Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

283 Excellent


  • Rank
    Isp * g * ln Mi/Mf = YEET

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sitting in the Lucasian Chair
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

973 profile views
  1. Somebody call the doctor, 'cause my heart just stopped.
  2. I wouldn't be surprised if it really does consume net energy. A safer bet, though, would be bamboo. Or cardboard.
  3. I don't see that. The AF never clarified. Longest US shot previously was an AIM-54, which hit a target drone at 132 mi (212 km). So, it's further than that.
  4. Also, this. I do wonder if this is the longest AAM shot for the US specifically, or worldwide.
  5. Wow, I've never heard those terms before. Learn something new every day!
  6. Aaaaand then there's this: So, don't these hypothetical magic tanks depend on internal pressure to remain strong? There's a difference between tensile strength and compression/load-bearing strength... Edit: Oops, thought my replies would merge.
  7. Totally not Tsircon! Not sure whether this guy even qualifies for layman. Great comedian, though.
  8. This is just Electron, but minus New Zealand It'll be interesting to see if they go anywhere. The three-way symmetry on their larger launcher is an interesting choice. Has it ever been done before?
  9. Oh, heck, no. Any single guy who claims to be outdoing the entire American aerospace industry is a quack, at the least. Cute little linear aerospike on the last one, along with his main tank "oirentation". I don't see mention of a cooling system, either. The SR-71 needed a complex air conditioner system to keep the pilot from cooking. So, for 244 people, at Mach 9... And that "fighter"... A Mach 10 ejection seat alone would be a huge challenge, yeah? But a whole fighter! LOL.
  10. Oh, I thought it was LockMart, BO, and GA separately, not Lockheed and BO/GA. Nevermind, then. And yeah, I know GA well.
  11. I'll bet BO partners with some other company for the nuclear aspect. IDK who...
  12. Oops. I stand corrected. I guess I misread the Wikipedia article.
  13. Nah, I mean 20th. Special Relativity was formulated in ... 1907? *checks Wikipedia* ... Oh, 1905. Still 20th century.
  • Create New...