Jump to content

For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread


Skyler4856

Recommended Posts

Darn, got ninja'd

33 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Okay - new question: what are the vertical - steeply angled tips on aircraft wings called?       (first saw them on SW Airlines upgraded planes, and starting to see them on smaller jets)

How do they affect performance /economy? 

This is a winglet:

1920px-Airbus_A350-941_F-WWCF_MSN002_ble

And a split-tip:

800px-Boeing_737-8_MAX_Belyakov.jpg

As far as I know they are meant to recover some of the wingtip vortices' energy, increase the aspect ratio of the wing, and make the aircraft easier to handle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

went to the Wikipedia page about these - and they've been around a long time.  Why am I just noticing them recently?  

(i.e., I don't remember old SW airlines, or most passenger jets having them)

Its an process to upgrade to them, you only upgrade on refit, also benefit is smaller for short distance flights.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always enjoy watching conspiracy nuts try to explain Skylab. I don't think we ever had anything besides Saturn V that could have put it in orbit.

4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Its an process to upgrade to them, you only upgrade on refit, also benefit is smaller for short distance flights.

I'm actually pretty sure winglets are an even greater boost to efficiency in takeoff and landing than in cruise, but yeah, since fuel is a much smaller fraction of operating cost on short hops, it probably doesn't make as much difference.

It's also worth noting that while some types of winglets can be added in retrofit, some of the fancier ones, with these swooping curves, are both a more recent invention and are much harder to retrofit a plane with, so they only show up on new planes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this control scheme was unique to SpaceX... Looks like there are others using it as well 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_MOAB#/media/File%3AMOABAFAM.JPG

I wondered if SpaceX found this as an 'off the shelf' solution or if they licensed it to the USAF supplier... But then I learned they've been around for years 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_fin

 

Spoiler
Spoiler

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Can't eliminate the empty Spoiler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this moon system possible?

A planet has 7 moons in total (It's not earth or any other planet in solar system), consisting of 1 medium-sized moon (roughly half the size of our moon) and 6 smaller moons (each roughly 10% the size of the first moon). All moons have their own orbit, and there's a period where all moons are visible in the same sky together. The moons are waxing and waning at different rate due to their different rotation and revolution period relative to the planet, resulting in different phases. Let's mark the main moon as A while smaller moons as number 1-6 (observer is at the same spot to be able to see all 7 moons together. A is tidally locked, but 1-6 are not)

The phases are as follows:

Monday: all 7 are present, A is at full moon

Tuesday: 1 is invisible

Wednesday: 1,2 is invisible

Thursday: 1,2,3 is invisible

Friday: 1,2,3,4 is invisible

Saturday: 1,2,3,4,5 is invisible

Sunday: all small moons invisible, A is at crescent moon

Monday: all small moons invisible, A is at new moon

Around every 3 months, all moons are always visible at the same sky at least once

Note: invisible as in "not in the same sky with A"

Edited by ARS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2020 at 6:03 PM, K^2 said:

Which isn't actually correct. Closed timelike curve (CTC) is a feature of GR. Albeit, there is CTC conjecture stating that stable metric allowing for CTC cannot arise from positive definte energy density. Meaning, you need at least some negative energy to go back in time. Two notable pounts here are that it is a conjecture, meaning no complete proof exists, and that it only applies to stable solutions. Unstable solutions to Einstein Field Equations allowing for CTC are known. Naked singularity case of Kerr metric is best known example. So while we're pretty sure you can't create anything stable that permanently allows time travel, catastrophic events allowing for brief window are a definite possibility. Parameters for such hypothetical event are not known, but if Kerr case is anything to go by, something like black hole collision at a minimum.

So, several days ago - in response to a question of mine about time k^2 dropped the CTC info quoted above. 

This kind of info always kind of percolates as I try to improve my understanding of the concepts.  Interestingly I'll often run into other info on the topic, but rarely do I find a new paper purporting a change in the current understanding. 

 

This one does:   https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/aba4bc

 

 

Spoiler

Previous research has proposed a framework for deterministic, reversible, dynamics compatible with non-trivial time travel, where observers in distinct regions of spacetime can perform arbitrary local operations with no contradiction arising. However, only scenarios with up to three regions have been fully characterised, revealing only one type of process where the observers can verify to both be in the past and future of each other. Here we extend this characterisation to an arbitrary number of regions and find that there exist several inequivalent processes that can only arise due to non-trivial time travel. This supports the view that complex dynamics is possible in the presence of CTCs, compatible with free choice of local operations and free of inconsistencies

I'm still grinding through it - but I thought I would share this to anyone interested 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible for a planet to have atmospheric cloud so thick that even orbital radar imaging cannot map it's surface feature (or at least obscure it's high resolution image)? With the only way to observe it is by sending probe down there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ARS said:

Is it possible for a planet to have atmospheric cloud so thick that even orbital radar imaging cannot map it's surface feature (or at least obscure it's high resolution image)? With the only way to observe it is by sending probe down there?

Hm. I think we should go the oblique way. You see, some radio waves are actually quite sensitive to atmospheric moisture, but we've long since learnt to solve that problem.

The Soviets worked on using ionized particles in air or vacuum as a short-term shield against radar and lasers. If you're somehow able to arrange for carbon nanoparticles, you might have a workable "stealth planet".

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3536/1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DDE said:

The Soviets worked on using ionized particles in air or vacuum as a short-term shield against radar and lasers. If you're somehow able to arrange for carbon nanoparticles, you might have a workable "stealth planet".

That's what I'm thinking: A planet with atmospheric condition that renders it impenetrable by radio waves and optical sensors, essentially creating a stealth planet where any orbital observation of it's surface feature is impossible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the one planet in The Hitchhiker's series surrounded by such a cloud?    The planet was the one they built the great cricket (Oh yeah the planet was Krikkit!) gate to keep it isolated cause they tried to conquer obliterate the universe.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps if you were at the correct latitude and strapped into a chair that restricted head movement for 10 years... Maybe... But given that you are constantly reorienting throughout the day... 

Nah. 

 

That's one of those 'when you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebras things' (iow - there are much more plausible causes - like the same process that drives fingerprints) 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...