There is more to that than most know, it may not be released. For now it was just an "accidental drill"
There is more to that than most know, it may not be released. For now it was just an "accidental drill"
That site only shows older archived transactions. It constantly changes. This must reference a more recent transaction, not that one
Yeah, it's nice to be appreciated.
If Zuma is an orbital strike weapon, the lancets could not be large like a telephone pole. Maybe like 5 foot hardened rods shot like a bullet, if its not nuclear(too big for rod), how about a little bit of anti-matter. A little goes a long way and would produce a pure bright light in a massive explosion of energy? If these are really targets for a orbital weapon, must be taking out the D.U.M.B. sites these elite bastards have built themselves for "safety". Dunno just a thought, you can buy a lot of refined tech for your platform when your spending a few billion dollars.
Incorrect
Why antimatter bombs more powerful than the atomic bomb?
Atomic bombs convert the binding energy of the nucleus into free energy. The binding energy is part of the mass of the atom (mass=energy), so basically a small part of the total mass is converted into free energy.
On the other hand, in a matter-antimatter collision, all the mass is converted into energy. For a 1kg ball of antimatter being annihilated, we get E=mc2=(1kg+1kg)×c2=1.7×1017JE=mc2=(1kg+1kg)×c2=1.7×1017J
In contrast, Little Boy (The Hiroshima bomb) contained 64kg of uranium, of which only ≈700mg was converted into energy, releasing ≈65×1012J of energy. The strongest atomic bomb (IIRC an H-bomb) created till date was a few thousand times as strong as Little Boy. Still off from the antimatter bomb by a few orders of magnitude.
So we have a 100% mass-to-energy efficiency for antimatter, whereas Little Boy has ≈0.001≈0.001 efficiency. Quite a big difference.