Jonfliesgoats

Airplane movies are like that too. You can shoot a fist-sized hole in the side of a pressurized jet, and you will not see people turned to goo as they flush out the hole. Carastrophic failures are another matter.

@Mikki As an aside, since you are somewhat critical of US foreign policy. You may enjoy reading the DOD's latest encyclopedia of ethical failure. One of the hallmarks of our institutions is that while careers rest on keeping buffoonery hidden, we genuinely do have people working to increase transparancy. http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/dod_oge/eef_complete.pdf

I just bought an expensive, used telescope for my daughter. Are you guys getting these images from your homes, or are you traveling to dark-sky locations to do this? Follow-on question: If you are working from your house, how are you countering light pollution?

I seem to remember something aru No 450 or 500 seconds, but I am not sure why I have that number in my mind.

@Mikki Mikki, passionate discussion can yield positive results. With regard to my worldview, it's built on experience working and flying in a variety of roles globally. And, yes, that involves some experience in combat and in areas of conflict. It is my hope and belief that advances in technology, which move the humanity forward in exploration, welfare and general understanding are worthwhile. This discussion and this forum is an area where we can discuss technology, aerospace, spaceflight and science. This is and always will be inexorably tied with military action. We would not have radar, manned spaceflight or thermal imaging without mankind's determination to kill his fellow man. How military technology is applied, especially in second and third orde effects (microwave ovens, nuclear medicine, advanced imaging in medicine and industry) is not always bloody. This is where I see a hopeful world advancing from and away from conflict rather than a dystopian one. We use the very things we invent to kill each other in order to come together as a species and move forward together. Is there anything more beautiful than beating intellectual swords into ploughshares like that?! Talk to me! I like hearing from you! I post a lot on here, especially while I am traveling, at hotel gymnasiums, laying over or waiting for maintenance on a plane. I offer my views and thoughts for you to evaluate and, yes, judge. I welcome your input whether it's hostile and caustic or genuinely productive. Inferences about my political leanings are likely inaccurate, however. I would be happy to discuss any geopolitical or economic ideas you have, but probably in a different thread. Let's share ideas! With regard to the F-35, drones or surveillance, You obviously find something unpallatable, but I am unclear about what, specifically bothers you. What are the issues you see? What bothers you? Even in something as small as a forum about a video game we can come away from these discussions with new ideas and perspectives. Rather than commenting on politics, what, specifically, about a technology bothers you? Again, talk to me! I like hearing what you have to say! Finally, I mean what I say. I genuinely like hearing from you. This is a nice break from listening to folks talk about their scheduling difficultues or trade information about attractive coworkers, divorce proceedings, etc. I enjoy this.

So can a drone be made that is cheaper than th technology required to shoot it down or disable it? Bullets are cheap, so anything that flies below about 1000 feet, which is the effective altitude of small arms would have to be less expensive than the number of bullets it takes to boot it down, say 30 7.62mm rounds. Initially this seems dubious, but cheap cameras and cheap quadcopters are already moving in this direction. The bigger issue is production rate. I don't see a person being able to carry more mini drones than bullets in the near future. Still, imagine a future in which every single soldier has four small drones to see around corners, over walls, etc. Swarms of camera drones feeding information into facial recognition software could be hugely valuable, especially in areas without much CCTV coverage. At higher altitudes, we move away from small arms to AAA and missiles. This is where your idea becomes really interesting. When you start trying to engage an aircraft more than a few thousand feed above you, things get costly either for missiles or in risk to shooters. A DshK is cheap to shoot, but is noticeable enough to get anyone associated with it killed, for example. We already live in a world where it is less expensive to build and fly some drones, especially those that fly above 20000 feet than field the weapons to shoot them down. Electronic warfare significantly alters these equations. Jamming and signals interference can be done without much cost. Worse, unencrypted data can be used against us, as happened in Iraq with VDL feeds (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126102247889095011 ). The drones can actually tell bed guys where we are lookning rather than show us where bad guys are hiding. How much support does it take to maintain a drone reconnaissance program in the face of active jamming or, worse, passive monitoring of feeds? I don't know. Gustav Carl Von Rosen used teeny, cheap airplanes to destroy the only night fighter in Nigeria during the Biafra war. He preserved the airlift that was keeping food and munitions coming to the Biafrans. During the Battle of Britain, the U.K. produced more fighters than the Germans could shoot down (pilots were another matter). So producing more aircraft and at lower cost than the munitions and systems to shoot them down is not a new concept. China bases its Air Force around this idea. These same economic factors apply to drones.

That's a fantstic question Cordraroll! In fact, I think it should have its own thread!!! There is a tug of war between cheap drones and cheap drone-stoppers happening in Ukraine right now. Cheap drones sent to Ukraine are having their data links broken, renderining them useless. Check out this Russian propaganda that holds some grains of truth: http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?239305-Video-Junk-US-Military-Drone-Technology-Abandoned-and-Thown-back-by-3rd-World-Pui! http://www.unian.info/war/1691672-us-supplied-drones-disappoint-ukraine-at-donbas-front-lines.html

Yeah. I used to fly around all those aerostats and drones in a previous life. Satellites also have to deal with weather while a tethered balloon can simply winch up or down as necessary. I was just really jazzed thinking about swarms of satellites.

I am interested, but I am having trouble following. Are you saying that a material, like a carbon-fiber composite can be imbued with a memory or some sort of processing power? And if these materials can be self healing, as briefly mentioned in the article, does that mean the carbon nanotubes can be reconfigured to original with, say, a heat treatment? Does this also mean that an embedded circuit can be rewired at will? Composites now are vulnerable to impact damage. Hail that would cause cosmetic denting is destructive to composites. Lightning and static dissipation requires conductive coatings and/or conductors to static wicks. Does this stuff, theoretically, offer solutions to field maintenance on composites and electrical dissipation?

At risk of delving into politics, does anyone want to speculate on missions likely to be approved and or accomplished in the four to eight years coming?

I don't know. Our biggest advances in aviation and spaceflight were rooted in science fiction. Moreover discussion of technology a few generations ahead of today's is, essentially science fiction.

Looks like Bombardier is adopting a British University's system of carbon nanotubes to make conductive composites. http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/aerospace/aviation/carbon-nanotubes-make-aerospace-composites-conduct How would the self-healing properties work?

I am excited about the possibilities and accessibility of this date to other alphabet agencies, nations, etc.

We have seen James Bond snatched into the sky using an airplane and a tethered balloon. We have also learned about the parachute-snatching planes used to retrieve Corona film canisters. This article details the effort to snatch invasion gliders back into flight. I knew this was done, but had no idea about the winch-cable system used to control acceleration forces. Also, check out the smoke from the unwinding winch by the C-47 loadmaster. I'd hate to see a cable snap with the loadmaster anywhere near that winch. Enjoy! https://warisboring.com/the-snatch-method-was-one-crazy-way-to-make-a-glider-fly-ee55d4f2ada4#.o0vlhsano

Most Americans may see this is a challenge. I see something healthy in having more, global aerospace development. With the consolidation and collapse of British civil and military aerospace production stopped and research seriously slowed. In the US, we develop a few new, high profile systems but industrial consolidation has seen us really slow down our research and development for decades. Now, with private investment in space exploitation we see a resurgence in development. China expanding her aerospace capabilities may cause more investment in American R and D. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/12/27/China-unveils-plan-to-become-a-Top-3-aerospace-power-by-2030/8091482852862/

Interesting. I haven't really thought about how Space.com has changed its tenor over time, but it does seem to have changed. Fear makes good click bait. I know I take the hook more often than I should.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/ Previously I was wondering about cube sats as arrays. What about lots of cheap satellites to give us global, persistent surveillance of the earth and/or cosmos?

Drones like the MQ-9 integrate with manned reconnaissance systems, like the MC-12 to compliment each other's strengths and limitations in the field. This is why I wonder if a similar synergy can occur with air superiority.

Speaking of which I think one of the KSP players here lives near this Ritchey Cheretien (sic) telescope: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Telescopio_Canarias

Lots of good ideas worth discussing! Rather than quote them all here, let me address some general topics. I encourage you to point out my errors in ego, analysis, etc. As usual, I enjoy all of your contributions. Manned v. Unmanned fighters: Manned systems have inherent advantages and inherent weaknesses in comparison to unmanned systems. For example UCAVs can maneuver more aggressively and be sacrificed in aggressive SEAD efforts. UCAVs are only as smart as their data-link or whatever algorithm they use for autonomous operations. UCAVs can only see what their sensors can detect, and any sensor regardless of how advanced can be spoofed. Human platforms can innovate, especially if you give your pilots, systems operators and commanders lots of training and war gaming. (Tangent: check out this story of military war gaming and politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002) In other words UCAVs can execute better while manned assets can innovate and adapt better. Because of this, it is unliely we will see the end of maneuverable manned fighters within the next fifty years. What we may see is a paradigm shift to integration of unmanned UCAVs flying with manned fighters. Perhaps a lone fighter would be the manned, local C2 of a small strike package? UAVs also can move take some AEW capabilities to support large, four engine airplanes. AEW and C2 is the lynch pin of air superiority. RAND has identified these large, four engine aircraft as a weak point for a defense of airspace over Taiwan or Japan. I think I'm awesome and you should too! When it comes to fighters, I am out of my element, however. My background is in airlift, certain other projects and some testing and development. Perhaps someone less obnoxious and with more insight can offer their ideas about the future of air combat? Stealth: Any technology can be countered. Stealth geometry and materials are no longer new. A worrying trend here is seen in selling points. Proponents of the F-35 are saying that surveillance radar can be tweaked to see the F-35, but targeting radar can't. The fact that this post has even made it into the sales effort for this aircraft is significant. Detection is detection. Period. This hasn't changed since Boelke made his dicta or John Boyd made the OODA loop. Some things are pushed as fads and selling points, even if they don't make sense. We have stealthy ships, for example. Well, a stealth boat is still really, really observable. To take advantage of that stealth, our still really, really observable Boat has to leave all of its active sensing off. Soooo to my uneducated eyes this has all the hallmarks of "You want stealth? Here's a stealth boat! We have stealth microwaves and stealth hand lotion too! Stealth!". If we want stealth, we build submarines. A stealth destroyer seems dumb, but I am not a surface warfare guy. We also have to ask ourselves what we lose for this advantage in reduced radar cross section? In the case of the F-35, we lose the ability to carry lots of stores. We lose the ability to mount new sensors on the plane. We lose the ability to provide VDL to local ground forces. We lose a lot of stuff! The F-22 gives us a super-maneuverable and capable air superiority fighter, so the stealth makes sense. The F-35 gives us a helmet mounted targeting system that doesn't work. Stealth is a great technology that can become part of a great, specialized platform. A stealthy multi-role aircraft? I don't know. Multi-Role Platforms: A Jack of all trades is a master of none. Does this mean there is no role for multi-role aircraft? I think some careful attention needs to be payed to performance and cost trade-offs. Getting this calculus right gives us great successes while getting it wrong gives us costly and dangerous lemons. The AV-8 Harrier really doesn't do much of anything well. VTOL was and is really expensive in terms of reduced fuel and stores. The F-16, however doesn't do CAS as well as the A-10, but it does it well enough. The F-16 doesn't do air superiority as well as the F-15, but it does well enough. The V-22 eats maintenance hours to deliver less crap at higher cost than the helicopters and planes it is designed to replace. It also can't fly in dust for more than a fraction of a minute. The C-130 can serve as a tanker, electronic warfare platform, awesome CAS platform, etc. Of course, if you are the guy to say the newest super-project is a lemon, prepare to watch your career and future in private defense go up in smoke. So human factors and the way we promote actually has a lot to do with why we often field sub-par gear. Luckily all other nations are equally dysfunctional. Wars out of the Blue: You would be amazed! We shift our political and military administrative inertia in a direction, and it takes a significant crisis to get us to shift back again. In Korea, MacArthur had lots of intelligence regarding the massing of 300000 Chinese troops north of the Yalu River. Why was this intelligence ignored? Well, personalities prevented observation and adaptation from occurring, but that is a matter for historians. The result was strategic suprise. More recently, a rebellion developed in Libya that caught NATO flat-footed. We had been warming relations with the Qaddafi regime after he surrendered his chemical weapons stockpiles in the wake of 9/11. Also, our attention was elsewhere during the Arab Spring. NATO was perpetually two steps behind developments on the ground for the first few weeks of those events. We didn't get our act together fast enough. With the forces Russia has massed near its western frontier, it can roll over NATO forces through the Baltics before we even decide how we want to respond. We know this, and it keeps Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians and Germans up at night. Big organizations can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I have faith in NATO's and America's ability to recover after letting things devolve terribly. I don't believe we are very good at all in detecting the next crisis or identifying and acting on fleeting opportunities. We are slow until crisis lubricates our joints. After that, we get really mean. Finally, I know we like to say that we don't know how many crises have been averted because we did see problems coming. To be sure this happens too, just not often enough.

He is asking a bunch of Space-thinking people a space-like question. He went to people who may be more informed than a simple web search.

Agreed. However, the F-35 is supposed to be the cheap, capable partner in Air Dominance to the F-22. The F-35, being neither cheap nor capable, fails to fill its role. Restarting the F-22 line, currently being considered, along with lots of sustainable, older gen aircraft may give us literally more bang for our defense buck. 500 F-22s with 1100 Eurofighters (built under liscence in the US) would be a very capable mix.

Probably good opportunities for training and evaluation too. The problem with MAD is that while it works for humanity as a whole, there is still incentive for the individual state to develop missile defense.

Fill out the blanks in this webpage, select ISP instead of VEX and you will get your Delta V. http://www.strout.net/info/science/delta-v/ DV to get to a particular body changes with relative position. Fill in the blanks on this webpage to determine transfer requirements. https://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/#/Kerbin/80/Jool/100/false/ballistic/false/2/161

Just to add a little gasoline to this thread: http://www.rand.org/blog/2013/12/do-joint-fighter-programs-save-money.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9759.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9858z3.html Personally, I am it much of a multi-role aircraft fan, and multi-role aircraft have had mixed results, historically. More importantly, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, y'all!