ARS

That reminds me, explosions on TV and movies are unusually large, visually impressive fireballs, that appear to be fueled by gasoline, propane or another similar such fuel, even when the object in question has no right to explode at all, much less spectacularly. Sometimes they are (or include) a shower of sparks while in real life, a fireball is often a minor part of an explosion (though not always, as is the case with incendiaries, like phosphorus, uranium, gelled fuels like napalm, etc). The real devastation from an explosion often comes from the force (overpressure) of the blast and the flying debris and shrapnel. Very rarely will explosions look like what they do in real life, an expanding cloud of dust and debris with very little light — and very little left behind (Grenades are very prone to this in movies, since even a "pineapple" frag grenade can produce a napalm-bomb explosion that throws people around, with ironically, no fragments) . Also, most explosions on TV also burn at a ridiculously slow rate compared to what they would on real life, which conveniently enables one to outrun it. In addition, the more powerful the explosion, the more quickly it uses up or blows apart the reactants involved in any combustion, so there's an inverse relationship between how powerful the blast is and how much fire there is. Oh, and fireballs in space. Perhaps some chemical mixtures can make fireballs in a near vacuum, but it's unlikely most space explosions are like that. This occurs in 90% of all onscreen explosions.

How exactly the G-suit works for pilot? Does it reduce the G-force effect on the pilot or what?

Could we use Nitrous Oxide on propeller plane's engine for a speed boost (aka improvised afterburner for propellers)? Even if the engine itself is already on WEP (War Emergency Power)?

Aquarian

Hydrogen has 3 isotopes 1H (Hydrogen), 2H (Deuterium) and 3H (Tritium) and they are all present in hydrogen. So if Hydrogen is ‘depleted’ and 2H and 3H isotopes are removed, the part that is mostly a mix of 2H and 3H could be referred to as ‘enriched Hydrogen’. If this ‘enriched Hydrogen’ (2H and 3H) was further process and the 3H was removed; the 3H could be referred to as ‘super enriched Hydrogen’. While the bulk of the remainder which is mostly 2H could now be referred to as being depleted Hydrogen – but we already have ‘depleted Hydrogen’ (the first process where 2H and 3H was removed) so it is specifically referred to as ‘depleted 2H’. This would be 2H with very little tritium in it (if any). This makes ‘depleted 2H’ a very specific name for specific product. Depleted Deuterium can only happen because Hydrogen has three isotopes of interest, and so there is two steps instead of one. There would be no Depleted Tritium as there is nothing else to take out I've forget where I saw this term, it's already a very long time ago, but the only thing that I remember it's use is on "mass reactive depleted deuterium shells". Perhaps they were looking for a "cool" sounding isotope/element to correspond with depleted uranium (very dense non-radioactive, mostly, substance) and blew it. Correct me if I'm wrong

The fact that Bismarck's rudder jammed probably accounts for the condition of the ship the moment the torpedo hit. It was maneuvering at battle speed, where, aside from rudder being turned, the ship's propeller spins at high RPM. An exploding torpedo on ship's stern could deform the structural parts of the ship which could jam the rudder or destroy the propeller (also happened with HMS Prince of Wales, which is sunk after just a single torpedo hit). There are reports that the personnel on board tried to destroy the rudder connection to prevent Bismarck being steering locked, with the propellers being used for turning (which is very difficult, considering Bismarck has triple propeller layout instead of quad, making it very limited in terms of being used as a substitute rudder)

dihydrogen monoxide is basically H2O (water), but despite scientific-sounding-name, it still isn't cool enough for sci-fi weapon ammo Oh, another example about bad science, from Iron Man 2: 1. Tony's arc reactor is slowly killing him through "palladium poisoning". Ignoring the question of how the palladium fuel is seeping out of his arc reactor in the first place (implying a containment breach), palladium isn't really all that harmful to humans. (Except on excessive quantities) 2. Nick Fury tells Tony Stark that Tony's been injected with "Lithium Dioxide" in order to remove the effects of palladium poisoning. This implies that lithium has at least four electrons to give up, while it actually only has three. And taking two of them requires more than just some oxygen. Apparently the movie confuses the type of chemical bonds in a molecule. The wrong part is the name - it should be: lithium superoxide. And it indeed does exist (at very low temperatures, but still...). Then there's the fact that injecting someone with as powerful an oxidising agent as superoxide would, in real life, have some pretty spectacularly nasty and possibly fatal effects. 3. During Justin Hammer's overly boasting description of the Ex-Wife bunker buster missile, he only gives one notable piece of technical information about it. He describes the missile as containing a "cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine RDX burst". Two different terms for the same explosive substance back-to-back (cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine IS the RDX) 4. Let's not started on him jury-rigging a freakin' Hadron Collider in his garage to "create a new element"

The frequent use of "Depleted Deuterium" in a lot of sci-fi weapons (as a cooler-sounding version of depleted uranium ammo) is particularly bad science in itself due to the fact that you can't even get depleted Deuterium, because it's a stable isotope

But what about steering gear? If the bridge gets destroyed, then there's no control of rudders right?

On 1-1 battleship duel, if one battleship (with sheer luck) managed to land a main gun shell on another's bridge, causing it to explode and completely destroying the bridge, does it becomes an ship equivalent of "headshot"? Does it disables the ship, heavily crippling it or not a big deal at all and still combat capable? Especially since the bridge is the command center of the entire ship

Ah, the KS-23, the shotgun with the largest caliber, with multiple shell types, which consists of "Shrapnel" buckshot rounds with a 10- or 25-meter range, "Barricade" slugs to destroy the engine block of a car at 100 meters, "Volna" and "Strela" training or less-lethal rounds, and "Bird cherry" and "Lilac" tear-gas grenades, which use a rifle grenade adaptor Though to be fair, when we are talking about caliber for shotguns, it's rather different story compared to other firearms, mainly despite it's large caliber, shotgun shells usually have low chamber pressure, so even with a caliber of 23 mm, shotgun shell is generally useless when firing at aircraft when compared with other 20 mm caliber guns (Above the Heavy machineguns, the classification goes to Autocannon, which has caliber ranging from 20-60mm) So yeah, like what @DDE said, it mucked things up

ARS sisters here, it does indeed Let's see... How about @JadeOfMaar?

I made something... Not because I'm running out of idea, but this simple drone is a part of something... bigger

Does Focke-Wulf Triebflugel design considered airworthy? If it's plausible for such design to be considered airworthy, how's the performance when compared with conventional aircraft design? Especially on it's intended role as interceptor aircraft The three rotor blades were mounted on a ring assembly supported by bearings, allowing free rotation around the fuselage. At the end of each was a ramjet. To start the rotors spinning, simple rockets would have been used. As the speed increased, the flow of air would have been sufficient for the ramjets to work and the rockets would expire. The pitch of the blades could be varied with the effect of changing the speed and the lift produced

Nothing much to do today, just doing some BDA dogfight test

Many thanks! Someone gave me that pics of aircrafts and I'm as interested as him to know what's the name of these. I'm looking forward for this series, looks interesting!

Can anyone can identify the name these aircrafts?

Finished tweaking and modifying all of my three VTOL-capable microfighters. Each of them has different role: The smallest of the three, Flea Flia - Kukuruznik, is designated as light fighter. It has the highest maneuverability and handling. However, it has a relatively light armament of twin .50 cal machineguns and trades it's durability for it's phenomenal maneuverability ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The next one, Flea Mays - Kukuriza has better armament of quad .50 cal machineguns and respectable handling, making it a medium fighter with no noticeable advantages or disadvantages. It isn't as maneuverable as light fighter, and loses against heavy fighter in terms of armament ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The last one, Flying Flea - Kukuruza, is a heavy fighter, armed with powerful twin 20 mm rotary cannons that unleashes devastating firepower, it dominates light and medium fighters in terms of armament. It's heavy mass also provides enhanced endurance and better firing stability. On the other hand, it's also the slowest and the least maneuverable of the three

Retrofuture space plane parts. It's outdated, but all parts is still perfectly functional (I'm running this on KSP 1.6). There's a small and medium-sized engine. Don't forget to assign toggle rotation for VTOL/jet mode to action group https://spacedock.info/mod/197/retrofuture space plane parts

I made a very small (and cute) VTOL fighter jets: Flea Mays - Kukuriza: Single-seat VTOL microfighter armed with quad .50 cal machineguns. Has great agility and maneuverability, but drains it's ammo very fast due to the high rate of fire __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Flea Flia - Kukuruznik: Even smaller VTOL microfighter. Payload limitation reduces it's armament to just twin .50 cal machineguns, which allows for more controlled ammo consumption rate, but reduces it's combat duration due to the limited fuel __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Also having some shenanigan when an experimental version of Flea Flia is fitted with 75mm AT cannon. Due to it's extremely light weight, the aircraft is visibly thrown back and slowed down considerably with the cannon's recoil That's ridiculous

Testing the Tomahawk cluster missile variant (Don't worry, it's legal. We just call it rocket engine test) Aim at the juiciest target in KSC, the VAB. Set all engagements options, inputting GPS coordinates and submunition dispersal proximity... LAUNCH! Submunitions dispersal confirmed Large-area destruction, the VAB is saturated with explosives blanketing the wide area around it before collapsing Test completed successfully!

Why in land warfare (especially for tanks), a cannon with a caliber 120-150 mm is considered as main gun while in naval warfare a cannon with a caliber 120-150 mm (especially for battleships) considered merely as secondary weapon, with cannons of 300-400 mm caliber taking their place as heavy main gun?

The tethers on space elevator is based on how stabilizing tethers holding the stability of large structural towers in real life. For the scale of the space elevator, it makes sense building a tethers that reach across continents, owing to it's massive size. However, if you build a tether relatively close to each other, the tension load would be far greater compared if the tethers are spaced far away from each other. A tall structure that's tethered in close proximity of it's base would be highly stable, but too stiff and very sensitive to damage, given the tethers are under far stronger constant load, and almost unable to compensate for wind (a structure that big is still need some safety margin about wind blowing around it). Another problem is, if I interpret what you said literally, branching off from whatever nailed on top of the elevator to build the tether there would be a bad idea (mainly because of instability and fragility). Isn't it more logical to anchor the tether from the ground to the top of the tower you're supposed to stabilize instead of anything that's branched off from the peak of the tower?

First in-orbit EVA on 1.6