p1t1o

Cool! But those wouldnt exist if someone didnt think it was worth checking out those identities... If I wanted to put a surreptitious sensor in space, I'd put it on an actually functioning comsat and call it a "science experiment" or some jazz. Err, well to be fair, yeah it looks like a kill vehicle, look at all those divert thrusters and that is definitely a warhead. But I do think it would at least be a challenge to spot that from the ground.

So every time I see the thread title "Do you BELIEVE there is life outside of Earth?" over on the Science forum, I read it in Cher's voice to the tune of "Life After Love". AND. NOW. SO. DO. YOU. It doesnt go away.... funny.

I didnt mean to imply that drones are not effective, only that we've had drones for a lot longer than we've had "drones" if you know what I mean, which means that becoming paranoid about the rise of "drones" is worse than pointless. And the comparison to skynet - we have the capability to build skynets army today, it didnt have access to weaponry any more dangerous than that we already have. (ok they had plasma rifles in the 40W range, but thats just another infantry weapon, not a game changer like timed explosive ammunition, say). What we saw in the movies was the cleanup of the last 1% of living humans, it was the nukes that won the war. Sophisticated, autonomous, robotic weapons are nothing new, is my point. With their superiority over a standard model T-101 combat mechanoid as an amusing aside Anyhoo...a little OT.

Welp, this is definitely 2017... https://boingboing.net/2017/11/15/there-is-now-a-ferry-mcferryfa.html +1 for "Excession" but I have a sneaky feeling we should keep it for a real one.

Indeed, high velocity is not rally compatible with water. Schkval is an outlier, and even then, considering its power, it "only" reaches a couple hundred knots or so. *** Modern weapons are very advanced, surprisingly so. It always "amuses" (for want of a better word) me when people rave about how drones are going to end us all, or how armed robots are super-scary. Torpedos are literally tiny robot killers, you release them and they speed away, find and identify targets and attempt to kill them. AA missiles are literally tiny robot aircraft which do the same, highly autonomous. Each have capabilities orders of magnitude greater than their manned counterpart. Some AG missiles will search an area for a defined target or targets using multiple sensors (many weapons are turning up now with combined radar and IR sensor suites), send imaging data back to base for final ID (including high speed footage from the last second or so before impact to aid BDA) or even manual re-targetting and can abort to a safe area should a target not be located. Some weapons can attack multiple targets or loiter at altitude for one to turn up. Some weapons have multiple deployable warheads and can decide themselves how best to employ them. We already have terminators among us, its just they dont look like the ones from the movies - because ours are more efficient killers. Who would win in a fight? A T-101 model combat mechanoid or an autonomous, supersonic, brimstone missile with imaging millimetre radar, search algorithms and a 14lb shaped charge warhead capable of defeating modern MBT armours? The reason Skynet wins is because of its control over nuclear weapons, not because terminators and other robot killing machines are particularly scary or unusual. /weird random rant

Why? Just register it as a civilian satellite and dont tell anyone. I wouldnt be surprised at all if this is done already.

Disguises are precisely what is used when stealth is required in space today. Also chaff, active decoys, jamming etc. I dont see any reason why you couldnt do what you suggest with some degree of success. Its not too far a stretch of the imagination to think that there might be some "communications satellites" up there right now that are in fact for something else.

What is the inverse of rotation? This comes from a/the discussion about how bicycles stay upright and how two opposed wheels with opposite rotation still have a gyroscopic effect. A forward vector can be cancelled out completely with a vector in the opposite direction, however with rotating objects, when you take two of them rotating in opposite directions, some things cancel out but there are still terms left over - hence two wheels rotating in opposite directions still have a gyroscopic effect. Lets consider the wheel, all points on the rim are constantly accelerating inwards at a rate proportional to the speed of rotation. This occurs in equilibrium, a steady state, no points change distance from any other point. It stores angular momentum. Unless energy is removed, it will continue forever. So what is the opposite of that? What arrangement of masses and velocities can directly and completely oppose the angular momentum of a wheel? Is there one? Does the question make sense in this universe? The only thing that comes close in my mind is one of those sprinklers where water enters a spinny thing, shoots out the ends making it rotate? Its the only example I could think of with constant outwards acceleration, but even this isnt in equilibrium as the water leaves the system entirely. And it still looks quite a lot like a wheel.

This was baking my noodle for a while, how could two opposing wheels still have a gyroscopic effect? Then I thought about what you said. I was thinking "If you consider the pair of wheels, and you look at each point on one wheel and its counterpart point on the other, then all the vectors cancel out to zero, so what gives hmm?" But if you consider the acceleration of each point of the wheels, both points in the pair are accelerating inwards, when you combine them they DOUBLE! Is that a fair assessment of why two oppositely-rotating wheels still have a gyroscopic effect? (then I started thinking - so how can you cancel out the constant inwards acceleration of all of the points on a wheel? Then I started trying to imagine an inverse wheel, or an inside-out wheel and my mind started to hurt so now Im going to have a bath)

If it occludes a bright object, like a star, it will be as obvious to a telescope as an iridium flare. You wont get much data from a single occlusion, but what you would do, if you were so inclined, is look very intensely at that area with all of your other sensors.

Indeed one can never predict how one would react in such extreme situations. May none of us ever find out.

These books are very interesting. Its funny how simple they can be - when all you want to do is kill and you are not limited in any way, there isn't too much to learn. Or at least its not too technical, compared to other martial arts publications: One memorable page was a killing technique (for a person already on the ground) which was literally "Jump in the air as high as you can, knees to chest, and stamp with both feet on his sternum." Yup, that'd do it. Honestly, even if my life depended on it, I think I might be too skweemish to do that...

Im going to go ahead and politely challenge that idea, any supporting data? I can accept that it can work that way for icebergs, but I have never heard of RAM being "too efficient" and RAM-protected vehicles being visible because of the "hole" they leave in returns. It doesnt even make sense for aircraft or spacecraft as there is no reflective background. I even have a hard time believing that RAM protected ships, with a sea background, do not still have a significant radar return. Radar stealth has never been about invisibility, it has always been about merely reducing the range at which the return you give is reasonably detectable. Why do stealth craft have "stealth shapes"? Because they still reflect radar and they want to reflect as much of it as possible away from the emitting sensor.

Oh not stealth in space again! *** Probably one of the more effective approaches. *** Its an oft-ignored point that your enemy could well have sensors all over the place, looking for you from all sorts of angles, including (for targets in LEO) with the Earth as a backdrop where a cold, black body will stand out. This also makes the tactic of "I'll just radiate in this direction only" less effective. *** TL;DR - like all stealth, its a matter of degrees and context. It is always possible to make something hard-ER to see, but true "invisibility" is next to impossible in all situations. A radar absorbent coating does not make you invisible to radar!

I realised that I didnt actually answer your question: "... i just need know how to share what i think is any place or platform for this ..." Well, the best place for this is here, I think. Whatever your ideas are, this is probably the best place to test them out in the open. Because I get the feeling, with all due respect, that they are not backed up with several kilograms of mathematical derivations, comparisons against current theory, supporting observations and experimental data. However I think what you are asking is "How does new research make it into the wider world, how does it get accepted into theory?" To be really brief, you submit it, just like any article, to a journal. Journals are essentially just magazines really, but they are "peer reviewed" in that before they publish anything, several volunteer scientist in a similar field will read it over and see if it makes sense. It doesnt have to automatically be "definitely new science" it just has to be good enough to be a reasonable probe into the unknown, with well documented processes and results. In theory, a completely unrelated scientist must be able to repeat your exact research just from the data and information that you present. If it is interesting or potentially disruptive new science, if it makes a good case for "you guys should put effort and money into really checking this shiz out, its worth an experiment or two" you will find that it does get tested around the world, and articles even published on that. Only if everything checks out and people start making better predictions using your system, will it be "generally accepted" - that highest of high statuses for scientific principles. Thats the [very] short version. There are vastly more details, like not every journal is as reputable as the next. Just submitting it doesnt mean you will pass peer review. Just because it passes peer review it doesnt mean it wont be wholly rejected by the scientific community. Some journals might not accept work from a non-professional or non-qualified private person, others might. Oh, this bit is really important - if your hypothesis offers nothing that can be tested, no experiment that shows your hypothesis to be more accurate than current theory, then it is worth very little. It still might be interesting but it will be of very poor scientific value. Fact is, this happens every day, new science is constantly being generated, tested, shared, probed, reviewed, debated, and slowly, via all the various scientists working in a particular field, science that survives rigorous testing and provides enhanced prediction gradually gets absorbed into the larger body of accepted knowledge. Only VERY rarely is there one big discovery that sends ripples all through a field of science, hits the "civilian" news or papers and gets talked about in public. This is another reason why people with BIG IDEAS!! are often rejected at first sight, because there just is no way that every tom, dick and harry are having field-breaking revelations in the car on the way to work. REAL science. REAL research. Is boring. Monotonous. Unexciting. Oh wow, you discovered a sliiiiightly better way to look at this one type of cell from one specific sub-type of a certain species of plankton. Real research scientists churn out many, many articles over their careers, its a routine, day-to-day thing, and they slowly but surely improve our understanding of the world, even without any EUREKA moments or Nobel prizes. Theres a reason they only give out a handful of those per year. That example with the plankton up there? That really would be worth writing up and posting to a journal. TL;DR - you write up all your data, all your findings, all your ideas, in as clear a way as possible so that people can take it away and test/repeat it, and send it to a journal who may, or may not, publish it. The scientific community takes it from there. PS: for the love of god tell us what it is, Im dying! It might be subject to criticism, but anyone who is rude or unnecessarily vehement or personal in their criticism is the one being a poor scientist, not you. Honestly its a good way to learn how to keep a cool head and I dont mind admitting that I have had a few ill-advised ideas and putting them out there taught me scientific rigor better than any class or lecture.

Hi there, welcome! Best approach would be to assume that - bear with me here - assume that you are wrong. What you can do, is clearly present your hypotheses - and this is the important part - ask why they are/would be considered wrong. In this way you come across as inquisitive, curious and possibly with some interesting thoughts on the subject. Then, if someone explains why your hypothesis is not as good at explaining black holes as what we currently have, you will learn an awful lot. AND if nobody can find a robust flaw - then boom, you've got new science. Current theories are very complex and supported by huge volumes of data. This is why they get to be called "theories". A "theory" is a very strong scientific statement. Its is only one...thing....below absolute proof. And as we know, absolute proof is not always even possible to obtain. Only very few things are 100% philosophical-grade proven, and many that are, are only proven within their specified logic system (like mathematical proofs). For a new hypothesis to replace current views, it must explain everything that we already explain, to a better degree of accuracy. These are high requirements, but if you want to be the person that puts one over on Hawking + Einstein, thems the breaks! We all have interesting pet hypotheses when we are students, it is one way how we explore and learn about things. But please do not be offended by having your ideas picked apart - unless of course someone is being a butt, then you can be suitably offended **** I would suggest to anyone who is rolling their eyes at this thread, to remember that this is the KSP forum, right, we discuss science here, and sometimes science is momentary inspiration. Maybe his hypothesis is worthless, maybe it is not, but the least we can do is assume good faith and maybe even impart some knowledge. You never know, you might learn something. I did not 15 minutes ago over on another thread.

Are not "stab vests" made of aramid? *google*google*google* Turns out you can make stab vest and bullet proof vest from aramid, but one is not necessarily the other. Apparently depending on the construction, properties can vary quite wildly. Learn something new every day So, generally speaking, a one-man craft of some kind, vs. a swarm of smaller targets? With a tough but not impregnable shell? Sounds like a job for a standard Phalanx CIWS - they use tungsten discarding-sabot penetrators and have a proven ability to intercept targets closing at speeds around 1km/s. They are supposed to be good at "swarm" attacks, but this ability is debatable and has not been tested. We can assume however, that if you are building a spacecraft that we can up-rate it with some off-the-shelf sensors and software to better deal with longer ranges, different ballistics, easier sensor environment (no sea clutter) and possibly higher closing speeds. There are similar weapons which use this kind of ammunition as well (those are little tungsten blocks): But Im not sure how effective those fragments will be against 1cm of titanium, but for small, fast, agile targets its a pretty neat solution. The round can fragment at a chosen distance/time so you can set up "clouds" of defensive projectiles. Going to be hard to hit a maneuvering target that small with a missile or larger gun. Unless of course you want to just lob a nuke in their general direction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-69_SRAM There's loads of calculations you can try to see how big a nuke you need to kill something through 1cm of titanium, or how far away it can be, I dont have time at the moment but you can have a browse of project rho for lots of data + examples.

Raw power? An ICBM, absolute maximum on all criteria (range, accuracy, power etc.). Quite well suited for space operations. I wouldnt discount 21st century tank cannon and their kinetic projectiles. Impact energy can easily be of the same order as an average missile warhead (though there are many types of missile - I automatically think of an AMRAAM or similar when I hear the word "missile"). The present day ASAT is almost perfect though, since it is actually designed to operate in space, has a manouvering system, space-optimised IR seeker and a kinetic impact equivalent to being hit with a modest sized artillery round. More even, since we wont be firing it "upwards" so much, or through an atmosphere. Honourable mention: Recoil-less guns also have obvious advantages, even if they arent the most powerful things around. Definitely useful if you are talking man-portable. Need more information for a better answer. Can we use ICBMs or does it need to be able to fit into a briefcase? Or a small vehicle? Space Shuttle? What is the target? Is it armoured/hardened? Is it a swarm of small targets? What are its maneuvering capabilities. Unsurprisingly the best weapon depends on the context. Even a knife would be useful in a hand-to-hand between two astronauts. Although now that I think about it I think a mace would be more effective (spacesuits ought to be highly resistant to blades, due to their durable construction). Lasers have certain disadvantages, DDE describes one, but they also produce copious amounts of heat which is largely unavoidable, demanding large and complex cooling equipment. There are hypothetical nuclear one-shot devices on paper, but their effectiveness at range is less than one would expect. No, the dreaded Casaba howitzer is not the ultimate weapon. Railguns consume vast amounts of power, likely necessitating a nuclear reactor. Theres a lot to be said for tried&tested technologies - High-velocity, rocket-boosted kinetic projectiles are my gut-feeling tip for a future space war. Essentially advanced, space-based versions of the ASAT.

Seems like a question fairly easily answered. The behaviour of water under various degrees of pressure/temperature is well characterised. Calculating pressure at a chosen depth is straightforward enough, but I have no idea what the temperature profile would be though. The chart goes all the way to 10megabar, which represents a [water] depth of approx 100,000km. It should be noted that if you replace the mantle with water, the mass of the planet will be significantly changed, as will its gravity. Now that I think about it, this does complicate estimating pressure at depth. Pressure at the Earth's core in its current configuration is apparently approx. 330-360GPa. Convert mantle to water and it will be somewhat less, but you get an idea of the ballpark. Temperature at the Earth's core in its current configuration is apparently approx. 5700K. I dont know how that would change if you made your changes, and as you can see from the chart, the hotter you are, the more likely you are to be liquid or gas - to the right of the critical point liquid and gas can coexist and to the right and above the critical point you have a supercritical fluid. So the answer is - a complex, layered combination of ice VII, VIII, X and XI and at some depth, depending on the temperature profile, there could be some liquid water.

The article posted above explains it well. At first though, I had thought that "extreme time pressure" meant that they needed to fudge it during the countdown or something!

https://gizmodo.com/boaty-mcboatface-gets-set-for-its-first-antarctic-exped-1793212495 Presented without comment

I think there is some complicated space-warping where beyond the EH, no matter what direction you travel in, you get closer to the centre. So it may be more involved that a simple matter of speed. I would not expect Newtonian mechanics to be dominant.

This totally exists. As do torpedo-tube launched weapons of similar capability. It should be noted that this is very revealing of the submarine's location. The gyrojet actually had a lot of potential. Its downfall was almost completely due to a defect in the manufacturing of the ammunition which meant the exhaust ports in the bullets were misaligned and/or blocked/restricted. This meant that the rotational stability it was supposed to have (from slightly offset exhaust) was unreliable at best, and acceleration unreliable. Another problem was that its strange way of firing the round - the hammer struck the front of the bullet, striking it against a fixed firing pin at the rear, the bullet the re-cocked the hammer with its forward motion. Unfortunately, due to the defective ammo, it was common for the round to not be able to pass the hammer, and waste its propellant in the breech. However, it saw some action in Vietnam and was popular due to its stopping power at range, light barrel, little recoil, and unusual sound signiture which did not solely originate from the shooters location, offering a measure of concealment.

Exactly right, a "rotating event horizon" is meaningless - like a rotating shadow - its the mass itself that can have a rotation. It is hypothesised that if it spins fast enough, the singularity itself could form a ring rather than a point, and further, that if it spins even-faster-enough, that the singularity itself could extend past the event horizon forming a "naked singularity". If that sounds somewhat noodle-baking, it is, and it is not clear whether or not it represents reality (clearly a singularity not covered with an event horizon has a lot to answer for) but thats what some hypotheses's math says is possible at this point. There is still a lot of scientific mystery surrounding BH's.

Man, I hope there wasnt a queue at the checkout, can you imagine!? Would YOU let someone ahead of you if they told you a multi-billion dollar space project might fail if they didnt get to the cashier first? "Yeah yeah buddy, I've got the same NASA T-shirt, they sell them at the gift shop...whats all that foil for? Hats? HAHAHAHAHA!" <looks at person next to you in the queue making the "crazy" hand signal> <person in NASA t-shirt starts openly weeping>