Jump to content

For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread


Skyler4856
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It was conceived before we agreed upon above ground nuclear tests being bad.

Hrm. I had thought the concept was later than the NTBT of 1963.

That doesn't explain the current line of thinking on ground launches, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, razark said:

Hrm. I had thought the concept was later than the NTBT of 1963.

That doesn't explain the current line of thinking on ground launches, though.

So... Footfall had one, and as mentioned it was a 'desperation' ploy.

@Spacescifi has shown a lot of interest in Orion - mainly (as I read his posts) b/c he's trying to craft a story that doesn't use a lot of handwavium to get his people about... although there may be 'elements'.

Some of the other interest I've read elsewhere is how KSP 2 will implement it... and frankly, if they do - I hope it has a lot of negative consequences for atmospheric use!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Fun! 

Given the ingenuity of humans in any trade towards overcoming obstacles and narco-subs as one solution... Narco rockets is fair speculation. 

However... (  ;D ) 

The key metric for drug trafficking is to maximize profits while minimizing exposure.  To do that you have to operate just below or at the 'irritant' threshold.  Like a mosquito.  (Once above that threshold the subject stops being irritated and takes active measures to eradicate you). 

A slow sub smuggling drugs is irritating.  But an international missile?  That 'gets on everyone's radar'. Even if the payload isn't explosive - that level of escalation gets a lot of attention. 

I'm fairly critical of 'the war on drugs' for how it was applied domestically and resulted in lopsided, racially biased incarceration in the US... But there were aspects of it that were quite successful.  Examples: JTF - 6 (now JTF North) was manpower intensive but stopped all trafficking and human smuggling for a while and other stuff, like our incursions into Columbia - were from a military and tactical standpoint quite successful - but arguably strategic failures.  Should the cartels decide to 'become interesting' there is nothing to stop military intervention from reducing those capabilities. 

We'd succeed and they would adapt and go back to low tech, low risk successful strategies like those employed currently 

 

So... narco cruise missiles, or maybe call them narco drones, as a logical next step from the low flying GA planes of 80s lore? (Btw. do they still fly those planes or have subs taken over fully?) A motorcycle engine tuned for fuel efficiency, fixed pitch propeller, glass fiber body and wings, some generally available electronics and FOSS flight software. Next generation mix some graphite or iron dust into the resin for a makeshift RAM that is just as likely to make the thing glow like the sun on radar. Third gen someone rigs up a test device from an old radar speed gun and they get the RAM to actually reduce the signature a little. Fourth gen they buy help from escaped russian engineers and the designs start to look a lot more professional... How would you rate this scenario on a scale from utter nonsense to a Tom Clancy novel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, monophonic said:

How would you rate this scenario on a scale from utter nonsense to a Tom Clancy novel?

It sounds like Tom Clancy to me. I'd read that book!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, monophonic said:

Fourth gen they buy help from escaped russian engineers and the designs start to look a lot more professional... How would you rate this scenario on a scale from utter nonsense to a Tom Clancy novel?

Quite low, actually, knowing the history of narcosubmarines. The narcosubs of today can't even submerge fully.

Meanwhile, 2000 had this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/08/16/latest-giant-narco-submarine-discovery-reminds-us-of-the-greatest-ever/?sh=4044c2bd3a71 And the guy isn't kidding about Soviet/Russian design influences - double hull (i.e. more complex and expensive than single-hulled boats typically used by NATO), low-mounted propeller, all instantly recognizable.

So they actually became cheaper and shoddier over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, monophonic said:

How would you rate this scenario on a scale from utter nonsense to a Tom Clancy novel?

Somewhere in the middle to right up there.

I'd be surprised if they're not already working on low tech winged drones.  I suspect the copter type drones don't have the lift for the cost of effort; i.e. not enough product shipped vs cost, time and exposure.

What's more likely to happen is a towed-launched wooden or composite 'throw-away' glider type drone that they hope has a low cross section and can be landed with relative accuracy at night.  Given the money we're talking about and the proliferation of off-the-shelf quality optics, that should be pretty easy to acquire.  That's both relatively low cost and relatively low exposure.

Except that once we start finding abandoned drones littering California to Texas... they'll get themselves above the 'irritant' threshold.  The thing is - even a wooden drone is detectable on modern radars; the algorithms alone can spot a moving 'lack of reflection' just as easily as old radars pinged off of moving metal.  So having the military / Homeland increase border surveillance  will result in loss of product and useful mules - and possibly trigger counter-ops in-country to locate and reduce the manufacture / base of these drones.

 

(Heck - there's your story, right there!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DDE said:

Damn I saw this below http://www.hisutton.com/Armored Stealth Boat.html

I saw those smugling boat physically with a really fast speed before when I was fishing with my dad. And with the police's helicopter chasing them in the air. They don't smugle the car or drug anymore now. They smugle the freezing meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, steve9728 said:

Damn I saw this below http://www.hisutton.com/Armored Stealth Boat.html

I saw those smugling boat physically with a really fast speed before when I was fishing with my dad. And with the police's helicopter chasing them in the air. They don't smugle the car or drug anymore now. They smugle the freezing meat.

Don't forget GPUs.  Lot's of those 'fell off the truck' and ended up in your homeland

 

Although I hear those cats are moving to Texas and Montana, now.

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Don't forget GPUs.  Lot's of those 'fell off the truck' and ended up in your homeland

 

Although I hear those cats are moving to Texas and Montana, now.

When I was in one of the shore nearby, I see many kinds of seafood. And the boxes of Chilean cherries which absolutely impossible to grow out from the sea*

Ah I see, Sea Cherries

Edited by steve9728
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, razark said:

Hrm. I had thought the concept was later than the NTBT of 1963.

That doesn't explain the current line of thinking on ground launches, though.

The project began in 1958.

Ground launches were likely proposed because docking in orbit was seen as a very big challenge at the time. Even the decision to go with LOR instead of direct ascent for Apollo was pretty controversial, and it was made in 1962 (when Orion was winding down.

6 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Don't forget GPUs.  Lot's of those 'fell off the truck' and ended up in your homeland

 

Although I hear those cats are moving to Texas and Montana, now.

Smuggling of genetic material is also seen as a threat. There have apparently been attempts to get Wagyu beef production going outside of Japan, prompting special protection for the animals and farms and increased vigilance at ports and airports.

———

My idea with narco-rockets was to launch several at a time across random locations in the ocean, with most being decoys and only a couple having the goods. The capsule would be picked up by a submarine or fishing boat before heading to port on the mainland. Would this be workable?

It could also be applied to the narco-drones proposed above.

Also, in case anyone is interested, narco-tanks are a thing too, but they are actually just trucks with thick (50mm) armor. Just for comparison, IIRC a .50 MG will usually have ~20mm of penetrating power at a distance that I can’t recall :confused:

This dramatic naming scheme is similar to the subs, most of which are technically called Low-Profile Vessels, and look like submersible fiber glass pleasure boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Smuggling of genetic material is also seen as a threat

Yeah - some guy in California got busted with a bunch of lizards and snakes.  All endangered.

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Would this be workable?

Once, maybe.

You should watch the videos of how the Coasties operate.  They're pretty good.  Their main problem is volume - can't be everywhere all at once.

So - with your rockets; you get radar signatures whether you like it or not, and they're all traceable.  Sure you have a bunch of dummys; but unless you have surface craft at every landing spot it will be easy to see who got the goods.

This is kind of getting into the Rube Goldberg type of solution; overly complicated for what you are trying to achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we could land a bull dozer size and mass and power 'work-rover' on the Moon or Mars, would we use the 6-wheel system of current rovers or tracks like current bulldozers? 

 

Presume that a big part of the mission is moving lots of dirt /regolith. 

 

(question is really about whether we need tracks in a less than 1g environment to do similar work as we do here - or whether the low g environment creates problems better served by the use of the 6-wheel config) 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

My idea with narco-rockets was to launch several at a time across random locations in the ocean, with most being decoys and only a couple having the goods. The capsule would be picked up by a submarine or fishing boat before heading to port on the mainland. Would this be workable?

Would.
By perinvertedly.

It would cause equpping the Coast Guard ships with anti-ballistic missiles, so actually arming it with dismissed Aegis destroyers.

This in turn would/will lead to extending their anti-piracy and ecology-protection objectives.

Finally this would/will begin the Global Ecology Preemtive Protection Initiative, when Eco-Guard Aegis destroyers would/will be guarding the oceans and sinking everything floating and flying without the Green Permission License, including the narco-crafts, migration boats, unregistered fishboats, and so on. Rockets, too. And their launchpads in jungles.

Together with the Global Fresh Water And Nutrition Purity Initiative *) this would/will form the ecological and demographic landscape of the rest of the century.

*) Based on International Borderline Guard Movement, guarding fresh rivers and plowlands from foreigners.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Hyperspace Industries said:

How much heat is needed to turn 50 grams of water into steam per second?

Somebody has homework questions I see :P

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

bull dozer

Tracks, I think.    You need traction more than the ability to navigate rough terrain, because in this case you just move the rough terrain.  The 6 wheel design allows for the rover to go over the contours/rocks in it's way, a bulldozer.... well... it just eliminates those things. 

Edit:   Although...., on second thought,  the complexity of the tracks needing to function in a vacuum in space might decide for us.   Wheels have a 'single' point of contact, in the bearing.  Failure to turn, won't result in loss of mobility, as we saw in Oppy and Spirit.   Tracks have multiple wheels, and each link in the track might require bearings instead of pins to prevent cold welding of the metals in direct contact.  Loss of movement in any single point in a track might result in loss of mobility.       

3rd thought...    Wait... there's been tracked rovers before right?   How'd those work out?

Edited by Gargamel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Somebody has homework questions I see :P

Nope, I'm on vacation. I've been trying to build a rocket engine for the entire vacation, I've once again given up on trying to make or get oxidizer. (You can't buy it and making sodium chlorate from salt water is pitifully slow, not to mention the fact that I don't have a variable power supply for electrolysis.) So I've done some math and a steam rocket at 10 bar of pressure can (if I used the right equation and did it right) get around 200 seconds of isp.

With the rocket equation, this works out to a mass ratio of around 3 for suborbital flight. That results in a wet + dry mass of (I think) 4 kg for a dry mass of 1 kg. To get 10 kg of thrust with around that exhaust velocity you need to shoot 50 grams of steam out of the back per second.

(This is all rough approximations based on an equation for pressure driven rockets working in vacuum I found on atomic rockets.)

I can't find the steam generation equations I need (the classic problem of Google thinking you want to hear about something else) so could anyone send the required equations, no answers necessary, just the equations. 

(Also, we haven't done any equations even close to related to this yet.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hyperspace Industries said:

I've once again given up on trying to make or get oxidizer.

Stump remover (Potassium Nitrate?) and Sugar?   Those should be available.    I'd stick with solid fuels until you get very very comfortable machining metal parts that can handle liquids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, DDE said:

The narcosubs of today can't even submerge fully.

Well, that's because no subs can do much more than that. All this nonsense about submarines being able to go 100s of meters down is just a huge lie the naval powers of the world have been telling us for over a century now. It obviously just isn't possible.

 

(This is my personal version of 'the moon landings were faked', 'the earth is flat', 'birds aren't real', etc.)

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...