monophonic

Yes. Traditional ballistic missiles have tried to maximize range by lobbing the warhead in a high ballistic trajectory. This means the warhead is relatively slow at the midcourse phase. HGV trades range to minimize time-to-target. The booster tips over very hard very early and pushes the warhead to very high horizontal velocity while still in the lower atmosphere. Mid-course interceptors are useless here because the exoatmospheric kill vehicle has no aerodynamic cover and thus cannot even survive flight inside the atmosphere. Traditional ballistic missiles could be used in a similar fashion. This is called depressed trajectory. HGV "just" optimizes the warhead for this profile and usually provides it with some maneuverability at the same time.

Dozer blades on battle tanks have mostly been superceded. Rollers have much less resistance while protecting the tank itself, allowing the tank to retain its mobility. Mine and obstacle clearance has been mostly delegated to the specialized engineering vehicles with their dozers and explosive ropes. What clearance MBTs need to do they can do with their main gun and regular or specialized HE rounds, but mainly with the mechanized infantry hauling demolition charges.

Oh... ok... that one's gonna be far away. Considering the sampling rates required to retain phase information alone the data rates are just insane. Nyquist frequencies for visible light go into the petahertz. A digitizing device needs to run at a some multiple of that, and we have taken two decades to get from 3GHz to 6GHz. 6-7 levels of magnitude to go. Not to mention we don't have sensors that can sample combined waveforms at those wavelengths either. Do we even have any idea how such a sensor could work?

A very interesting approach. It feels like your approach would share a lot of traits with radix sort. But the ability to tweak the curve to fit the expected data set might provide an advantage in some uses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_sort

The "some day" of point number 3 is well into the past. ELT even belongs to the same organisation that operates the VLTI and building the former was started over 10 years after the latter saw first light. Therefore we can safely conclude that interferometry is not a panacea that makes singular telescopes unviable and point 3 is thus invalid. https://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/paranal-observatory/vlt/vlti/ Point 1 will always be true, but it may simply result in exponentially increasing time between new largest telescopes getting built.

And the latest info, at least where I live, says even that is only a concern for people under forty or so. Because if you are older than that, you will die of old age well before any cancer can develop from the iodine radiation. True or not, it's nice to be told there's an actual advantage to aging...

Oh well, the Argentine claims were public and known at that time. So, he failed the "strategic value" check. Same for channel islands, smack right in the middle of one of the busiest shipping routes in the region. Prompt radiation is radiation from the initial blast itself. Had Fukuryu Maru been close enough to suffer from that, it would have been detected and the test stopped until the range was clear. Delayed radiation from the fallout is a completely different beast. Especially deadly is breathing or swallowing radioactive gases or fine particles from the fallout, as the worst direction to have radiation hit your body is from the inside. Fukuryu Maru and crew got a generous serving of that thanks to winds blowing the fallout right on top of them.

Although, for this purpose, is it really necessary to maintain beam coherence at the sail? Does it matter if the photons hitting it are of different energy levels or arrive from slightly different directions? Without strict coherence requirement using large arrays of many smaller lasers should work just as fine. Something that's still a vast industrial undertaking, but within our technological capabilities. This would also help with reliability, as any single laser failing would only take out a fraction of a percent of the total thrust. Power generation and distribution can also be designed with redundancies, just by using the same principles our current power grid uses.

Probably technically doable. Also, given the required set-up times for rocket launches, it is probably much quicker to just charter a bizjet to Brownsville and take company car from there. Also, given the flight path goes right over Orlando International, impossible to get FAA permit for a rocket hop.

Until someone figures out how to make ICs out of the stuff at least. Unless I am mistaken is there a chance a room temperature superconductor, even if ceramic and limited to low currents, would allow building non-cryogenic quantum computers. Or very least a quantum leap in CPU/GPU power efficiency.

Well, you see, 737 MAX had all the documentation, but the hardware did not match the documentation. Boeing paid 2,5 billion USD for that fraud. Certified limits are exactly that, indeed. Especially they don't imply that the device will take any more abuse than certified. It is not rare that it will, but that's only when it is cheaper to put in the extra margin in the design than reduce the variability in the manufacturing process to negligible levels. There is no guarantee that the unit you got will take any extra. Especially not in a small rate niche product manufacturing like deep sea viewport dome windows. Compared to the piles of MacMinis that were dumped in the first year because they just broke down for no discernible reason? Congratulations, you won the hardware lottery! Wanna bet your life on repeating that? How much "Measure" and "Analyze" can you do when your entire production to date is two units of differing designs? Six Sigma is geared for mass production. Submarines are not mass production, deep sea subs especially. There's the proven hostile action against employee who raised safety concerns. There are other bumps on the rug, and that prior example assigns increased probability on those being more dirt. At least we agree on the points that matter. Although I would count covering up lack of measures against unknown flaws as criminal too.

I don't think the membrane would have to bear the full pressure. It would just have to cover the water sensitive bit(s) and transfer the force to the backing materials while dissolving slowly. Still hard enough a problem at 3800 meters. Yes, cars are required to have insurances. Yet the emergency services do not just pack up and return to station if at the crash site it turns out the car did not have an insurance. Putting human life above any financial concerns is a moral choice, and I am well aware some people and nations draw a line there at quite varied levels. An untested safeguard does not guard safety. I have no documents on how those were tested, but given the bits that have come to light I am not confident. Worst - and most telling - I think is the "let's routinely operate this hatch window at 300% the certified maximum depth" mindset. I doubt any of the safeguards had been properly end-to-end tested, definitely not at real operating conditions i.e. from 3800 meters depth. That would have required multiple trips to that depth and sitting there until the safeguards bring the sub to the surface. At least one trip per combination of safeguards required to trigger for an ascent to get forced. As long as everything they say to get you sign said waiver is 100% true, that's ok. As soon as something deviates from truth that waiver becomes evidence of foul intent. Do you think they wrote in the waiver that they totally dismissed 60 year old safety lessons and operate safety critical hull pieces way outside their certified operating conditions? I doubt anyone in that sub was at all aware of what they were really doing - least of all the CEO.

I hear and the captions read them talking about the landing sequence. It would actually make sense as the spacecraft would pass approximately over the Eye (guesstimated) one orbit before the planned splashdown area in the Atlantic. So seeing the Eye would somewhat accurately match to a specific stage in the landing sequence and predict splashdown in less than two hours.

Those people are an entire subculture here. Still alive although it peaked in the eighties to nineties timeframe. We also have a particular type. On say an 80km/h road to 100km/h road interchange they slow to 60km/h before switching to the ramp lane then keep that speed until after joining the faster road. I think they are mostly older drivers, which explains the timidity, but still...

To be honest, I gave a far more juvenile chuckle at something in that sentence in particular... A jacketed bullet might hold itself together better. One example pointing at that is the famous bullet cross from Gallipoli, although that one probably wasn't a midair collision. https://steemit.com/photography/@dat1729/two-collided-bullets-from-the-battle-of-gallipoli-1915-16

Fiberglass tape is commonly used in construction to cover seams and patch holes in plasterboard. It helps keep the filling putty in place and gives strength to the patch. Someone may have been trying to save money or just did not understand the difference between construction and spacecraft tape.

GDPR is thankfully technology agnostic and holds the leaking company as the responsible party. So I am covered even when AI gains citizenship and is considered employee instead of tool. Of course the companies can't be bothered before the compensations make the first big one go under. Completely foreseeable economic repercussions? They don't exist without an exact precedent. /s Also,

From what I can find Roc has Pratt&Whitney blowers and Cosmic Girl runs on GE windmills. So pretty much only some of the wing mechanisms possibly remain the same between the two aircraft. No much point buying a whole aircraft to use such a tiny part of it for parts.

Indeed the originators don't list efficiency in the pros box in their brochure. Noise levels and 3D printability are the most important ones in my layman's opinion. https://www.ll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/other/doc/2023-02/TVO_Technology_Highlight_41_Toroidal_Propeller.pdf

You forgot about only 140 protocols that are currently defined in the standards. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IP_protocol_numbers for the list. Granted many of those are mainly used by trunk connection providers and others have quite esoteric uses, but UDP is very much used for various purposes. Most peoples' wifi routers configure their devices using DHCP, and DNS service translates familiar server names to IP addresses required for routing the traffic. Both work on top of UDP (although secure DNS using protocols on top of TCP is taking over lately). Most taxing use of UDP consumers typically interact with would be high performance online gaming, which fits your description nicely. TCP abstracts away the packet nature of IP and guarantees two-way delivery of a stream of bytes in order and without gaps. It is by far more common of the two because most purposes do need that reliability, like you say, and proper security is easier to implement on top of it. Basically you just use TLS and that covers encryption and authentication out of the box for you. Of course similar protocols exist for UDP but their support is not quite as ubiquitous as TLS'. The part about the Chinese protocol I just plain agree with you.

Probably more in the lines of "it's an industrial explosive for a civil engineering project, not a weapon." Also I believe the treaty does not prohibit use of nukes as weapons in space, just pre-placing them in orbit for use at an indeterminate later time. Haven't done myself the reading on that one to be sure though.

I could be argued that using a device of a novel design with the explicit secondary purpose of obtaining data on the designs performance would constitute a technical violation of the treaty. Personally, I would consider the risk of primary mission failure due to nonperforming device a much, much more grievous offence. An asteroid redirect mission is important enough that one should always choose a design that can be trusted to give full yield.

Not really an issue with reactive armor as anything with low enough energy to ricochet off the cover plate won't have anywhere near the energy to penetrate even the thinner hull roof armor. The logic behind this arrangement could be to get the back ERA plate to move in the same direction as the penetrator. The resulting lower relative velocity would give the plate more time to feed more material into the penetrator's path and/or increase the plates ability to wear down the penetrator (thanks to it being in effect a lower velocity impact than on the opposing velocities situation). Notice the newer arrangements seen are in effect a combination of this and the original, with two plates affixed on the turret (low and high) from one end and each other on the other forming a protruding wedge shape not dissimilar in appearance to the Leopard 2A5+ NERA elements. This in my opinion indicates it doesn't actually matter which way the plate is angled, but a steeper angle is apparently desirable.

With apologies to @Vanamonde, and staying as far away from politics as I can, I must point out the extreme similarity of the crater and debris to the earlier S-300 impact in Poland. I wouldn't trust the initially publicized identification on this one either.