Jump to content

ARS

Members
  • Posts

    1,291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ARS

  1. When a tensile test is performed on a metal sample, after the sample breaks, there's a noticeable heat on the sample, with harder metal typically giving off more heat than softer ones. My question is, does this heat actually come from the kinetic energy of pulling the sample apart (and converted into heat before the sample finally breaks)? Does the amount of total heat on the sample equal with the total energy required to break that sample?
  2. The real joke here is, WHAT IN THE HELL (pun intended) YOU'RE BUILDING A BASE ON VENUS!? I get it with the moonbase on the previous game because moon is Earth's closest neighbor and it's low gravity is at least useful for assisting further space mission in terms of logistic and launch infrastructure, but a freakin' Venus!!? There's nothing to mine there, no resources except corrossive sulphuric acid, building infrastructure is a nightmare, and it has no strategic importance at all since the 3rd reich is pretty much controlling the space. It's just a huge money sink with no actual benefit. I get it that ODIN codes are certainly at the same level of importance as nuclear missile codes, but to build a base in Venus just for that!?
  3. What's the best guidance systems used on missiles for space battles? Especially the one that takes place in-orbit of a planet? Could normal missile guidance be used normally? (Infrared, heatseeking, radar-guided, laser-guided etc.)
  4. What do you call a government that works by: 1. The country is ruled by king (if male) or queen (if female) from monarchy. A single noble family holds a central authority 2. If the current ruler dies or incapable of ruling anymore, the eldest descendant (male or female) take their place 3. The country is divided into several states with one state acting as central authority where the king/ queen lives and ruled the entire country and other states 4. The states are ruled by the descendants/ relatives of the family, each have their own jurisdiction and rules for their states, but all of them obey the central authority. The state's ruler also follows the central authority method of transfer of power (for example, if the king dies, the eldest son (let's say his name is A) of state X takes the throne and his son inherit the state X. If A dies, the next eldest member of state Y (lets say his/her name is B) takes the throne while B's son/ daughter inherit the state Y) 5. Each states are allowed to have their own military force that's commanded by the ruler of that state and central authority, but obey the latter if the orders from both sides are contradictory 6. Each states strives for the prosperity of their own people, but also required to contribute for the prosperity of the entire country (either by exporting goods for developing other states or helping them by sending military aid in times of war) Note that said country is rather small in terms of habitable landmass. Most of the country consists of uninhabited mountain peaks with small amount of states (around 4-5 plus the central authority state)
  5. Independence Day: 1.The number of F/A-18s flying in the final battle was way more than have ever existed at any time in history. And this was after the aliens shot down the first counterattack earlier in droves. Also, RAF-marked F-16s in Iraq? (RAF don't use F-16) USAF using F/A-18s in the climactic battle at the end? (Only USN and USMC uses it) IAF with F/A-18 Hornets?? (Israel doesn't even use it) 2. During the film's climax, Eagle Twenty announces "Fox Two", which is NATO code for the launch of an infrared guided missile, but the missile shown is an AIM-120 AMRAAM, an active radar guided missile that would be launched with "Fox Three." 3. The attack on the alien ship with AMRAAMs and Sidewinders is pretty ridiculous, considering the sheer size of the target. Even the biggest air-to-air missiles in reality only have a 75-kilogram warhead - not much threat to a ship the size of a city. Air-to-ground weapons are closer to 500 kilos... or since the F/A-18 is cleared for the whole gamut of US Navy aircraft weapons, they could have led with something even bigger. Not that this would really have helped, since the entire nuclear arsenal of the world could only vaporise less than 1% of the volume of one of the saucers. Never mind the question of whether or not the missiles' guidance systems (programmed to look for airplanes) could actually recognize the damn thing as a target to be engaged rather than a mountain to be avoided. 4. The original ending for the film sees Russell being denied a place in the final counter attack against the aliens. So he takes one of the Air Force's missiles, straps it to his biplane and sends it into the cannon instead of kamikazing his F-18 after his missile jammed. If this was to be attempted in reality, the biplane would stall on its way up, making it the most awkward self sacrifice in history. Stealth: 1. I don't know who's better, the one who designed a building that still stands after a bunker buster bomb penetrates through all floors in that building at mach 3+ , or the one who designed the bomb that could withstand mach 3+ impact through all floors in that building (plus reinforced concrete slab on top of that) and still functional 2. Speaking of the building, the explosion effect where the building collapses in the middle of dense population area produces a very neat collapsing sequence where NO DEBRIS strays outside of the building's footprint with NO COLLATERAL DAMAGE. Anyone familiar with how the building demolition works will know that demolishing building with explosives WILL get messy (and that's with controlled explosion with surrounding area evacuated instead of in the middle of Rangoon with mach 3+ bomb dropped through the roof) 3. Diving vertically at 2070 knots (roughly mach 3.1, for comparison MiG-31 is mach 2.83) before opening the bomb bay doors would certainly mess up the aerodynamic, and at that speed, the Talon should've disintegrated from the sheer sudden drag induced by such action The A-Team: 1. The fight scene with the Reaper drones is utter nonsense. A Reaper couldn't intercept the A-Team's plane to begin with: the normal cruising speed of a C-130 is 336 mph (540 km/h) but the Reaper tops out at about 300 mph (482 km/h). Also, they aren't armed with machine guns, only missiles (and air-to-ground missiles at that, not air-to-air missiles), nor are they capable of the dogfighting-level maneuverability seen in the tank scene. They're designed for long loiter time in low-velocity flight, and are known to lose their connection to the satellite if they bank too hard to right or left Battlefield Earth: 1. the heroes find a hangar full of Harriers, all of which aren't used for a millennium. No aircraft should be working after about a millennium, it takes years, not weeks to learn to fly a plane, none of them have flight-suits and yet they're all stunt dogfighter material. On the positive side, they do mention that Harrier jets can hover. Note that Harriers are so unreliable that the fact that they can even be repaired after a millennium is implausible Flight of Fury: 1. They used so much stock footage that the type of aircraft varied between almost every scene, as well as having the stock footage of the SR-71 and the F-117 be fuzzy because it was not filmed in high-def, and changing from day to night and back again in a few minutes of flight time. But the worst parts were the aircraft travelling at the speed of the plot progression, with the only consistency being that higher real-world top speeds somehow translated to longer trips in the plot. To wit: -A C-130 (max speed 675 km/h) travels from California to Afghanistan carrying SEALs, in 3 hours (noted by the timestamps) without re-fueling -An F-117 (max speed 1,003 km/h) makes the same trip in less than 6 hours, again without re-fueling -An SR-71 (max speed classified, but listed as 3,540 km/h) makes the same trip in 48 HOURS, but requires re-fueling -All of them fly west over the Pacific and China, not even taking the polar route (a distance of 21,000 kilometers), which would have added a few thousand miles to their trip. Tears of the Sun: 1. The jets during the finale switched between clean (no ordinance) to carrying HARMs (anti-radar missiles - against infantry, no less), then back to clean. And then when they do fire, they shoot missiles...that turn into cluster bombs...that are napalm. There are cluster missiles, but not for aircraft, and cluster napalm hasn't been a thing since WW2 incendiary bombs. Oh, and the rescue helicopters show up moments after the jets, despite the jets being several times faster
  6. If a tank is too heavy to cross a bridge, does widening the track to distribute the load over larger area helps to mitigate it? (Doesn't have to be moving fast, just cross the bridge, when deep fording isn't an option)
  7. If there's a terrestrial planet with planet-wide storm (imagine Mars, but with it's global dust storm cranked up to eleven) that lasts indefinitely, assuming we have a reason to go down there and build something (doesn't have to be a colony, just an outpost or comms/sensor tower with skeleton crew is enough) where's the best region to choose in order to minimize the windspeed? Is it closer to equator or closer to poles? Does the storm gets stronger in poles or in equator? (Assume the entire planet is relatively featureless like those dead rockball moons with no high mountains or cliffs)
  8. So this is some scenes from T-34 movie (2018): On 0:36, 0:52 and 2:42, we can see that a shell causes non-penetration/ ricochet on the tank's armor, with the side effect of causing a shock that makes the crew experiences what can be described as "my ears are ringing intensely". Is this true for real-life? This same effect that's experienced by tank crews when there's a non-penetration/ ricochet on their tank? Does modern tank have this effect too?
  9. I see. So in other words, it's all just a guess when using mathematical calculation huh? Well anyway thanks for your help, at least it gives me insight about what factors that needs consideration for further testing
  10. Okay, so the fibers are not additive in terms of total value. But what if the reinforce material is in the form of powder? (such as wood dust) Aka it's not a fiber that acts like a frame inside the primary matrix, but a powder that's integrated into the primary matrix itself. I've already told the lab technician to give me permission to test the sample, but he denied me access because the testing machine is only calibrated for metals, not ice. Trying to run the test would likely give bad results and possibly damaging the machine because of water melting from pykrete
  11. Wait wait... If the previous formula is based on the cross-sectional area of the sample in 1 cubic meter of material mass, then is it possible if: Assuming that for example, the reinforcement material is around 25% of the total material content (with 75% being the primary matrix), is it possible to take 75% of the force needed to break the matrix and add 25% of the force needed to break the reinforce material (both values are based on the calculation on 75% and 25% of volumes of each material respectively), assuming the reinforce material is distributed evenly throughout the matrix?
  12. So does it means it doesn't factor the orientation of wood fibers inside the ice matrix? If so, should it be assumed as the wood fibers are arranged randomly instead of unidirectional?
  13. So... I've been given a challenge by my teacher. Is it possible to predict the theoretical tensile strength of a composite material solely using mathematical calculation (for example, due to the test cannot be carried out for some reason) if we know the material characteristic of it's individual components? For example, let's say we're gonna find the tensile strength of pykrete. We cannot make the pykrete, but we have the data of ice tensile strength of around 19.0 MPa and it's 18% wood reinforcement is 4.10 MPa. Is it possible to find the theoretical tensile strength of resulting composite solely using mathematical calculation without doing actual test?
  14. LMAO, either the brain has strong enough psychic power to telekinetically deflect the bullet, or the sheer density of the grey matter alone makes the brain's consistency equivalent of ballistic gel
  15. The agent explicitly stated that he (supposedly) killed the man using assault rifle shot to the head (specifically AK-47) around the effective range of said assault rifle (roughly 200m). The flashback showed that the shot landed on the left side of his forehead head-on (the man does fell and there's clearly blood spurting from his head as he fell) presumably due to the range and visibility, the agent didn't really saw (or don't have time to check)that he's still alive due to the condition of that place during the assassination (it was in the middle of a warzone, with dust storm starts kicking in)
  16. So I found a rather interesting scene. I'll spare you the details but in short: A secret agent realized the person before him is his old nemesis, who should've been killed years ago by the agent himself. The agent asks him how he's still alive when back then it's clear that the agent killed him with a headshot on an assassination mission. The man simply replied: "That's because, there's a titanium plating implanted beneath my scalp, protecting my skull." (he's a war veteran that do have implants due to his previous injuries) Now realistically speaking, even if a headshot did bounced off the titanium plating covering his skull (obviously it still penetrates the scalp), the shock of impact itself should still highly damaging towards the brain underneath his skull right? With the impact shock transferring through plating and bone. Even if we pick handgun-level caliber bullet instead of rifles and above
  17. Does human body has a capabilty to dodge bullets like in The Matrix? I'm not saying about could humans do it, but does a human body has a capacity to do so (Based on how human sensory perception, reflex speed and capabilities), assuming the shootout takes place in pistol range like in the movie
  18. Taking account of heavier mass and payload, but at higher speed and engine power, does modern carrier-based aircraft need longer or shorter runway on carrier's flight deck for takeoff and landing compared to WW2-era carrier-based aircraft?
  19. Is it legal in air force to decorate your aircraft with liveries such as squadron emblems, nose art (such as sharkmouth motif), kill tallies, etc? (Though not to a ridiculous extent that involves totally replacing the whole camo of aircraft with something like bright pink)
  20. That's what I'm thinking: A planet with atmospheric condition that renders it impenetrable by radio waves and optical sensors, essentially creating a stealth planet where any orbital observation of it's surface feature is impossible
  21. Is it possible for a planet to have atmospheric cloud so thick that even orbital radar imaging cannot map it's surface feature (or at least obscure it's high resolution image)? With the only way to observe it is by sending probe down there?
  22. Does this moon system possible? A planet has 7 moons in total (It's not earth or any other planet in solar system), consisting of 1 medium-sized moon (roughly half the size of our moon) and 6 smaller moons (each roughly 10% the size of the first moon). All moons have their own orbit, and there's a period where all moons are visible in the same sky together. The moons are waxing and waning at different rate due to their different rotation and revolution period relative to the planet, resulting in different phases. Let's mark the main moon as A while smaller moons as number 1-6 (observer is at the same spot to be able to see all 7 moons together. A is tidally locked, but 1-6 are not) The phases are as follows: Monday: all 7 are present, A is at full moon Tuesday: 1 is invisible Wednesday: 1,2 is invisible Thursday: 1,2,3 is invisible Friday: 1,2,3,4 is invisible Saturday: 1,2,3,4,5 is invisible Sunday: all small moons invisible, A is at crescent moon Monday: all small moons invisible, A is at new moon Around every 3 months, all moons are always visible at the same sky at least once Note: invisible as in "not in the same sky with A"
  23. A lot of time, on movies that features aircraft from pre-jet age, especially WW2 aircrafts or biplane aircrafts, it's frequently shown that during the takeoff sequence, a pilot will jump into the cockpit, casually flip a couple of switches and moments later, the aircraft is ready to fly off the ground. This is pretty inaccurate, starting aircraft engines, particularly older ones, is often complicated and time-consuming. Even in newer aircraft with computers to help manage the process, there are still a series of deliberate steps so pilots can notice and diagnose engine problems before costly damage and/or safety risks occur. In fact, many jets don't even have the ability to start their engines, and have to be hooked up to a "starter cart" on the ground to get the engines spinning. Many piston-engine planes require either a ground crewman turning a starter crank or manually spinning the prop while the pilot does his thing in the cockpit. There are plenty of aircraft that can start without external help, but even those have a much longer startup sequence than you'll generally see on television Now, on to the actual movies. Some glaring mistakes and bad sciences about aircrafts: In Stealth, the F/A-37s would never be able to take off from a carrier. Aside from being based on a somewhat dubious concept aircraft which would likely have trouble transitioning between wing angles, there's the minor issue that they're apparently all but VTOL-capable, swing-wing CATOBAR aircraft with comically gigantic missile loadouts and utterly insane range; there's no way an aircraft with such a laundry list of capabilities would be able to take off from a standard Nimitz catapult, and it's doubtful if it could do so at all, especially not with the stated empty weight of nine metric tons for a 70-foot aircraft. And even if all that weren't true, there's the small matter of their rear landing gear being secured to the carrier's deck with tie-down chains when they're on the catapult. There's also the infamous exploding plane scene, where Jessica Biel punches out seconds before her plane explodes. Next, the pilotless-but-still-in-one-piece plane twists around and starts barreling after her (although it had been twisting around before she hit the eject). Then it explodes, and an enormous cloud of wreckage chases her down. The level of debris raining on her rather suggests she was carrying a Lockheed C-130 troop transport in her missile bay. Slightly less obvious but equally hilarious is how the F/A-37s are shown to outfly Su-37s using exactly the kind of cool supermaneuver those very Su-37s introduced in real life. Somehow, the Russian pilots in movies only know how to fly in straight lines. Made even worse when you know that those very same maneuvers are reserved for airshows and technology demonstration, and that no competent pilot would actually be stupid enough to attempt one in an actual dogfight. Made even more worse (worser?) that they are in a dogfight at all, when both sides are equipped with Beyond Visual Range missile technology, which means dogfighting is your last resort, not your go-to strategy for an engagement. Or the fact the non-stealth Faux-37s weren't even detected until they were only 25 miles out, etc. There's also the fact that these Su-37s are shown as two-seaters, when the only two Su-37s in the real world only have room for the pilot. The F/A-37's cockpit also has more elbow room than do passengers on commercial jets. A bit more forgivably, the joystick is in a between-the-legs placement; most American jets since the F-16 have a side stick. In Moonraker, the sequence in which a space shuttle blasts off from the aircraft carrying it. The shuttle is never carried with fuel or live batteries, that would be far above the carrying limit of the carrier aircraft. Even if Drax somehow arranged for them to be onboard, the Shuttle is basically a glider — its engine and onboard fuel aren't enough to fly it any great distance as if it were a regular jet plane. It is also impossible to carry a shuttle on the back of a normal 747, even if you could add a cradle on top. The turbulence caused by it renders the normal rudder basically useless (the NASA 747 used to ferry the shuttles had additional vertical steering surfaces installed at the ends of the horizontal tail surfaces for this reason, this is also why An-225 Mriya used twin-tail design: in order to put the rudders away from the turbulence caused by Buran on top of it so it remains usable in-flight). The other problems can be explained with this being something more like an earlier design, which included air-breathing jet engines with a significant internal fuel store. You'd still never get enough fuel on board it without it being noticed to be overweight when it was loaded on the carrier, or at the very least when the carrier was being pre-flighted and the crew noticed the landing gear was reading thousands of pounds more weight than it should be. Additionally, if the shuttle firing its engines while attached to the 747 causes the latter to explode, why does the 747 have an indicator in the cockpit for 'Shuttle Ignition' (!) as if they were expecting it to happen? In GoldenEye, the real Eurocopter Tiger cannot survive an EMP and cannot lock missiles onto itself. The MC at the demonstration where it is stolen announces it as a prototype with new features. Another is during the scene where the MiG pilot killed when his aircraft augurs gets unresponsive in after the first EMP (hammering his fist on the canopy in a vain attempt to escape). He should have pulled his ejection handle. Aircraft ejection seats are specifically designed to function with no power source of any kind, and are largely immune to EMP, the phenomenon being reasonably well-understood as an effect of nuclear weapons detonations. Even systems with electronic initiation have a backup system. As a rule, much more concern is spent making sure the ejection seat doesn't go off when it shouldn't, such as when the plane is on the ground In Tomorrow Never Dies, the Chinese planes that attack the stray British ship are repeatedly described as "Chinese MiGs". Although China does have MiGs, these aren't them; the aircraft are clearly recognizable as Q-5s, an indigenous Chinese type (admittedly partly based on MiG-19 technology, but very different in appearance). Apparently a case of the special effects department doing better research than the scriptwriters. On the other hand, a Qian-5 that drops a torpedo would be an extraordinary beast. They should have used the Chinese Harbin-5 bomber, based on the Ilyushin-28. In the teaser, when the Royal Navy frigate fires the cruise missile at the terrorist "flea market", M tells 007 he has four minutes to get clear. The target is 400 miles from the ship. A Tomahawk cruise missile (as shown) has a top speed of about 550 miles per hour. It should have taken the missile about 43 minutes to get there. The novelization blows it even more thoroughly, with a Harpoon missile being launched, and traveling 800 miles in 4 minutes 8 seconds. First of all, a Harpoon (an antiship missile) has a maximum range of less than 100 miles, and second, it travels at about the same (determinedly subsonic) speed as the Tomahawk. To do 800 miles in 248 seconds, it would have needed to achieve about 11,600 miles per hour, or about 3.2 miles per second - about half of Earth's escape velocity. Also, any object traveling that fast at low altitude would burn up like a meteor hitting the lower atmosphere - plus what the shock wave effects would do to anything along its path on the ground. In Casino Royale, one scene features a prototype "Skyfleet S570", possibly intended as a fictional version of the then-new Airbus A380. The actual plane we see, however, is obviously a Boeing 747 with external fuel tanks hanging from the wings (specifically, it's the decommissioned 747 that lives on the Top Gear test track). This makes very little sense for any civilian aircraft. Also, a Czech Airlines plane is seen. That airline did not operate flights to Miami in 2006 (no doubt due to the scene being filmed at Vaclav Havel Airport in Prague, where the airline is based). In Asteroid, a laser (judging by its size, geodesic; and of course, with the ray visible in space) fastened onto an F-16, manually aimed at a megameter or so, which blows up the big asteroid. Made even worse by the comment in-film that the lasers had to be fired from within the atmosphere to be aimed properly, as though having all that air in the way made it easier to target something in space. Though one could argue that it would be silly even with the Pentagon's "realistic" solution — an experimental laser cannon on a Boeing 747, which at least could take out missiles or aircraft. As opposed to the plain and sane original idea: arrange meeting of damn stone and little fusion device, the higher orbit the better (even better with a group of miners), then watch some fireworks.
×
×
  • Create New...