JoeSchmuckatelli

Odd question (perfect place for these!) about the COM of off-shaped things: If you were to release a bowling pin (or a hand-axe, or anything really heavy on one side vs the other) in space adjacent to a free-falling ship... would it change its orientation relative to the observer? i.e. you release it as stably as possible, imparting no other spin or residual motion... would the initial orientation change? if it would move; would it settle heavy-end toward the Earth or in the direction of fall/motion? if it would not move/reorient... is that because of a lack of drag? This question arose b/c of @sevenperforce's comments on Shuttlecock behavior of a rocket during reentry. I understand how atmospheric drag works - I'm just trying to figure out what would happen with a tail-heavy rocket in freefall, in vacuum... whether it would sling the butt around (eventually) and 'fall' or travel heavy end forward in the absence of drag.

I'm not actually describing continued use of legacy equipment with existing tail turrets. Certainly, nations retain old gear - and they generally retain some military utility, even if not top tier effective. (T-54 is still a tank... Effective vs trucks and APCs, etc.) But I read the question as 'can we use the concept of the tail turret and make it efficient /effective in the modern environment' - to which I'd answer 'no'. The only 'target' of such a defensive system would be AA missiles, whether SAM or A2A. Highly unlikely to be engaged with guns by a fighter these days... ...unless it's being used in some very backwater place. And by then you will have eliminated anything the enemy could fly - so it's a redundant upgrade. My 'thought experiment' version of this was a tungsten-BB auto chaff shotgun that could be used to hard kill incoming missiles - but a pilot friend told me that you'd be losing more than you gain trying to build that into a jet

FWIW - there are a host of videos, most from people with 'Eastern' accented English (or using AI) that do speculation Sim-runs on 'How Could Russia /China Defeat an American Carrier?' or 'Could a US Navy Black Sea Fleet Take Rostov on Don?' and they all feature waves of planes going down via swarms of missiles. For the state of modern warfare to get to the point where tail-gun-needed bombers are used for anything but the AC-130 style (absolute Air Dominance) role... Most nations' current arsenals would be expended, they would be in the full wartime economy and just-shy-of-nuclear war stance where everything but the kitchen sink is being thrown at the enemy.

Any idea how deep into the atmosphere the ship would have to get for the fairings to 'shuttlecock' the fat end around? Although - rereading, the image is wrong. Fat end of shuttlecock is fluffy, not heavy... Except Fluffy now means 'big boned'... And dense means stupid... What is happening with the language?

What is the target of the CIWS / AD? (These are two different things, btw. CIWS is generally an offensive capability. AD, obviously, isn't... ... ... Um. Primarily. ) The image shown is an old-school bomber from the days when the bomber's threat came via bullets delivered by an aircraft that could see it. Visually. Up close and personal-like. So - given that those days are pretty much gone - you would be looking for a defensive anti-missile solution using an updated, automated rear turret... And the answer is 'maybe' and 'at what cost/tradeoff?'. Figure that you would need not only the gun(s) and ammunition, but also the turret mechanism, framing and sensor arrays... And you've got a massive redesign & shift of weight. Good engineering can solve this - so it again goes to the threat: will the bomber have a sufficient threat of 'up the tailpipe missiles' coming at it to justify the effort and expense? (Tail defense turret may be utilized for incoming rear and maybe side threats - at the cost of constant 'here I am' pinging with the sole hope of overwhelming electronically/kinetically. ) If you think about it - in the days of the tailgunner - military planning was to just 'throw Hit Points at the problem'. Lots of planes, tough planes, flying together, and maybe some make it to the target. In gaming parlance, the the Fighters would kite and the bombers, tank. Warfare, at least from the Western perspective is different these days. The CIWS idea is interesting - but also, already implemented... Except in the form of the weapons officer. The pilot's got control over the nose of the aircraft and modern missiles don't really need to be pointed in much more than the general direction of the target to go after it - its more of a conservation of energy thing than anything... So in multi person warcraft - the WO gets the independent targeting pods and associated weapons. Adding a new thing at the back of the plane for the pilot to play with isn't going to improve his /her SA & effectiveness... And if everything was done right up front - the tail gun is looking back on smoking wreckage. Where the addition of such a turret/capability comes in, then, isn't in F/A or traditional (modern) bombers - but in the lingering attack craft like the AC-130... and I think it's efficacy and limitations have been demonstrated.

Yup. Next question: do these collidable rocks act like they do in Satisfactory? (i.e. teleport into position just as you get there?)

Um... Welcome to PC gaming? ;D

Not everyone.

Good luck with Law School - each class (except 'Writing') is graded entirely by one end of the semester test. (Of course, there is the ultimate Final Exam waiting for everyone: The Bar covers all 3 years in a test that takes two days!)

That's a pretty crazy story all by itself!

Yeah... that lake is a volcano Alert level raised on New Zealand's giant Taupo volcano - source of Earth's largest eruption in past 5,000 years | World News | Sky News Exploding Taupō — Science Learning Hub Map: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Taupo+Volcano,+Waikato+3382,+New+Zealand/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x6d6b931a8a2f3d3b:0x8e61f4b2b11234bb!5m1!1e4?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJw4qAxqT6AhVchYkEHfzLAmIQ8gF6BAhxEAE (hint: zoom out)

I'm a gazillionaire!

Loading a saved game or returning to a previous site and finding your landed probes and stations no longer work or have zero mass and just float around over the surface waiting for a Kerbal to bump them into space.

@Pthigrivi - actually, if you look at the photo @The Aziz posted; the textures are quite a bit different. The engine bells in the new render are matte, for one. Also, the shrouds (I'm sure that's the wrong term) at the tops of the bells look like aluminum in his pic, vs cloth/ceramic in the new render.

Upon further review... I really find this image comforting. It looks just like KSP... But better. ... ...although I am kinda done with everything being labeled 'Pre Alpha'. C'mon dudes - Alpha that shiz up already!

That is for people like me. Too much scatter, randomly collidable, in the place where I want to land... I'd be lucky to have a landing like that above

Yeah - starting to look like part of a campaign

okay, fine or this:

Quantum Entanglement Radio

Yeah - the systems that matter are all the squishy stuff in the middle, plus the blood, plus goo inside the box on top. The stuff that supports and transports all that is much more resilient

From what I gather from the article... The research team felt the same! (See the two articles on the exoplanets I link on the previous page}

Did you just say 'we only know as much as we know when we know it?' Grin! I'm fairly sure that our current grasp of Cosmology was greatly influenced by Hubble data (but we've also had numerous other very recent tools added besides Webb that should continue to shake our complacency!) Note: I did not limit my statement above to 'having the tools to show it' - b/c even if 50 years ago someone claiming that a supermassive BH sat in the center of the galaxy 'would have been staking their career on it' because the theory was there - just not the proof or the details! https://www.google.com/amp/s/in.mashable.com/space/32078/he-found-a-milky-way-black-hole-50-years-ago-and-finally-got-to-see-it%3famp=1 I really do think we are in an exciting time with Webb and EHT and the laser inferometry: a new level of granularity that I hope will lead to eureka, not merely refinement or confirmation.

https://www.space.com/astronomy-models-getting-webb-measurements-wrong

Depending on the structure (and the jurisdiction) you may need an licensed architectural engineer to advise you or create a plan. Simple single story house foundations can be removed via jackhammer attachments on excavators and the debris hauled away - with the new foundation dug and poured on site. That's in most places in the United States. If you are looking at a multistory building - you'd want to be sure that the original wasn't gooned up. If it was you may have a major remediation issue. You do not want to try to use a foundation intended for a different building. Hard stop. Because the foundation is a critical component of the overall structure - it is not something that you should 'wing'.

IIRC, you can boil water in leaves Yup https://www.primitiveways.com/boiling water in cabbage leaf.html