Jump to content

For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread


Skyler4856
 Share

Recommended Posts

I need to add yet another feature: if you are granted immunity, and through your actions have the immunity rescinded...  the government still has to prove its case against you in a subsequent trial.

 

So, Low Level Guy gets arrested and threatened with prosecution.  Prosecutor (Government) offers him immunity in exchange for a commitment to testify against Big Guy at Big Guy's trial.  Low Level Guy accepts and is granted immunity.  He then is deposed (recorded) and may sign Affidavits and other forms of admissible and likely self-incriminating testimony to help the government prepare its case against Big Guy.

At trial of Big Guy, Low Level Guy refuses to testify.  Prosecutor pulls him (and his lawyer) aside and threatens to rescind the grant of immunity and prosecute Low Level Guy.  He isn't (necessarily) automatically going to jail.  Big Guy may get off - especially if Low Level Guy's testimony was critical to the government's case.  What do you think happens to Low Level Guy?

All that previous testimony, Affidavits and other evidence gets used against them in his trial.

Finally, if at trial, Low Level Guy not only refuses to testify against himself - but also proffers testimony that contradicts his prior statements (he lies) in an attempt to exonerate Big Guy... He not only gets tried for his own (prior) crimes for which he was originally indicted... he gets Perjury added to the crimes he's accused of.

Thus - it's likely a slam-dunk for the prosecution against him... but he still has to be tried and has to be convicted for punishment to be levied.  (Unless, through some unlikely turn of events, he is offered and granted a plea agreement (which is an acceptance of a conviction without a trial).)

Final edit: often times grants of immunity are accompanied with a plea to a lesser unrelated charge.  So, the witness granted immunity for big charge in exchange for testimony, still has a conviction, punishment can be stayed by the government while awaiting the testimony... so if they do refuse to testify, rather than waiting to jail the guy after a subsequent trial, he can be jailed immediately for the lesser unrelated conviction... and then brought out for the later trial on the primary charges for which immunity was granted and then rescinded.

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What are the limitations preventing direct satellite transmission of TV or Radio into an area without requiring use of a satellite dish or transceiver?  So that someone with just any old radio or TV can tune in without special additional (and easily spotted/reported) equipment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

What are the limitations preventing direct satellite transmission of TV or Radio into an area without requiring use of a satellite dish or transceiver?  So that someone with just any old radio or TV can tune in without special additional (and easily spotted/reported) equipment?

Probably transmission power and spectrum licensing.

A smaller receiver requires a higher power signal to receive clearly.

I believe part of the transition to digital broadcasting was intended to free up part of the TV spectrum for other uses, so you would probably need a license to broadcast on TV frequencies, and as I think those are regional, you would need a lot of them if you are broadcasting from a satellite(assuming you could find a frequency that is not already licenses in part of your service area).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Terwin said:

Probably transmission power and spectrum licensing.

A smaller receiver requires a higher power signal to receive clearly.

I believe part of the transition to digital broadcasting was intended to free up part of the TV spectrum for other uses, so you would probably need a license to broadcast on TV frequencies, and as I think those are regional, you would need a lot of them if you are broadcasting from a satellite(assuming you could find a frequency that is not already licenses in part of your service area).

Agree,  GPS is in your phone already as it has an very low bandwidth and only one way,  Iridium does not require an satellite is two way and an bulky mobile phone but its not fast. You also have Sirius satellite radio 
Easiest way if one way is to supersize the satellites, 100 ton to GEO with spidertech construction robots could make kilometre sized antennas with an Mw solar panels, if needed do missions to keep the construction robots working. Also small starlink style terminals will get cheaper as all electronic does if mass marked. 
Two ways, thnk starlink but supersized, 8.5 meter diameter and perhaps with fold out antennas. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If time goes infinitely fast around a black hole, does that mean you can fall into a black hole and see how the universe ends?    (Also, from the outside will the person ever fall into the black hole?)

 

Trying to make a black hole mod.

 

P.S.    I am aware that one already exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where can I get access to satellite images updated daily?  Not interested in Google Maps b/c old.  Don't need up to the minute... but would like the ability to look at various places with relatively recent information and clarity.

Does such exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Where can I get access to satellite images updated daily?  Not interested in Google Maps b/c old.  Don't need up to the minute... but would like the ability to look at various places with relatively recent information and clarity.

Does such exist?

Yes, services for this do exist, I don’t know any specifically off the top of my head, but IIRC they’re quite pricey.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tundra said:

If time goes infinitely fast around a black hole, does that mean you can fall into a black hole and see how the universe ends?    (Also, from the outside will the person ever fall into the black hole?)

No, because you get cut off from the Universe by a Schwarzschild bubble. The event horizon is only a symmetric sphere from perspective of someone far away from the black hole and relatively at rest. If you are moving really fast towards the event horizon, it partially retreats, and eventually envelopes you. From the perspective of someone falling in, you never cross the threshold. You always remain "above" the event horizon, but the horizon now surrounds you from every direction. Hence the bubble. This bubble only fully collapses on you as you reach the physical singularity at the center of the black hole, where no observations of any kind are possible.

It might be possible to create a surface with some custom shaders to make it actually look correct, but the math is  somewhat intimidating, and you'll have to come up with clever caching strategies to keep up with the computations.

There are also tidal forces that will destroy any ship heading in before it reaches the singularity. For a stellar mas black hole, that will happen before you even get close to event horizon, but for supermassive black holes, like the one at the center of our galaxy, the tidal forces start out a lot gentler, so you'll be well "inside" the black hole by the time they destroy the ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could MANPADS locks on grounded aircraft? (Either with engine turned on or not) is there a minimum altitude limit where MANPADS couldn't lock to aircraft? and if the missile is heatseeking type, could it be aimed at tanks with running engine to be used as a makeshift (albeit ineffective) AT missile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ARS said:

Could MANPADS locks on grounded aircraft?

There are a bunch of different kinds, but if we're talking about IR-guided ones, they generally don't care about any other objects in the vicinity and just look for the hottest thing in a cone in front of them. That's why they are generally so easy to distract with flares. So if the engine is running or has been running very recently, the missile shouldn't have any trouble locking on.

Some guidance types, especially with older systems, would cause significant wobble in missile's trajectory, so there is a chance that the missile strikes the ground before reaching the target. But this is rather situational. Get a bit of an elevation above the target, and you're basically sorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ARS said:

Could MANPADS locks on grounded aircraft? (Either with engine turned on or not) is there a minimum altitude limit where MANPADS couldn't lock to aircraft? and if the missile is heatseeking type, could it be aimed at tanks with running engine to be used as a makeshift (albeit ineffective) AT missile?

I don't know about tanks specifically, but Soviet R-3S air-to-air missiles (reverse engineered AIM-9B Sidewinder) were capable of being fired at ground targets with a high heat signature, and tests conducted were successful at hitting the target accurately.

That was with 1st generation IR missiles (the ones that regularly flew off towards the sun and had a horrendous performance record in Vietnam), so presumably modern MANPADS could do the same thing. I can't confirm that, however.

EDIT- It should be noted that MANPADS have HE warheads, so it wouldn't do anything to the tank, although maybe if it hits near an exhaust vent, it might set the engine on fire. Again, I can't confirm that, I am just theorizing.

Edited by SunlitZelkova
Thought of something else
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

EDIT- It should be noted that MANPADS have HE warheads, so it wouldn't do anything to the tank, although maybe if it hits near an exhaust vent, it might set the engine on fire. Again, I can't confirm that, I am just theorizing.

Presumably it could at least blow a track off, immobilizing it? But that’s not likely to be where a heat seeker would strike. Could tracks be targeted or “painted” (like a laser designator) by hitting it with a Molotov first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

EDIT- It should be noted that MANPADS have HE warheads, so it wouldn't do anything to the tank, although maybe if it hits near an exhaust vent, it might set the engine on fire. Again, I can't confirm that, I am just theorizing.

Just a note: Depending on the size of the HE warhead, it could score a mission kill on the tank: damaging or disabling the engine, wrecking a tread or suspension component, damaging sensors or vision blocks, etc, even if it is unable to penetrate the armor. And also remember that tanks suffer from poor visibility. They're going to know they got hit with something, but they almost certainly won't know what it was. If that makes them turn around and retreat, you win. So, if you have nothing else, give it a whirl, it won't hurt.

Edit: Ninjaed by SoE. LOL

Edited by TheSaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... shooting a tank with an anti-aircraft missile would not be my first choice.  Better than using a pistol, but still.

Figure that the designers of Anti-Armor and Anti-Aircraft weapons have tailor-made the warheads for the given target.  Typically the Anti-Aircraft weapon just has to get close and go boom.  The Anti-Armor?  Close isn't good enough.*

 

 

 

*I know the caveats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Where can I get access to satellite images updated daily?  Not interested in Google Maps b/c old.  Don't need up to the minute... but would like the ability to look at various places with relatively recent information and clarity.

Does such exist?

I doubt you're going to find any freely-accessible resources. Professionally, I often have a hard time getting good high-res imagery / orthophotography.

There's probably something down this rabbit hole: https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2021/11/09/first-steps-to-getting-started-in-open-source-research/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The Anti-Armor?  Close isn't good enough.*

I saw the asterisk, but I just find it ironic that weapons like NLAWs are specifically designed to "miss".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, K^2 said:

I saw the asterisk, but I just find it ironic that weapons like NLAWs are specifically designed to "miss".

Depends on the definition of of 'hit' I guess.

-- angled explosive jet detonated just so it hits the weakest armor and the turret pops?  Yeah, Tango Down. 

It's developments like this that 'comfort' me about the Marines' decision to stand down Armor. 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Depends on the definition of of 'hit' I guess.

-- angled explosive jet detonated just so it hits the weakest armor and the turret pops?  Yeah, Tango Down. 

It's developments like this that 'comfort' me about the Marines' decision to stand down Armor. 

The first time I heard about top-attack ATGMs was one of those, honest-to-God, "we live in the future" moments for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

EDIT- It should be noted that MANPADS have HE warheads, so it wouldn't do anything to the tank, although maybe if it hits near an exhaust vent, it might set the engine on fire. Again, I can't confirm that, I am just theorizing.

It would have been better if they had "true" HE. Penetrating armor, which isn't strictly required. Let us turn to a comparison test done during the development of the BMP-2: the Soviets pitted an upgrade of the 73 mm rocket-assisted smoothbore gun against the proposed 30 mm autocannon. Target was a T-72. The 73 mm had a HEAT warhead, which could with some luck score a penetrating hit into the side of the hull - assuming it didn't miss, which it tended to do a whole lot (1 hit out of 3 rounds) - and the tank drove away on its own. Eighteen rounds from a 30 mm didn't penetrate, no, but they tore the track clean off, set fire to external fuel drums, stuck the turret ring, and one shell actually entered inside the turret through the mantlet, shredding the elevation hydraulics; a mission kill. And that's a vanilla T-72 without the larger sensors festooning modern tanks; HE sweeps them away. There are people seriously arguing for a 30 mm co-axial as a way to suppress active defense systems that might swat a tank round out of the air.

Meanwhile, it stands, MANPADs usually have a proximity-detonated continuous rod warhead. The impact pattern of a continuous rod warhead looks like this:

crw261-1.jpg

It's not very effective against armor, and it's designed explicitly to tear apart fuel lines and steering cables on unarmored aircraft. The return of aircraft armor (A-10, Su-25, Su-34... the "low-end" COIN aircraft, meanwhile, mostly seem to fret about bullets) is what caused rudimentary secondary AP warheads (or at least delayed impact fuses) to show up in MANPADs, but they're nowhere near AP in terms of anti-tank warfare. Larger surface-to-air missiles might have the sheer momentum and the classic HE/frag warhead to at least mission-kill a tank as described above, but MANPADs are just bad.

Spoiler

Bonus: the steering "cables" on the Su-25 are 4 cm thick and are supposed to work with a .50 hole through them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheSaint said:

The first time I heard about top-attack ATGMs was one of those, honest-to-God, "we live in the future" moments for me.

Yeah and as a tanker I was glad they had not proliferated while I was in the cone of fire.  The RU had developed some pretty badA traditional HEAT during my time - marginal effectiveness vs Abrams - but this top attack is a game changer. 

Armor and anti armor are often on a tick-tock development path... But I'm starting to think things are going to be in 'tock' for a long time. 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Yeah and as a tanker I was glad they had not proliferated while I was in the cone of fire.  The RU had developed some pretty badA traditional HEAT during my time - marginal effectiveness vs Abrams - but this top attack is a game changer. 

Armor and anti armor are often on a tick-tock development path... But I'm starting to think things are going to be in 'tock' for a long time. 

Active defense. I don't think tanks are out of the fight yet, but I do think they're going to get a whole lot more expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm... 

There is some hope for Active Defense moving forward... But there are lots of pictures of tanks without turrets popping up on the internet these days - and some have AD systems (or at least reactive armor). 

The tradeoff is that the AD system (and reactive armor) that saves the tank from a hit kills the friendly infantry.  And in an urban or mixed environment, a tank without infantry support is a dead thing.   FWIW, infantry really like having tanks with them in the fight... But not if they are in as much danger from the friend as the enemy. 

(if anyone is going to solve these issues - it would most likely be the Israelis.  They have some really innovative stuff). 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheSaint said:

Active defense. I don't think tanks are out of the fight yet, but I do think they're going to get a whole lot more expensive.

But then do you really need a tank? Or do you want a light APC with active defense and just enough armor to withstand kinetic rounds from anything light enough to be carried? I'm sure that would lead to a bit of a resurgence of recoilless rifles with purely kinetic rounds, but these weapons are inherently unguided, and so the effectiveness won't be nearly as high as that of modern anti-tank missiles.

5 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

and some have AD systems (or at least reactive armor). 

I don't think Russians have active defenses on anything but few prototypes. Reactive armor, yes, but only on the sides. It was designed against RPG fire, not things like Lances and NLAWs. So a bunch of tanks missing turrets is exactly what I'd expect to see.

Edited by K^2
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...