ARS

I don't usually jettison the ablative heat shield. If it's exploded on touchdown, it means it's doing it's job for cushioning the landing, thus saving the crew (their price isn't worth the lives of my pilots!). If it's survived intact on touchdown, I'd just call it more money back

I'll just leave this here:

Guess what's this... Hint: Sing -The Carpenters-

1. 2012 attempts to justify its scientifically predictable doomsday with an obscure geological theory of crustal displacement formulated in the 50s. The film even throws in an appeal to authority by claiming that Einstein agreed with the theory. The latter is true, and the film depicts at least vaguely accurately what crustal displacement in action might look like. What it fails to address though, is the fact that the theory was formulated before plate tectonics theory was developed, something that didn't happen until the 60s. What does this mean? Oh, only the fact that the two theories are mutually exclusive, and since plate tectonics is now proven true, the other can't be. Furthermore, Einstein, while brilliant, was NOT an expert on geology. You wouldn't trust his opinion on plate tectonics any more than you would trust him with heart surgery 2. It's not like The Asylum Studio is known for being on the deep end of the hard sci-fi, but their 2014 film Asteroid vs Earth hinges on stupidity that may not even be quantifiable. Faced with an Earth destroying asteroid 1/4th the size and weight of the moon, one of the characters correctly informs the military that firing nukes at it won't work. He soon loses these "did his homework" points by raising another plan, that requires that nukes be set off in and around the Ring of Fire in the Pacific. By doing so, he hopes to create a magnitude 18 earthquake that will move the planet out of the way of the asteroid. That would be 18 on the Richter Scale. Pothole included for reference: every step up on the scale releases 31 times more energy. An earthquake of magnitude 18 would release a force equivalent to 12 zettatons (zettaton = 10 ^ 21 tons) of TNT. The crater from the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs only released 100 teratons (teraton = 10 ^ 12 tons). At this point, the plot is a non issue: no matter what is done, everybody on Earth is going to die. 3. Any film that shows a damaged or collapsed suspension bridge tends to demonstrate a lack of understanding from the visual effects department of how such bridges would actually fail. In many cases big-budget films depicting mass destruction of a city will feature a scene showing destruction of a famous bridge (The most common victim being the Golden Gate Bridge, looking at you, The Core). Generally, the central span is shown as collapsing and the towers are pulled inward as if pulled down by it. However, a suspension bridge uses cables under constant tension to transfer the weight of the span to anchors or counterweights located at either end of the bridge, so the towers are normally kept in balance between the weight of the span pulling inward and the anchors pulling outward. If the span collapses, the towers would bend outward since the anchors would no longer be balanced by the span. 4. In UP, where Carl ties hundreds of balloons to his house to fly away. The problem is Carl's house's apparent loss of momentum. Realistically, it would be almost impossible to get going like this, and the ballons would drag him a hundred feet when he try to stop. Also, the wind would move it better than him, so he'd just be dragged the way the wind blows. And air pressure is far enough from constant that the house wouldn't stay even like that. They also manage to steer the house with control surfaces that are incredibly tiny in comparison to the wind resistance of the house and the balloons, and there's no apparent effect the direction the house is facing would have anyway, especially seeing as it should have no airspeed as it is unpowered (not to mention horrifically draggy, as it's not aerodynamic).

The testing of a new superheavy ground attack aircraft, ALBACROSS, has been completed. Designed for heavy airstrike, it carries massive number of armament, befitting it's large size. It can be configured for manned or unmanned operation. FLIR sensors, targeting systems and ECM jammers takes the most of central fuselage. This is basically Predator drone on steroid Due to it's role for ground attack/ air support, it's not the fastest thing on the planet and not very maneuverable, thus, requiring escorts. Barely able to reach mach 1, it's optimized for long loiter duration and low-speed strafing run. It's created for a single purpose: Carry a metric ton of heavy armaments and beat the crap of anything on the ground Five defense turrets are fitted on this thing (three dorsal, two ventral), providing some defenses against fighters and incoming missiles. The twin 12.7mm machinegun turrets can be replaced with chainguns In conjunction with onboard ECM pods, flares and chaffs provides further defense against heatseeking and radar guided missiles Six 30 mm gatling cannons provides massive ground saturation/suppression capabilities. This can be replaced with six 105mm cannons for more "explody" option Six cruise missiles provides long-range strike capabilities. It can accept a variety of cruise missiles and can be customized as needed Eighteen AGM missiles are mounted on wing pylons for striking hard targets on the ground. This can be replaced with eighteen unguided bombs (or eighteen cluster bombs if you want even more BOOM) or eighteen rocket pods for even more ground saturation with six 30mm gatling cannons A development for improved version is underway and it's focused on refining the design and putting additional enhancements to improve performance

Reinstalling BDArmory because I want to blow something up and testing the performance of new aircraft from @Hotel26

This is a common problem for part attachment in KSP, not just for DLC. If G-forces applied on the craft is high enough it could dislocate the parts (sometimes causing it to slam on another part, explosively). An easy fix is autostrutting or put a strut (it's not 100% fixing it, but can minimize the effect)

No, I just read the history of supersonic aviation where US tested the prototype of supersonic aircraft and the effect of sonic booms towards local population. It's said that the frequent flight test caused a lot of disturbance to daily lives of locals and at times breaking the windows. Then I'm thinking, if sonic booms could break windows, could it destroy aircraft if it's close enough to the shockwave source?

Is it possible for aircraft optimized for extremely high speed (such as SR-71) to destroy enemy aircraft by using sonic boom shock wave it generates while passing near them at maximum speed?

@Lo Var Lachland, I found 2 discussions that discussed about the problem. It seems the claim that the car magically "stalled" when crossing the railway is dubious, especially when there's an added mumb-jumbo of "EM field generated from passing train". Maybe you're interested Links: EM field on tracks: https://www.quora.com/Does-a-kind-of-magnetic-field-from-an-incoming-train-really-cause-a-car-to-stall-on-the-tracks# Engine stalls: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/84781.aspx

A phone with 3.7 m (12 ft) parabolic, high-gain antenna Deep Space Network transceiver with S-band (13 cm wavelength) and X-band (3.6 cm wavelength) communication

Except not in my country. Every railway crossing has a guard post with a personnel inside. The only connection on the rail is located several kilometer away from guard post, which is a sensor that notifies a train is arriving, this activates a bell on guard post to alert the personnel to press the button on the guard post to close the safety gate. The rails on the crossing is literally just steel beams buried inside the asphalt Of course, there IS a train accident in my country that's caused by personnel not hearing the bell and didn't close the gate (one infamous accident in my town involves the personnel wearing headphones when it's prohibited), but that's another topic

So... This thing has been bugging me for a while. Recently there's an accident near my place, a car was hit by a train when it goes across the train crossing and trapped when the safety gate closes, no survivors. EVERY DAMN TIME there's accident like this, everyone (even live report and newspapers) said that the car stopped in the middle of the track because there's an electromagnetic field emitted by the train crossing as the train about to pass (some goes even more specific, saying that the arrival of train (somehow) magnetized the rails and disables car's engine and locks it in place). I'm very skeptical about this explanation since every accident like this (especially when the car stopped in the middle of the track) always explained with "magnetized rail". Keep in mind that the trains in my country mainly consisted of diesel-powered train (no electric, TGV or Shinkansen-like trains and the rails, while it's made from ferrite, it is not electrified). Could someone explain the "car engine stopped in the middle of train crossing" problem? Also, does a "magnetized rail" explanation true or not? Because I haven't find a single piece of scientific explanation/article about it in internet, which makes me suspect this is a hoax

It's amazing that you're still sane after doing all of the above. Those are literally mad scientist's free time

You're the fighter pilot they called "Solo Wing Pixy"

Using Lathe machine without safely clamping the steel chunk and running it at full speed just to make it fly (When you want to shoot something but there's nothing to use for shooting) and letting me getting hit to see how hard it is (Yes, this is probably the dumbest thing I ever do when I'm bored in machine shop and jury-rigged a catapult made of lathe machine flinging chunks of steel)

How do you end up here?

Take your fuel and... You can skip the middle part

Camera drone is buzzing around...

Thank you for the suggestions. I managed to solve the gliding problem by applying 2 methods, the first is putting a low-power reverse engine inside the cargobay (that performs reverse thrust to assist braking) and touching down at much lower airspeed

An new experimental aircraft, Oculus Corvinus (Raven's eyes) is a stealth aircraft designed to be as low profile as possible It's tailless flying wing design gives it excellent stability at very low speed. It's able to glide gently at very low airspeed (as low as 20m/s) Despite that, when the need arise, it's surprisingly highly agile, pulling off tight turns and smooth maneuvering It's also extremely fast The only problem is, it glides too well. The wing generates so much lift that at one point, when it lands, the moment the wheel touches the ground (at 60m/s), it bouces the craft back into the air, causing it to glide for at least a couple kilometers away

Is it feasible to create a reusable railgun that addressed the heat and rail durability problem by making the railgun projectile packed with single-use rails in one package? With the actual barrel seen outside being coilgun accelerators? Essentially, a railgun "shell" is a self-contained single-use railgun designed to fire the projectile to attain initial velocity into the barrel before being accelerated by accelerator coils inside the barrel. In theory, this makes the railgun cheaper to maintain by eliminating the need for expensive alloys for reusable accelerator rails since the rails on the shell is intended to be single use

How it's going to reduce radar signature? Does the "2 thrusters 1 nozzle" have special feature compared to "1 thruster 1 nozzle" in reducing radar signature?

Is it practical to have 2 thrusters in 1 thrust vectoring nozzle? Does it increase the thrust vectoring capabilities? (For example, take one of F-22's nozzle, make it wider, then jam another engine inside. So in other words, an aircraft with one wide engine nozzle with thrust vectoring capabilities housing two thrusters inside)

I prefer naming the moonbase based on it's location (example:Tranquility base on Sea of Tranquility)