monophonic

I would go with what @JoeSchmuckatelli said for starters. By googled numbers your voltage stabilizer should be perfectly fine. However your graphics card alone is capable of exhausting the "pure power" rating (whatever that means) of your PSU and any distortions in the output can really do a number on computer stability. A higher rated PSU would give a reasonable margin here. I would be extremely wary of increasing house voltage without knowing the quality of wiring you have in your walls. On the same thought if your computer is capable of significantly pulling down the voltage I would be worried about the wires condition. Are you on a national power grid or does your electricity come from a small scale solar or other setup? Is your wall voltage on the 110V or 230V range? What fuse value (amps) do you have for the circuit in the house electric cabinet? As @StrandedonEarth said a UPS basically functions as a voltage stabilizer too. So don't use another stabilizer with a UPS unless you need one to protect the finer electronics a UPS has. Since your computer didn't just fizzle out when you used it without the stabilizer that shouldn't be an issue.

If you could post some links and/or information about the equipment in question, especially the voltage stabilizer, we could give better guesses. Computers can and have been especially sensitive to voltage instability so I believe your first conclusion was correct, the unstable voltage caused the computer to seize. The voltages you mention are well matched, but unfortunately that is only half the story. The second problem then, I guess the voltage regulator is not capable of supplying all of the power your new computer uses during heavy rendering. The output power (in Watts) of the regulator must equal or exceed the power draw (in Watts) of the computer or problems will occur during heavy work. A UPS per se has the exact same requirement, however depending on where you buy from they may be available with higher output power ratings. The power ratings should be written near the voltage values on your regulator and PSU.

There is a reason most APS only carry enough ammunition for 2-4 engagements. The APS destroying the incoming projectile does not completely vaporize it. The remains of the destroyed weapon rain on the tank and mounted equipment - such as the APS itself. They tend to not get more intercepts done before the shrapnel rain breaks them up. Last week is certainly a big wake-up call, but at least some in the US Army have been awake before. I know they have been training with a friendly nation on how to employ said light formations (Stryker battalion on at least one exercise) against armored peer opponent. And learn they have. RPG-30 fires a small precursor projectile to trigger the APS and allow the main projectile get through before the APS is ready to engage again. Some top attack missiles (like NLAW and TOW-2B) use EFPs (explosive formed penetrators) to attack the roof of the tank. Some anti-armor munitions (SADARM, SMArt, BONUS, Sensor Fuzed Weapon) use the same possibly from considerable altitude. At least SADARM and SFW have been used operationally with success in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. You are absolutely right about the incessant race between the weapon and counter-weapon. MBT like the manned fighter jet has been announced dead several times yet both still form the backbone of any competent armed force. Your guess is correct. There is plenty of photographic evidence by now to prove it. Javelin - or any other top attack tandem HEAT weapon - will just punch through the "cage" with the precursor charge and pierce the thin roof armor with the primary charge. Even a single HEAT may actually have better penetration detonating at the cage rather than the armor surface. That's because a nose long enough for optimal stand-off distance would be cumbersomely long. An ERA tiling between the cage and the turret roof might change things a little - but is not a very good idea for other reasons, since the main route into and out of the tank is there. Battle carrier did not pan out in the maritime context and it is not optimal in the land context either. The solution is to operate your troop carrier as what it really is - a lightly protected battlefield taxi that dismounts its planes, eh, infantry out in a safe position. So 5 in that picture. 5/6 can work as long as you remember to dismount before contact with the enemy and operate the IFV as an assault gun during the combat. Never dismount under fire - unless you have been immobilized in which case its bailing out, not dismounting.

Keep in mind few of those cargos were destined to an airport either - i.e. not a good idea to build a huge wind turbine right next to one. Some land transport costs would have been included anyway. Manufacturers are easier to relocate close to key shipping exchanges - that does not mean easy though. Other manufacturer closer to a seaport might pick up the contract that the one near the airport had previously. So the cost hikes are moderated by there being other suppliers and project locations whose costs did not depend on the availability of Mriya. Timeline impacts might be more significant - sea transport is cheap but slow.

Others have covered most aspects already, but I'll add some tidbits. RBS-70 warhead has a small HEAT component primarily meant against the armour on attack helicopters. Regardless it can also penetrate lightly armored vehicles like the BMP-2. As a laser beamrider it is also trivial to guide at ground targets. Also the reciprocal approach exists. The Javelin anti-tank missile has a direct attack mode for attacking buildings, tanks under cover e.g. bridges, or too close for the top attack mode. In that mode it can also be fired at and hit low flying helicopters. Shooting ground targets at night was tested in Vietnam with 1st gen Sidewinders too. Modern tank engines are protected against incendiary weapons so they are unlikely to get set on fire by Molotov's let alone small HE charge like in a MANPAD. Like already said the weakest part is the crew: scare them and they might retreat. Next comes the tracks and optics. Fun fact: The original R-3 was so close a copy of the AIM-9B that you could take apart an example of both, randomly mix the subassemblies from them and end up with a fully functioning missile. After all, why try to fix perfection?

They could probably bring those in the same piers the F9 boosters are brought back by the landing barges so no big issues with sea transport. Road transports, possibly doable but that would be very special load. So would require a lot of dismantling road signs, light posts etc. and putting them back in after the transport has passed. SpaceX also had plans and even started building some prototypes at the Cape as well, but I haven't followed up on those developments so don't know what's happening with them.

A lot of niche markets tend to be served by people's personal projects. A lot of those projects never turn any profit either. That's all the more reason a niche market might get served by a repurposed project from another niche. I doubt the An-225 ever recouped its development costs either. Of course China just might decide they want to one up the Mriya and build an even larger cargo plane just to show they can. I don't see much market for multiple airframes at that size, so that would be it for any other ideas. No matter how fantastical. Of course there is a lot of nuance involved. But still only the 747 (that I'm aware of) can have the nose door that allows loading very long items. Outside dedicated transport aircraft obviously. I was interested only in the (very) niche loads that are too long even for an An-124 yet wide and/or tall enough that a 747 cannot swallow them. Maybe 1-2 of those per year at most? Usually they travel by sea but every once in a long while someone needs one in a hurry. Yeah, I know I am overly interested in these weird corner cases and such... That's the privilege of not being actually involved in the business in any way. I can fulfill my morbid curiosities at will without letting reality get in the way. Note that I am not advocating doing any one thing or another at all. Just musing about what might come to pass should someone decide to fork out a pallet or three full of cash.

The real selling point of the Mriya was never the mass of the cargo, but dimensions. Not many other aircraft types can transport anything longer than c.37 meters, and none at over 6 meters wide. There aren't that many of loads that absolutely require that volume, I know. That's why there ever was one Mriya and even that one mostly transported smaller things, cargoes that a pair of Ruslans would have handled just as well. But when someone absolutely needs that humongous paper machine part moved from one side of the planet to the other side and is losing millions every hour that passes until it is installed, they are willing to pay a premium for a supersize plane. That's the niche where An-225 earned its reputation. The Stratolaunch absolutely should be capable of landing with its payload. Things don't always go as planned. It would suck to be the pilot when the rocket refuses to launch and won't detach either, if landing with a hung store was not an option. Customers don't like if their expensive satellites explode, let alone get dropped in the ocean either. If anything the bigger issue is whether the hardpoint is capable of carrying the requisite mass to haul even low density supersize cargo. Wikipedia says 250 tons, or on par with the Mriya. That would have to include the pod, but otherwise should be ok. Range might be severely limited compared, though. Only 1200nm to launch point so double that to 2400nm for point to point. That's barely enough to cross the Atlantic via the shortest route. And that was with a supposedly quite aerodynamic if heavy payload attached. A bulky cargo pod will add a lot of drag even if it isn't heavy. Did I mention the plane is also busy supporting the hypersonic development program? You won't get very good cargo haulers out of passenger planes either. The only reason the 747 makes such a great freighter is because it was the opposing proposal in the competition that produced the C-5 Galaxy. Boeing built in the design good passenger qualities as a hedge, which proved very fortunate when they did lose the competition. You can't install a cargo loading door at the front or back of the A380. The airframe integrity just cannot handle hinges and latches replacing solid plating. Those features have to be built in from the beginning. Well, whatever happens, something will eventually fill that niche. Things have a tendency to happen when a lot of money is on the line. Waiting for that let's hope for peace to prevail.

Then again there's no mass market for air launch platforms, yet the Stratolaunch Roc exists. There is a niche market for oversize cargo airplanes, or the Mriya wouldn't have flown after 1994. Now the Roc has not made any profit and by all likelihood never will even launch any operational payloads. The case may very well be that the market for An225 size cargo is too limited to pay for building a new airframe or even completing the second fuselage. Making a new design with modern tools may end up being cheaper, or not. I can even imagine the cargo market getting served by the Roc carrying the items in a huge pod where the rocket was supposed to be. That would be almost poetic, a lost aborted space program relic being replaced with another, completely different aborted space program relic.

Does anyone know anything about the incomplete second fuselage? The one China was interested in to have completed with their funds and possibly even buy the rights to build more themselves? I expect that, assuming it survives, it would be the starting point for the rebuild. Wikipedia puts it at 60%-70% complete.

Interesting - I think all of those issues have been mostly solved by the tram industry. Of course trams have much higher weight and financial budgets so the e.g. the weight issue may simply be moot for them - and the cost obviously is. Maybe the carmakers have already looked there for solutions and found that those solutions do lie outside the limits of regular road vehicles?

Assuming the Sun does not glare them out within whatever optics (incl. Mk1 Eyeball) you are using, they should be visible. Block the Sun behind a disc or edge of the window or whatever and you should see the stars just fine.

Now you got it!

An inactive layer of fuel surrounding the fusion reaction should handle those sufficiently. That would automatically supply the reaction with new fuel as it is consumed, which is a nice bonus. Here, I dug up some concept art for you so you might better understand my proposal: Type Zero might be close enough.

May I propose autogravitational confinement? Use enough of the fusion fuel that the gravitational pull of the fuel itself will keep the fusion process confined. It might be necessary to build this in space to minimize interference from the Earth's gravity. Then we would need to transmit the generated power via radiation. Might need large fields of receiver arrays to keep the volumetric intensity of the beam safe to birds and aircraft that happen to pass through.

Nothing beats studded tires on well maintained roads. But I get the feeling you were asking about off road travel instead. I am not a practitioner myself, but every example I see points towards tracks as the optimally balanced solution. Rubber tracked articulated vehicles can achieve decent speeds on roads without destroying the paving as a bonus. They are surprisingly common in the militaries around the arctic region. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracked_articulated_vehicle

That's the second step overall. Laser-based self protection systems are already operational, but most physical harm they can inflict is if they manage to burn out the IR sensors of the incoming missiles. Mostly they are designed to dazzle and/or confuse the seeker. High energy systems capable of physically damaging the missile's airframe, like the SHiELD you mention, are indeed coming up but not operational quite yet. I count them as the second generation of self defence lasers. They will be quite useful against small drones not really worth a missile shot too.

Yes. The external pressure to let the chest breathe against the high internal overpressure used to force extra oxygen into the bloodstream. Absolutely not at all like the situation on Mars that has been the discussion, where the internal overpressure is no more than you experience blowing up a party balloon. That is not a problem for a healthy body to handle without external support, remember the body can itself generate that pressure difference without too much effort.

Those suits are for far more than just survival in a low pressure environment. They use pressure to force blood towards the head during high G maneuvers, and also to support the ribcage to contain the overpressure gas mix they breathe to increase the oxygen content of the said blood. Both are done just to maximize the amount of oxygen available to the brain during high Gs. They are very extreme measures for a small gain, but that small gain is the difference between life and death when things come to that.

Firstly, because large-scale air conflict between peers is very rare. Since WW2, only Korea, Falklands, Indo-Pakistani wars, and Iran-Iraq come readily to mind. Of those only Korea had anything like AWACS used in theater. I discount the wars of Israel because while the numbers say "peers" the results are very lopsided. Rest of the candidates either feature only little air warfare or so large imbalance of forces that the AWACS could fly about their mission unthreatened. Secondly, because AWACS are a very high value asset so they are protected accordingly. In case it or anybody else detects an incoming enemy that just might be a threat to the AWACS, everything in range will abandon their current mission to protect the AWACS which itself will move to evade the aggressor. Therefore, as to attack an AWACS the enemy needs to commit a very large force against a very large force, a serious attack on an AWACS is barely distinguishable from general offensive counter air warfare. Russia, and Soviet Union in its time, has developed some very long range air-to-air (and lately surface-to-air) missiles. Those have been dubbed "AWACS killers" in public despite being more important for intercepting bombers over the vast swathes of Siberia. Other nations haven't really bothered, and as the Soviets and Russians haven't fought peers since the Sino-Soviet border conflict theirs haven't shown their true effectiveness either. Personally, I believe had the cold war gone hot, plenty of AWACS and other C3I planes would have got shot down on both sides in short order.

That internal overpressure is about what you need to generate to properly blow a party balloon. So that pressure difference is certainly no risk to our ribs. Okay, so a pressure mask and a pressure diaper. Something to keep the water from leaving through skin. How do those pressure suits work? I suppose they are not as bulky as an Apollo suit? Might a rubber jumpsuit suffice? Something akin to a diving dry suit but tighter fit? Or would it have to be too tight to get into? Maybe a gel could help there? Could the moisture in such a gel also help maintain an equilibrium between the water in the skin and between it and the suit? Okay, I don't know what's got into the tap water this time. But clearly there's too much of it. Or not enough. I'll stop asking questions now. For now. Of course to stay upright on the Skylab track their feet had to move at considerably higher velocity than their heads. That can be handled by the human physique and psyche, though, as is obvious.

Usually it is mainly the graphics. Even when I am doing nothing but staring blankly at the screen trying to figure a way out of the mess my civ is in the game is still drawing the display 60 (or whatever fps you are getting) times a second. There are still many animations to draw, like the units' idle fidgeting, animated terrain details, what have you (I haven't actually played any Civ after 3 but these principles have remained the same since the first). On top of that the game engines in use are typically heavily optimized towards fast paced first person shooters (i.e. big money makers) where getting every last drop of performance is king and everything else, including power(=heat production) use optimizations, is subservient to that singular goal. Civ-style turn based grid map games just aren't worth optimizing for as performance is usually sufficient with the brute force approach even on older family use hardware. As GPU calculation methods are getting more and more common, low CPU usage is no longer necessarily indicative of low calculation activity e.g. AI functions or such. High CPU use of course still indicates something is going on.

I think Ariane would have been chosen even if SX/Falcon9/Heavy was an option at the time. It is a long standing European tradition to insist that European funding be piped back to European industries no matter how much cheaper everybody else does it.

Because it is (Amphibious Assault) Ship. I.e. the amphibious part refers to the assault, not the ship itself. The ship is needed to make the assault swim. The boots, tracks and tires the ship vomits at the beach then make the assault crawl. Sometimes the bigger ships don't go to the beach itself, but instead drop smaller ships from their rear ends that proceed to the beach to vomit out the boots etc. The biggest ships can also throw off helicopters that fly to the beach or even farther inland and drop the boots onto the ground. Some even use only helicopters. It is a whole ecosystem out there, with various niches and specialized species of Amphibious Assault Ships to fill those niches! But the assault is always amphibious, because it comes from the sea and goes to the land.

Alternatively the arm and weight could be shaped so that the arm will clear the weight regardless of timing. As we have all three dimensions to work with this should be possible. I think the practical solution could be to split the counterweight into two, one on each side of the counterarm, and placed far enough from the arm itself that distance between the weights will remain more than the payload end mechanisms can safely pass between. For the gun system, I have a vague idea that I just cannot refine, so I'll just drop it here in case someone more knowledgeable might take interest and break apart. I am thinking of a single chamber gun, but not loaded with a truly explosive charge. Instead the grain in the chamber would be not entirely unlike the grain in a solid fuel rocket. Burning slow enough to keep the acceleration on the payload manageable but providing enough gas to keep the pressure up long enough for the payload to reach the maximum velocity attainable. I wonder if such a system might work even on a theoretical basis.