kerbiloid

Banned because nobody needs .md support.

Tapestry From Bayeux covers the volcano.

Banned for banipulations.

Hill irl.

To be polite, we should also include Welsh case.

Roll is rofled. *rofl rofl rofl*

No. Voluntary love is not an insured event. Bill has been krakenized.

They don't. The gravity does. 3 600 s * 10 h * 9.81 m/s2 = 353 km/s Orion is in no degree optimized for air travel. It was designed and computed for the space one, and would be destroyed by the nuke shockwave in air. The plasma jet, which hits the pusher plate, is moving much faster than the shockwave, because it's caused by lightweight beryllium jet flowing from the charge nozzle. And the shockwave is in air (mostly nitrogen), so 9 u vs 14..28 u. So, the jet would hit the pusher plate at any speed, but until the ship is faster than the shockwave, next it will be kicked and pressed by the shockwave. As the pistons are in intermediate position, the shockwave will crack the pistons, flow into the opened barrel and burst the cannon, and then crush the ship from sides. As the shockwave is several Mach fast at that distance, the ship should first have a 2 km/s velocity. So, it hardly can fly in air.

When Powerpoint was ink and paper...

1. Orion can't perform well in atmosphere at least while not moving faster than the explosion shockwave, i.e. several Machs. 2. Horizontal motion without the aerodynamic lifting force means enormous gravitational losses of energy and delta-V. A plane flying for ten hours has 350 km/s of gravitational losses which are compensated by air. A horizontally flying rocket or Orion is a pure loss of energy. The antigravitational repulsors/suspensors play no role, as they still should spend same energy. So, in every case a plane is better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/11/google-ai-lamda-blake-lemoine/ Idk if it's a "fun" fact, but the pathetic attempts of human futile resistance are ludicrous. (The google engineer who declared that google's software looks sapient and having personality of 7..8 year old child, is sent to vacation.)

In teenager sitcoms and action movies, 20..30-year-old actors are playing 14..18-year-old kids, which makes the latters erroneously think that they are just like the formers irl.

Back in my days trams, buses, and trolleys were equipped with self-service ticket registers , when you drop the coin and rotate the handle to get the ticket,

Spending a 3 000 t rocket per flight instead of 8 .. 16 x 5 000 t? Yes, it looks right. Even 2 x 3 000 t. Even 2 x 5 000 t. Even via the intermediate orbital station in the nearly-co-planar ("halo") orbit. Apollo, is it good or bad, has flown more than once. How many successful SH launch tests? How many successful SS return tests? How many successful SS docking tests? How many successful cryopumping orbital tests? ... after several months in orbit? ... in several attempts, with overcooled liquid blobs of different temperature and varying density floating in tanks in zero-g? 8 times more launches = 7 times more attempts to go wrong. How many successful SS low-g landing tests? Yes, it's much better to totally rely upon the never-tested controversial design. How many RNS orbital propellant depots have been launched irl? Btw, afaik SS still uses supercooled liquid oxygen, doesn't it? It significantly changes its density on warming/cooling, that's why they like it. If the underfueled SS is LEO for monts, so at least half of its time spends at +100°C, while another half - at -100° (still hotter than -180°), so the overcooled LOx will be not just warming, but also expanding (staying liquid). So, months later the tank will be filled with lesser amount of oxygen than it's designed for. And the engine will be working on warmer liquids than it's designed for. Any successful tests with a smaller SS model of this? What do I say about the unsinkable SLS? It will be in priority in any case, because it's keeping warm the large diameter SRB (i.e. ICBM/SLBM) manufacturer. If a Moon is needed for that, let it be a Moon. 1 x 3 000 t vs ~10 x 5 000 t, about ten successful flights with only one failed (and not due to the ship/rocket themselves)? They could do it better, yes.

Something behind Antonine Wall, who knows. Pictland?

After five decades of discussion, they will accept Barret 12.7 for/against armored exoskeleton.

They are going to replace 5.56 with 6.8. https://www.quora.com/Will-the-new-Army-6-8mm-round-greatly-outperform-the-5-56 Also a couple of decades ago they were going to make sniper rifles 8 mm for better ballistix.

UC? Still NERVA KIWI.

Jumping mecha with howitzer at backpack and railgun in hands.

https://www-interfax-ru.translate.goog/russia/845918?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru Roscosmos will test if they can control the eROSITA telescope on Spektr-RG. It will take from two to four months.

Estonia?

Back in my days you didn't unboot in airport to pass.

Elves come and call the hill forest Laurelindorenan.

Kungfu defeats the tofu.

When you are a prince of Chaos, you have a lot of Trumps in various reflections of Amber. Is the Dworkin and Unicorn pairing a manga?