JoeSchmuckatelli

Heh. Most shots fired are to try to kill the enemy. ... Misses occur for a variety of reasons: The enemy refuses to cooperate and hides, uses hard cover, moves out of the way or just gets damn lucky The shooter is all aflutter because he's being shot at and fails to aim properly, The shooter is an idiot and doesn't even aim - just points prays and sprays The shooter does everything right - but it's just not the other guy's time There are good reasons to shoot when you have a low percentage chance of hitting someone or no active target. These include: Suppressive fire - designed to make the other guy not want to aim shots at you or your friends or stop shooting completely and hide so that you (or your friends) can get into grenade range Recon fire - when you think (but don't know) someone may be somewhere that he can hurt you and you want to do unto others before they can do unto you - can result in Suppressive fire Interdiction fire - when they are too far away to engage effectively but you want them to stop doing something or go away. Harassment fire - when you just want to annoy them and make them hate being in the same zip code as you - can result in Interdiction fire Note - with all of these, you still want to hit the enemy when you can... You are just willing to take low percentage shots to assist with the overall mission To sum up - professionals don't just shoot randomly. Usually, when we decide it is the other guy's time we use a whole variety of shooting agencies and munitions to accomplish our goals. (A clean dozen $5,000 arty shells costs a whole lot less than a 19 year old Lance Corporal.) the bean counters afterwards like to think about the number of rounds to casualties, but operators don't. We think about mission and going home Finally - professionals don't actually feel like we need to kill everyone. We are happy to let folks surrender, and even run away if they drop their weapons first. It's the mission that is important - never the body count

I've not read any other replies, so please excuse any redundancy. To your last question - yeah, I presume so... Given enough altitude. But let me expand on / explain a couple of things. Definition - max effective vs max range. Max effective is directly related to the sights and ability of the operator and platform to hit a target (presumes retaining sufficient energy to achieve the intended effect (kill)). It's a somewhat subjective designation. Max range is how far the bullet will travel when fired at the optimum angle before striking the earth (at the same altitude it was fired from, presuming no intervening object). For example - according to the USMC, the max effective range of the M-16A2 service rifle is 550m on a point target and 800m on an area target using the integral iron sights. This is a combination of how predictable the flight path is at a given range (how consistently the rounds will be within a given radius of the aim point) and the ability of the operator to resolve the target at the desired range. I've consistently hit targets with the rifle at 600m with iron sights.. But then I've had a lot of training. I think other services claim the point target range is like 400m. With the advent of add on optics - and newer variants, the numbers have likely changed (and are probably different by service, depending upon the amount of training available to the average member). By comparison - the max effective of the M9 (9mm service pistol) is 50m. It's bloody hard to hit a target at 50m. Engagement range is better 1/3 to 1/2 that distance (where you can hit dynamic targets reliably). Back to the M-16. The round leaves the barrel at about 950m/s, well above the speed of sound. It's going to start losing energy as soon as the propellant reaches atmospheric pressure (basically as soon as it leaves the chamber. Yet, at 800m, it's still supersonic (area/group target max effective). The round will still kill you way past the effective range and most of the distance out to the max range...although some wits will say it is likely to just drop like a tossed rock at the end (because it has lost most of the energy by that point and it is mostly just falling). OTOH Terminal velocity of anything passively falling on Earth is about 90m/s. The very light weight of the bullet is unlikely to be lethal at this speed. So if you fire a bullet straight down - you would need to calculate how much atmosphere you need to provide the friction to slow the bullet to terminal and then just catch it ... Or maybe just pick it up after it hits something less you Edit - FYI - this is pretty much the 'what if you drop a penny off the Empire State Building' question (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/drop-penny-off-empire-state-building-2015-12%3famp) ... my answer and your question were about small arms (rifle caliber and below). The concept is similar when talking about larger caliber weapons as well, however you have to distinguish between kinetic and chemical energy weapons with the larger caliber platforms. CE retains its killing force regardless of distance traveled - presuming the conditions are met to initiate the warhead. KE weapons are pretty much the same as the small arms calculation. However, I'll point out that if you drop a DU penetrator off of a building - you probably will kill someone (pennies and bullets are light, bowling balls and pianos are not) - so the ultimate answer is to answer 'how much must an object weigh to kill when falling at terminal velocity' along with 'at what height is there enough atmosphere to reduce the speed of a bullet fired straight down to terminal velocity'? Bring in the smart guys with their slide rules!

I think not utterly discounting human tinkering is fair to keep in reserve. However I don't think it was intentionally deployed. Unless of course, you can suggest a population / region /nation /target with a very large elderly component that needs to be moved conveniently out of the way to benefit the economic needs of the following generations? (i.e. covid seems tailor made to kill old people but leave the young mostly unscathed) But that believing that scenario would require a level of credulity and suspicion of government that goes way past common sense and into la la land

Sounds like 'Q' theory

I want to see it in LEO and landing and then going back again before I start looking at the investor relations / marketing portfolio. Oh - and I'm gonna repeat this: they have my support on name recognition alone... THE BEER IS FANTASTIC! ...and I don't care that they are unrelated

Plausible =/= conclusive. My comments are also in relation to my previous post about letting 3d parties in to confirm the 'not our lab' assertion. Quibble: 42 km isn't much of a commute. Especially if you consider a scenario where a lab worker is an apartment dweller with roommates who all shop at the market. Edit - I also want to be clear: I do not believe that Covid was a weaponized virus that China intentionally deployed or accidentally leaked. I do however, find it plausible that a natural virus was being studied and wasn't handled properly. --- Here's the thing - I actually don't care about finding fault (mostly because I do not think that covid was an intentional act). Accidents /Pandemics happen. (History much, world?) About the only fault I can find is that people / governments did not take it seriously enough, early enough. As a US citizen - if I'm blaming anyone for that I'm looking at how the previous administration not only failed, but actively lied to us. The arc of this catastrophe could have played out so differently.

Kerikbalm lays out a few of the reasons for the lab leak scenario on the previous page. I find it plausible because I had actually heard about concerns with the Wuhan lab a year or so before Covid was on everyone's radar. There were several articles suggesting that the government / educational groups running the lab were rushing things and not following protocols expected of BSL-4 labs. Neither SARS or MERS had lab leak scenarios tied to them because neither of them originated in a place with a half assed BSL-4 lab - not to mention a lab that was actively looking into coronavirus.

Turns out there are hordes of people who are completely ignorant of the sciences and think that they understand stuff. They might hear that a virus injects genetic material into a cell which then hijacks the cell into making new copies of the virus... and then expand that into thinking that scientists can inject a person and rewrite their DNA. Even though this is covered in 7th grade and beyond - people don't seem to get it or care that they don't. Probably one of the reasons scifi and horror are successful genres

You ain't lyin! This here Frozen Caveman Lawyer really appreciates the folks with the maths and the patience to explain

The vehemence and paranoia with which the Chinese Government attacked any hint of it being from the Wuhan lab is certainly suspicious. Lab accidents happen. If they were correct in their assertion that it was not a leak - then being open and letting 3d parties confirm their assessment would have been smarter than how they handled it.

Like a kid did a cutNpaste photoshop job Except - it could be a really weird stocking designed to mimic exactly that

Tater - I'm on my phone... What's the image?

So - yeah, when you target a silo you necessarily need to have a ground or sub surface burst. Given that the Chinese and Russians have gotten space ships to other planets, we can assume that they can hit whatever they target. But you target a silo only to prevent it from launching its missile at you. ... So - let me explicate a bit: if I order an air strike on a building being used as a C&C / FO platform... My purpose is to destroy the enemy's capabilities and deny his ability to harm me. If afterwards, the rubble of the building pops the tires of his technicals and sprains the ankles of his infantry - I'm happy with the result. Yet I don't take out buildings in hopes that the secondary effects will assist my efforts.

Again... Why? You are falling into the trap of thinking the unique thing about a nuclear bomb is its 'best' attribute. Just because radiation is unique to nuclear weapons does not make it the true horror of the device. It is a single bomb that is a city killer. Radiation is a side show. It is the thing no one understands and so is scared of - but you need to look at the fire bombings of ww2 and really try to appreciate the horror - and then look at what a nuke does. If you end up thinking that radiation is a desired effect... I can't help you. Now - back way back away from the effects of the weapons - and ask yourself what purpose you hope to accomplish? Ambrose Bierce described war as the untying of a political knot with the teeth that would not yield to the tongue. So - in employment of nuclear weapons - whether in a game or in life... What do you hope to achieve through use of the weapon? FYI - the Chinese nuking San Onofre is only going to liquid us off.

Let me point out another issue - the 'why' of targeting any radiation deposits. As in, it is not going to accomplish what you might want to achieve through armed conflict. Absent the initial effects of the blast, the radiation fallout is operationally a terror/fear weapon and functionally an area denial weapon (that works both ways). Except that in the area denial role it turns out to be largely ineffective. Think about the Bikini Atols, Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Fukushima. They're not the blighted lifeless wastelands people fear will happen following intentional or accidental release of radioactive material. Certain kinds of radiation that linger seem to be as dangerous as smoking - as in, yeah it can kill you - but not very fast. There are, of course, hot spots that will cook you if you are close enough - hence area denial still works... But that stuff, that concentration is necessarily going to be close to the source and not scattered broadly. (if you scattered broadly - you don't get enough radiation to kill quickly, etc) So - if you think about nuclear weapons as just big bombs, you can start to plan how to use them. In other words - ignore the radiation in your planning - aside from calculating how soon after you can safely move in. * *(and you are only calculating radiation levels that will kill in hours or days - anything past that can be ignored for military purposes)

You are not joking. Give it another week and most of the hull will be gone, too

File this under: Things that make you go Hmmmm... They say the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Yet we've spotted a star that is older yet https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/how-can-a-star-be-older-than-the-universe.html. * And they also say that there is a galaxy we can see that is 13. 7 blya* https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/oldest-most-distant-galaxy-discovery So - I'm good with the 'age of the star is within the margin of error' argument... But how long does it take to get a whole galaxy of stars? *yes I had fun reading what I wrote as something other than 'billion light years away'

Typically you want the radar away from the payload delivery (and people you like). Radar is a great way to let 'the bad guys' know where you are. It also provides them with a great way to guide missiles directly to the source of the radar, which is something we've been doing for decades. It literally is a light in the darkness saying 'here I am!'

Haven't gone through everyone else's responses, so apologies if I repeat something. I understand, but I'm also mildly amused by people's desire to colonize the moon, or Mars or the Asteroid Belt. No dig at you, by the way... but here's my thinking: From the beginning, Space Exploration (caps intended) has been a government/military/commercial/scientific exercise (order intended). It's a prestige thing for governments and citizens, a military 'high-ground' early warning, command and control, and 'warning to others' thing for militaries and the governments they support, a profit center for very large corporations/conglomerates, and a place to expand human knowledge through very expensive efforts. All of our accomplishments tell us that it is possible to get there. That we can keep people alive out there. That there are profits to be made, and things to be discovered. We look to the stars, as we've always done, with a sense of wonder and a thirst for adventure and new opportunities. Many of us are impatient, longing for the next horizon and want there to be people taking the next step... now. We want to know someone has put one foot on the road that takes us out there. And so we think, naturally, 'why don't we' (humanity, rather than some nation-state) 'why don't we have people living out there already? We need to start a colony.' This follows that 'top-down' thinking where our success at Space Exploration should transition to Space Colonization. The problem is that colonies do not work from a 'top down' perspective. You cannot declare a colony in an inherently inhospitable place and hope for it to succeed. A colony has to grow 'organically' as the center of a larger community of people independently seeking their own life/freedom/success/riches. In other words, people have to be able to step off the boat, march into the wilds, stake a claim, take what they can and then - when they want to or need to - return to the colony to sell their goods and barter or buy others. (Caveat: unless you are willing to do what England did with Australia or Russia with Siberia - which even those analogies are inapt because people are able to live and thrive in both places without government support - or having escaped from government control. That won't work in a Space Colony.) So - the thing that might work (instead of a colony 'declared' by a government or corporation or church hoping to create a new home for humanity in the stars) - the thing that has the highest chance for success, in my opinion, is to analogize the oil and gas fields in the Arctic or mines in other remote places. You start with a profit driven motive for people to go and set up resource extraction on such a scale that remote/robot driven machines are no longer efficient and need 'boots on the ground'. Those people in turn need services (food, entertainment, etc) and others follow to provide those services. Something like that resembles a town - and a town is, in effect, a colony. My caution to you and others, however, is what happened in the American West. There are hundreds of communities, long abandoned 'ghost towns' where once the ore dried up... so did the town. The communities that remain in the deserts are those that did not set up on some hard to live on remote but profitable rock... but in the places where it was easiest for people to live and thrive: where there was water. So, to sum up, if we somehow discover that there is enormous profit to be made mining ores on the Moon or Mars we may get a colony on one of those rocks... but it won't be intentional.

I tried MS FlightSim 2020... and it did not take. I've a buddy who loves flight sims and all the buttons, etc. He'll sit for hours doing passenger jet hops in all the big boys... but that just doesn't do it for me. However - I find myself really enjoying the Tarkov Inventory Management Mini-game. (Snark intended). EFT is kind of a realistic shooter, kind of an MMO loot hauler - with a very constrained player inventory (depending upon how much you are willing to spend) where you spend waaaaay too much time trying to find space for the good stuff you just acquired. Good news is that I am so bad new at the game, I get to clear inventory slots on a regular basis. But the maps are very well done, and the game-play quite tense. I don't know what it is about Russian-developed titles, but they always seem a bit more complex than the run-of-the-mill corporate sponsored stuff I see coming out of North America (COD = yawn) and most of Europe. (In other words: Russians like their games to be punishing to the uninitiated... and I kind of like that. Same as WOT: it looks simple from the outside, but once you get into it there are layers of complexity).

Is anyone developing an 'automated warehousing' robot for space stations? Currently, it seems as if the only way to deliver stuff to a station is to have someone on the other end waiting to offload the stuff. From what I understand, hanging out in space for long periods of time is hard on the body. So after looking at the DragonXL stuff I had to wonder: if folks are serious about remote, moon orbiting stations shouldn't they have a robot that offloads the craft, warehouses the stuff and then when a crewed mission arrives they can just get whatever they want 'out of the closet'?

Grin! Because after writing - I remembered that satellite does not exclusively mean man-made in English. And I thought, "who here is most likely to add snark?" (so it was a tongue in cheek preemptive counter snark! =D) Are there any recent sats they've done this with or is gyro the presumptive method these days?

NewQ: after seeing the clip of a satellite being spun at deployment, I began to wonder why. I presumed most satellites would want internal gyros to keep the outside body + science, comms & solar, etc. stable... So what kind of satellite would be spin stabilized? Edit: @kerbiloid - if you say 'planets' so help me...

Love the idea - but comparisons like this always make me cringe: "A rough estimate puts the cost of such a facility at $454 million, less than the cost of producing and marketing Avengers: Endgame" https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/arecibo-to-be-determined-future/ The investment of $454m in Endgame retuned at least $2.8b... and while no one could know it would be record-breaking, given the popularity and performance of the predecessors was pretty much guaranteed to be hugely profitable. IOW - the investors had 'a sure thing'. But private equity is not likely to get any financial return on a rebuilt / upgraded Arecibo. Yet that's not the point, is it? Arecibo (and other, similar installations) are not for the general entertainment of people or a profit making enterprise. But they are hugely important to our advancement and understanding of the universe... I just wish we could express that in better ways than lines like that above. /rant. --- - - - - - - Question - what is the difference between the science possibilities having a single large dish vs an array? (I thought Arecibo's large size enabled it to resolve wavelengths that smaller dishes could not)

So - how far below C-4 and DetCord do we have to be? Are the fuels currently in use the best possible, or are there other chemical combinations that are really, really close... but we're waiting on materials science to get to a point where they can handle one or more components?