p1t1o

Members
  • Content Count

    2,868
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,275 Excellent

3 Followers

About p1t1o

  • Rank
    Just some guy, y'know?

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

5,754 profile views
  1. Do we have any handle on how many satellites could be destroyed in this way before we run a strong risk of a runaway Kessler? Closer to 10 or 100 or 1000? Or is it an unknown? Seems to me that specifically targetting and depleting an observation or navigation constellation would be quite difficult, especially if there are spares available for rapid launch. But a random turkey shoot until space is denied to all might be easier to achieve. Makes it a "MAD" arms race between superpowers mirroring the cold war and thus a fairly familiar thing, countries going through the motions.
  2. F117's design was highly limited by computattional techniques and lack of raw processing power. Once computers were good enough, curved, more aerodynamic designs were possible. There are internal structural features (such as the famous "re-entrant triangles") but you won't find an f117 under the skin of a b2 or f35. Stealth capability and radar signiture tracks very well with technological progress, essentially, newer aircraft are better at it. Hence f35 more stealthy than f22. Stealth always a trade-off, f22 or 35 could easily be made more stealthy, but at cost of speed, range,anouverability etc etc
  3. Question: How thick/thin a shell of neutronium would be required to stop 6Gy of radiation?
  4. What exactly is the resolution limit of the average human retina? Like minimum arc length discernible. Assuming sufficient contrast.
  5. I mean, any missile can be detonated on the launchpad for a range of 0m, or rolled down a hill for a range of several tens of metres, but more realistically: There are ways to manage the energy provided by a solid booster, and methods to shut them off before total burn-out have been devised, but as it happens, minimum range of an ICBM is decided largely by structural integrity. Google "depressed trajectory". This is a tactic whereby a submarine would park close to the target and launch its SLBMs on a shallow trajectory, reducing flight time to very low (for ICBMs) values. This allows various tactical options, as you could imagine for short time-of-flight weapons. Decapitation strikes for example, or the more extreme "pop off nukes in a steady stream over their ICBM fields to prevent their launch (or nuking the silos again and again to guarantee destruction of very hard targets) until you have nuked their entire country into dust", as well as simply reducing the time for defences to react - especially as this type of trajectory also makes them largely immune to exo-atmospheric intercept and vastly reduces the time available for endo-atmospheric interception. The problem here is that ICBMs are designed for maximum range with maximum payload, and thus are designed to withstand the forces of that kind of flight - ie: suborbital ballistic flight through vacuum with a short boost phase and minimal atmospheric flight. Shorter ranges require the weapon to fly for much longer through the atmosphere and are also required to perform much harder (for an ICBM) manouvres. This means that the weapon must be strong enough to resist increased atmospheric heating and drag in the boost as well as stronger transverse aerodynamic forces. The more robust the weapon, the shallower trajectory it can fly, and thus the shorter range it can be reliably targetted. Thus, minimum range is largely decided by structural integrity. Further reading: http://www.scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs03gronlund.pdf
  6. Reminds me of "Brazil" by Terry Gilliam - a dark, dystopic, high-technology future where the main enemy is...poor adminsitration.
  7. @sevenperforce Oof. No other way to put it. Hang in there bud, we're all rooting for you, whatever happens.
  8. T4 is one of my faves, with the nose up its lines are unlike anything else. And I especially like how the windscreen, with the nose down, looks like it was ripped straight from a Diesel train locomotive. Very Russian.
  9. Went on a skydiving training thing once - didnt end up doing a jump because of weather , but I did learn one thing - skydivers make quite a lot of noise. At one point were were able to watch from the ground as a group did a freefall jump, and we could see them fall from the plane. As they fell, you could hear a quite prominent "tearing" noise that was the noise they made as the moved through the air. Funny the things you think (or that movies make you think) are quiet. Bows, for example (as in bow-and-arrow) make quite a loud noise when shot too - like plucking an enormous guitar string. The well-known Ju87 Stuka famously had sirens installed on the aircraft itself, so that it made a noise whilst on its attack dive, the so-called "Jericho-Trompete", which is a very recognisable sound from WWII movies. This has led to another movie-trope where any diving aircraft in any context would make an ascending siren-like wail.
  10. I had some of those chocolate covered giant ants. They werent very nice. Not in a gross way, just it was like eating a small ball of those shards of popcorn-kernel-skin that get stuck in your teeth, that tasted like soil.
  11. Im not sure exactly, but I imagine it is to do with various gas-dynamic and thermal issues with flushing cryogenic gases through hot metal parts, in variable external pressure conditions, with turbopumps that have just been in some quite horrific conditions. I think engines have to be specifically designed to be re-startable (and even then its not as easy as on/off/on/off). Parts are designed to be used under certain conditions, like temperatures, pressures and mechanical stresses - and a steady-state is much easier to withstand than a variable state. The answer may be as simple as it was not designed to be reusable because it was not required and to save weight. Only after some very extensive refurbishing, and only for a few flights per engine.
  12. It's take me a while to type out a full treatment, but here are some hints that helped me understand, maybe it'll unfold something in your head: The key is the values of potential and kinetic energy of the ship(total), the fuel and the exhaust. And that the Oberth effect does not involve any extra energy from any source.
  13. My opinion on "unpopular": "Unpopular" is a word that should mean "not like a lollipop" That is my unpopular opinion.
  14. @Snark Is there any way that you could moderate the entire internet please? Maybe a massive cloning operation?
  15. Been watching "Dark" recently?