p1t1o

Theres no way thats really the cargo hold of an MD90. You know how I can tell? Airliner holds are always big enough for secret agents to have running gun battles with a herd of terrorists, and there has to be ladder access to a hatch in the passenger compartment. And there's usually a couple parachutes just bummin' around. Those are the rules of the sky.

boop: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11470 Also, I cant find any pictures online anywhere, but I swear I have seen some old-skool-stylez drawing of hypothetical GAM-87 skybolt loadouts on airliners as a cheap/off the shelf alternative to expensive fleets of dedicated carriers.

Well it works with a frog at 1G, so thats something!

Im just saying its within the bounds of the laws of physics, not that we could build it today. You can achieve, today, a similar effect by floating the crew in tank of breathable fluid, which is technology that exists today, as demonstrated for real in the movie "The Abyss".

Apart from the horizon factors that other people ahve explained very well, there is another reason for this. If a radar is looking at a contact with sky as the background, there is no reflection from empty sky, so the contact is very easy to discriminate. However, if you are, say, patrolling at 20k feet, looking down at an aircraft on the deck, the background is not sky, but ground. The ground, and objects on it, reflect and scatter radar, so the background is much less clear than with sky, making it harder to pick out the target. During the first half-ish of the 20th century (up to about 1970ish), this made the aircraft on the deck very hard to spot even if it is within your horizon. However, they soon developed "look-down-shoot-down" technology - basically exploiting the pulse-doppler effect to make targets with relative velocities different to their background stand out, meaning a fast mover with a stationary background lights up. This essentially removes the issue of "ground clutter". However, there is still some utility in flying on the deck, even today. But not as much. In fact, modern air combat is moving quickly towards an information-limited warfare (rather than, for example, speed or manouverability limited). Where stealth and electronic countermeasures can become so sophisticated as to make the higher altitudes available again - and large advantages are granted by altitude (fuel efficiency, weapon range etc.) So the optimum "attack" altitude basically goes up and down like a yo-yo as technology and tactics are developed. Relative technology and economic levels count a great deal as well - as today, "assymetric" warfare is the flavour of the week, so we can basically fly with impunity above about 10kfeet (to protect against smallarms and MANPADS) and drop whatever we like.

Im surprised he didnt offer to upgrade your computer-plange or recalibrate the drabble plate.

Your question translate to "How can we locally and drastically change the laws of this universe?" I dont think any human can answer this question today, other than saying "You cant, period." HOWEVER It IS possible to levitate a biological organism with a magnetic field strong enough. http://www.physics.org/facts/frog-really.asp This field acts upon every atom in your body, so you could - hypothetically - use it to perfectly protect crew from extreme accelerations. Floating in a field, the acceleration will be applied to all parts of your body equally, meaning that you wouldnt actually feel anything, even accelerating at 10G. This would also provide protection against heavy impact as well. Not quite a Star-Trek level inertial damper, but provides some of the use and with 100% real science!

Hi and welcome to the KSP forums! I could be wrong - though I'd eat a figurative hat if I was - but that website looks like pure garbage. There is a lot of misinformation and myth surrounding Tesla, mainly it exists just to generate clicks/hits/likes or to sell something equally garbage or just to ask for money. "using less energy than it takes to fall 5 mm in earths gravity" - this (amongst other things) is a big red flag that violates conservation of energy, a very large pointer that says "garbage science".

I have considered this, but - and I could be wrong - the lurching seems to appear *above* idle revs. As @YNM suggested, I could go into gear at zero (idle) throttle and let it roll on those revs. The "lurching" I am talking about occurs slightly above those revs, ergo above the stall limit. Otherwise I might not have noticed. Rolling along at idle is easy, but trying to maintain a constant speed of 1-2mph greater than idle is where the thing occurs, making this a very annoying speed to drive, hence I notice. Although at this point, it is as likely as not that Im mis-remembering and it is the stall limit as you say. I havnt exactly been keeping robust data logs...

Think that would work, but riding on a half-clutch wears it out quite rapidly, generally bad practice. Its easily avoided by just coasting in neutral periodically, Im just at a loss as to the cause.

Been driving for 17 years now! Starting in second is not difficult but its not great for the clutch. But its not even a clutch thing. You could have the clutch fully engaged in gear and moving slowly and smoothly at some speed, then if I carefully slow down, at a certain (>idle) slow speed, the lurching begins. Im talking 1st or 2nd gear here. In higher gears you can slow down to the point where the engines is not turning sufficient revs to maintain operation and stalls, without ever experiencing the "lurching" effect - apart from if the stall is particularly "jerky" but I think that is a different phenomenon. I dont know anything about a combustion engine that could explain a mechanical cause for the lurching, the power train should be capable of smooth operation through a large range of revs, right down to almost the point of stall, right? Like I said Im guessing its a human factor but I've tried like, holding my foot perfectly still on the pedals and the lurching still manifests, seemingly out of nowhere.

Indeed that is the optimal situation. The lurching seems to be prevalent at those awkward speeds where you need to go 1-2mph faster than that threshhold.

Why do cars, at certain low throttle settings, usually in first or low gear, do that "lurching" thing? My first assumption is that its pilot-induced-oscillation (sudden acceleration lifts my accelerator-foot minutely, causing a sudden deceleration, dropping my foot minutely, causing a sudden forwards acceleration, lifting my...etc.) but it seems to occur even if I force precise control over the accelerator pedal.

seems like perfectly sound logic to me

T O O T H A C H E Had a wisdom tooth out last week and have been in a constant state of 5minute intense toothache (in nearby teeth) every half hour or so, sometimes a couple hours of respite if Im lucky. Codeine barely touches it. Got another appt on Friday so hopefully can get it resolved then but damn. Ow. OwOwOw. One of my favorite memes:

If I exhale strongly, is that a matter beam?

Yes, omg and his son, off-screen. Also does Aeris from Final Fantasy VII count?

Solo was ok, but it stands on its own and wasnt really necessary. I think Ep3 is the best of all of them, maybe just for Obi1 owning Annakin so effortlessly.# FunFact: Do you guys know this? It might have been mentioned before. Ewan McGreggor has a brother who flew as a fighter pilot in the RAF. His callsign was, for a time, "Obi2".

I even quite like phantom menace. So what fight me.

"#1: no way astronauts are that goodlooking"

If Im understanding you correctly, I think that still implies superluminal energy transmission. You could make a row of light sources (like say, hot gas) light up in sequence to give an artificial impression of a superluminal "front", but if the energy to power the lighting is coming from a point source (the weapon), that energy would have to be superluminal to achieve this effect.

Ergo - it *wasnt* light, it was something else - essentially magic as defined by Arthur C. Clarke, "Technology sufficiently advanced...etc" Im not sure if StarWars is relevant to this thread, its not really *science*fiction, its closer to a true fantasy. Closer to Harry Potter than The Martian. Now that I say that, I feel like I could list parallels between Harry Potter and StarWars all day. Child saviour discovers mysterious powers. Trained through a selection of wise old experts. Needs training montages and personal development plots to build ability to defeat mysterious BigBad with the help of a ragtag team of plucky friends, including big hairy friend and amusing malcoordinated friend. Also a parental connection (not the same kind, but familial connections definitely a big role). Could probably go on. A loved character with tiny body and big ears dies in arms of child saviour. Damn that last one is spooky! Also Hermione is Leieiaia. And both are 6-or-more part franchises with spin off movies still coming. Like, what, in StarWars *IS* scientifically accurate? Food, they need food and drink, so thats correct, and....buildings, they live in buildings, thats pretty accurate, shelter is a very real survival necessity....and I guess they sorta peripherally hint that humans cant breathe vacuum, cant really think of much else to be honest. None of this is criticism (plot holes and inconsistencies notwithstanding), StarWars is cool for a multitude of reasons, but hard accuracy has never been one of its aims. edit: Hang on! Theres even a hot-danged trench-run scene!

Theres something a bit beautiful about this Err...I mean, ugh - the world eh? Amirite?

Sigh. On the plus side, maybe if we act stupid enough, they will reset the simulation.

Aw man! Why the driveby!?