lasers they used, but the energy into the lasers was far more than out of the reactor.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Articles about new technology love to talk about how small things are. And it's called the 'compact fusion experiment', so they probably feel compelled to mention its relative compactness. Of course they don't mention how much shielding the thing will need or how heavy it will be, so I doubt they're going to be riding around on flatbeds.
In any case, the article says that the reactors are 10 years away, which is always exactly how far fusion power is. Not that I wouldn't love for power-producing fusion reactors to actually exist, I just refuse to get my hopes up about it anymore.
I mean, go go fusion. I hope they keep pouring money into researching it.
But until we can fuse 1-Hydrogen they're still all running on scarce resources and not going to solve our energy problems.
Apparently 2-Hydrogen is not as rare as I thought. Like 150ppm in ocean water is a lot of fucking deuterium.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Much better article on it: http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details
We're really, really good at turning steam into electricity, though. The only form of power I can think of that isn't just "turn kinetic energy of some form into electricity via huge turbines" is solar.
Yea and note that I think those mirror farms that reflect sunlight to a point to boil water to make steam are more efficient than the panels. Basically we know how to spin magnets really well. I think the only other game in town is the photoelectric effect which we have more problems with.
A peltier junction is one way to generate electricty from heat, but that requires a thermal gradiant to work. The reactor generates a lot of heat so you need to cool the outside and water is generally the best way to do that. Now you might as well capture some work out of that steam generation by hooking it up to a turbine. But if you require the cooling whether you use a peltier or not and are going to use the steam turbines anyway, why complicate things with the added peltier junction layer when the materials it's made of won't last as long as a simple metal casing. Plus a peltier generates DC vs a turbines AC.
I've heard of a couple other ways they're thinking of for direct electrical generation, but I don't remember the details. I suspect with current tech the efficiencies are probably a lot lower than steam generators too.
As far as how mindblowing working fusion is, it could pretty much solve all our energy-related problems simultaneously.
Say your magnetic containment of the plasma fails. How much energy is in there at any given moment? Are we just gonna blow up the reactor, or the whole building, or the whole block, or the whole city?
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
It's lockheed martin's skunkworks, too
They have a reputation for solving impossible tasks
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy