p1t1o

Oh, I didnt say it wasnt manouverable But in service, you would hardly ever find a Viggen in medium altitude transonic flight, and a Viggen in a dogfight is living on borrowed time (available AA load was very rudimentary, and dogfighting with your AG weapons still on board would be suicide). It is built to perform best down in the weeds Having said that, an air-superiority variant was eventually produced, showing that it at least had some real ability. Apparently the Viggen DCS module has some issues with perfecting the engine/performance envelope sim, but yeah, as far as sims go, DCS is the best of the best.

Wait...is this a "NASA dont go to space because they go sideways instead of up" thing? Man, Im eating my lunch here...

Biggest mystery is why all starships are required to store dynamite inside control panels. Also funny - multiple references in TNG to "tetrion particle" radiation. Funny because

I can tell you that the Viggen was not designed with relaxed stability, it doesnt look it but the Viggen is an aircraft of 1960's vintage, it was incredibly modern in its time, and I believe still in service to some extent. The canards are there to provide short take-off/landing performance by providing extra lift to assist with rotation/flare (delta wings are prone to having poor control moment in pitch, especially at low speed). The trailing moveable surfaces on the canards are not control surfaces but flaps. It is not a fighter jet but specifically designed for low level interdiction (strike behind enemy lines), manouverability not really an issue, but it was fast (supersonic at sea level is considered fast even today). It essentially has an afterburning airliner engine squeezed in the back. **edit** Oh ok, retired in 2005, but still! **edit#2** If you word it differently, the question gains a different character - ask "Would you ever design an aircraft for pure speed?" The answer is: Today? Rarely. Look at designs like the F-104 starfighter. A design based almost entirely on speed, it is an almost perfect high-speed airframe. Unfortunately almost every single other characteristic was poor, it was only really just capable of taking off and landing. So no, you dont often build aircraft of any type (civilian, military, whatever) with only one design characteristic in mind any more. Especially since there is a pseudo-hard limit to the top speed of modern jet aircraft, about Mach 2.2, and modern engines can push you there quite easily. Any faster requires stupidly more energy and you soon hit thermal limits or you need a fundamentally different type of aircraft. **edit#3** @AeroGav The J-20 is almost certainly relaxed-stability. What you are seeing with the canards is a high-lift configuration. Though the airframe is unstable, during landing/takeoff lift is maximised, so in conjunction with the other control surfaces, which are also operating in max-lift mode the whole airframe is still unstable but the canards are still producing lift. What you are probably not seeing is that the rear elevators are pitched down (or "less pitched up") more than you would expect to maintain the attitude. It might not be visible to the naked eye, but it is likely. These modern canard designs are sometimes called "triplanes" - elevons, wings and canard, and all control surfaces (and some have extra ones in weird places) work together as a homogenous whole to fly the aircraft.

Well, according to my Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, the warp drive works in another manner. The warp field supposedly negates the mass of the ship, along with any increase in relativistic mass caused by motion. The warp field also manipulates....stuff....in a way that provides thrust. Ergo, next-to-zero mass plus no relativistic increase plus thrust equals warp travel. Fancy handwavium is used to prevent any weird time dilation effects and intracacies of the physics provide a "warp speed limit" (although during their journey, the Voyager crew managed to achieve warp 10, infinite speed. But naturally this caused the crew to hyper-evolve into lizards so it was mothballed [even though the hyper evolution was, naturally, totally reversible]).

I cannot reproduce the maths that explains it, but if I understand the current state of the art, although "spooky action at a distance" is a real thing, no information can be passed faster than light using quantum entanglement. The why of it goes very deep into quantum weirdness and there may still be incomplete or competing theorems in the area, so 100% proof either way on this matter may not currently exist. However, one thing from the above example stands out - the communication only works if first, information is passed about when to take the measurements. The transmission of information in this manner via entangled qubits is only possible after a prior piece of information is received first, necessarily via other means, necessarily light-speed-limited. Ergo, FTL communication in the described manner certainly is impossible. No, apparently there are no clever tricks you can use to get around it. Like giving the receiver a timetable in advance so that they always know when to "check their messages" - this is not FTL communication because there is no way to know when the message is received, and no way to know when it was sent, it is indistinguishable from writing down all messages in advance, and telling the receiver to only read them at the prescribed time.

Yeah, in most cases I'd call that a huge success. But again, blowing into pieces is not often the aim. Forget about radioactivity, the danger to life compared to the rock is negligible. Too bad, everything guaranteed to be "theoretical" until we actually do it. No of course not - as stated, the example was to illustrate the magnitude of the problem only, plus the example was for a comet which would be several orders of magnitude easier to "vaporise" than an asteroid. **** I should say, that most of the time I am assuming a much better ability to detect impactors than we have today. Since we do not have a working practical solution in service, I reasonably assume that by the time we do, detection facilities would have undergone an expansion of a similar magnitude.

A little OT: On topic thought: Say we detect and successfully neutralise a dinosaur-killer. Can we now safely disregard the possibility of another one? Given that statistically it would be several million years before we encounter another? You can ask a variant of that question about impactors all the way down to multi-millenia periods. But the premise is the same. As a species, what level of risk are we prepared to ignore? We all know, that hydrogen bombs do not cause the atmosphere to self-destruct. But someone once asked the question, and the authorities came back with (I saw some document or other) something like "Is the chance less than 2%?". No scientist thought it was ever a possibility, but the person giving permission was not so certain. Its a hard question. Clearly we are perceiving the risk more and more, to be one that cannot be ignored, but it cannot be denied that these thing do not rain out of the sky - if we kill a big one, what happens to the risk?

I dunno, we are getting closer to this. Doesnt Amazon offer same-day delivery by drone to some limited areas nowadays? Give it 50 years and this might be the normal way to get lifejackets XD

1-8 we have done multiple time already, to the point where we are experts at it, ok 5 we have only done once and with a tiny probe, not a WMD but its a start. And 2 and 12 are really insignificant when you consider the mission. The part where we actually detonate in order to deflect, is something we havnt done yet, we'll just have to learn that. Nobody said it would be easy or risk-free. You can take apart any strategy into points like that. Compared to the risks of letting a significant impactor hit the Earth? There's no question. And if we get desperate-desperate then nukes really are are only option. Well in this case nukes really are our only option, at least they are made of ice and not rock. Worst comes to the worst we throw up every nuke we can manufacture until its just gas. Very VERY rough calculation shows that to convert a 50km diameter sphere of water ice (65billion tons worth) at 3K to steam at 373K would require 55,645 megatons. Naturally its not that simple, only a fraction of each devices energy would be absorbed by the comet, plus re-radiation, break up, outgassing etc. But on the other hand, total vaporisation would not be required, not by a long chalk, it would be way off course way before it was all gas. But 55thousand megatons is not 55billion or trillion, its within the realm of plausibility. If measured against the survival of the human race. I think the maximum possible yield-to-weight practically achievable is around 5-6kiltons yield per kg of bomb, which if we take it at 5 means 55.5k megatons is equivalent to 11,100tons of devices. Scary numbers but not impossible numbers. Yes I know that total vaporisation is a terrible idea, this worked example is illustrative of general magnitude only. If it was a rock asteroid instead, you can expect these numbers to be at least 1000x larger I think. The biggest difficulty in this scenario, I think, would be getting it all organised in the time window permitted, no mean feat.

Oh gawd yeah. The writing at gizmodo is the worst (hence "without comment"), but they push alot of articles about tons of stuff

I dont know why everyone is bashing nukes all of a sudden. They are still the best shot we have, everything else is either hypothetical or requires new technology. Obviously of less use against so-called "rubble pile" asteroids, but we wont be firing bunker-busting penetrators, they will be detonated at a distance they will ablate enough mass to give a useful push. Also the idea being intercepting it quite far away, so if you do blast it to pieces, it is extremely unlikely that many, or even any of them will still be on the same course. We are a tiny target, if there is a rock on a collision course, and we explode it into a cloud of smaller rocks, very little of that mass will remain on said collision course. Unlike the movies, the interception is not likely to occur within the Moons orbit with the Earth looming large in front of it. But we arent going to explode it, we;re just going to ablate it a little and change its course by a few arc-seconds years before it comes anywhere near us. So if it is about the only thing we have with the required power, and blasting rocks to bits is not really the problem it seems, what exactly is the problem?

I realise I could have been more inspiring, but I only have a limited amount of motivational speeches per day and I spend most of them on myself, but I suppose Calvin's Dad has it pretty goin' on so actually I'll call it a win

Presented without comment: https://gizmodo.com/that-time-when-volcanic-eruptions-created-a-temporary-a-1819215649

Presumably one simply tears it in half down the middle Sorry bud, without any further justification (like an actual allergy or a heart condition or somesuch) best thing to do is suck it up and swim, its good for you. Not just the excersize, being put out of your comfort zone is good for you.

Short answer, because matter embedded in spacetime is subject to the properties of that space-time. Space-time is not just literal empty space with literally nothing in it and no possible detail. It is actually, when you go right down into the weeds, a rather complex thing. At high relative speeds (in space, speed can only be measured "relative" to another object, there is no "fixed point" to measure against) the relative flow of time stats to alter, yes this is for real (eg: GPS satellites need a very accurate clock to work. But there are orbiting the EArth at several thousnad miles per hour, this has a measureable effect on the flow of time for the satellite relative to the EArth's surface and must be corrected for.) One should also note that many of our most fundamental scientific principles are only our best approximations. Such as, particles like electrons and protons are not actually little spherical balls, and have properties which, say billiard balls, do not and under certain circumstances they do strange things. Light also, is not a particle, although sometimes it acts like it, an "wave" is a very vague term for the propagation of electric and magnetic fields, although someimtes light does not even act like a wave. So the short answer to "Why cant we go faster than the speed of light" is that it is due to the fundamental properties of the universe that we live in. The way that time, distance and velocity interact only resembles the "classical" "billiard ball" model at certain scales - which happen to be the scale most familiar with us (scale on the order of a metre, give or take a few order of magnitude) - just like how a predictive model only works within a certain set of conditions and if you go beyond them the answer they spit out will not be correct, like if you hacked a flight simulator to take you to space, the simulator has no data on how an aircraft would operate in space so now it give you wrong answers. So essentially the answer is because of the interplay between relative speed, distance and time, which are all defined by the fundamental properties of our universe. Or TL;DR, the answer is literally, "because it just is ok?"

Cool featured pic on what?

@cratercracker Dont worry mate, this is normal, common and it passes, but I understand the pain is real. Girlfriends/girl-friends are highly overrated at your point in life, you are NOT missing out, I guarantee it. I was in a similar position when I was younger, but I eventually encountered groups of like-minded people. I didnt have a proper girlfriend until I was in my 20s at uni, and that was a mixed bag too. Theres no rush with that issue. As you go through life, you will encounter many different groups of people, in time, you will accrue people who you will bond with. You will also learn what you are good at, as this is not always obvious. I had moments like this, I cried, raged, thought stupid thoughts, reacted badly to things. But those were rare moments in the scheme of things and looking back I would hardly change a thing (obivously I would change a few things, I mean come on who wouldnt!). I *certainly* dont have any qualms about how long it took me to become active with girls. If you only take away one thing, that would be it. Take comfort in the knowledge that success or popularity in school do not necessarily transfer to success/popularity when you enter real life. Sometimes it does, but it is not a given, I'd even go so far as to say there is little correlation, but I obviously dont have any statistics on that Value the friends you have, do not covet what other people have. If you have 1 good friend, you are better off than some. 1 good friends is a valuable thing. Dont worry about others, you have no idea how happy/unhappy they are. It is easily possible that some of the people you see as popular or cool, have moments just like you are having. But dont focus on them. Do not be bitter. Do not be aloof. Just do you. You may also find that becoming comfortable in yourself will be visible to others, making the creation of connections more easy. A great tip, I think, if you are inclined, would be to try an activity out of your normal circles, outside of school. Meet some new people. I've said it before, but I would recommend a martial arts class to anyone, it is a GREAT way to build real (ie: not just wishy-washy psycho-talk) confidence and discipline (amongst many other benefits, at the beginning actual gains in self-defence are almost incidental anyway)(also not for nothing, but height a major advantage ), but any activity where you meet new people could be helpful. It can also help you feel more in control of your life, because you will literally be taking more control, even if you dont suddenly find a group of new best buddies, the experience helps a great deal. Just some stream-of-conciousness advice from my own experience, I hope at least some is relevant

@MaxxQ Seconded, Avenue Q! Book of Mormon was quite funny, but Avenue Q is better.

Sheesh, Cool your jets man! I like Elon, I like a lot of what he does. I also dont like a lot of what he does. He's not a scientist remember, hes a techy guy for sure, but he's not a rocket scientist or an engineer. I dont like the way every little daydream he has gets a nice CGI mockup and is the NextBigThingTM for 6 months. I mean honestly, there aint no country on Earth that is going to start regularly firing large, sub-orbital, ballistic rockets at major cities as a means of public transport, not for a long, long time, if ever. And dont even get me started (again) on Moon/Mars bases, Elon is obsessed with the idea, asking very easily answered questions like "Why havnt we got a Moon base yet?" Its because not hardly enough people want or need one, Elon. Its because romantic dreams of living in a jetsons-style dome on the moon - the only current reason to build a moonbase - has yet to make even a penny towards the huge cost of doing it. And I think many of Elon's idea suffer from this "Its romantic and therefore important" delusion. Yes, its great that he's thinking ahead and pushing boundaries, I have a lot of respect for him for that - even more so for actually achieving concrete results - but he's not the first, or last, nor is he single-handedly "pushing humanity into a new era" - we are already on the way there whether we like it or not, for better or worse. He is capable, intelligent, Im glad he's around and operating, he has good ideas and even better marketing, but he's not Techno-Jesus. He's Android Steve Jobs.

If you are temping at a company, please do not have a long and animated conversation about sueing the healthcare system for misdiagnosing your...rectal bleeding...with someone you have just met. I dont know you, talking for that long, with that amount of anger, about that number of alleged cases of "malpractice" involving that number of guilty parties....I am going to assume the problem lies with you. Yes, some of you are thinking "Thats not fair, it could easily be a legitimate case!". That is all well and good but blindsiding a stranger with a long and incredible tale involving your malfunctioning anus, is not going to endear me to your case.

Possible to model a planet which has large, cavernous spaces beneath the crust? Not a realistic idea, as far as I know, but as realistic as planets of the size and density that we have. Im imagining arriving at a planet, locating a large hole in its crust (kilometres-scale) and descending several kilometres into a huge underground space. This space could be explored, and moving around within it, a new and exciting challenge! If there was an atmosphere, you would benefit from increased density, making underground flight interesting. Manouvering in vacuum inside such a space would also be a new experience. Im not seeing it as a full, concentric, world-within-a-world, just very large caverns with a large opening to the surface. Thoughts? Like this but much bigger:

Crikey! Imagine looking at a star just (yes, internet, I know about lightspeed delay, you know what I mean) as it goes nova! The odds! That would be the coolest thing! *** I do like to say dramatic things during lightning storms, in case it gets punctuated by a well timed peal of thunder... "Oh yes...yes..I will have my REVENGE!!!" <KRACKADOOOOOOM!!!> "MWAHAHAHAHA!!"

Wait you can call in STUPID!!!?? I've been missing out on so much...

I heard an interesting discussion somewhere. It was about how any digital data whatsoever can essentially be considered a single number if you consider the total block of binary code that represents the software/music/movie. Then, can you really "own" or "copyright" a number? What about the numbers that are only one digit off (which would ion most cases still be a functioning copy)? If I were to merely publish a list of numbers, some of them may be copyrighted material. The answer was that these numbers would be exceedingly large (if Im thinking correctly, a 1gb-long binary number would be on the order of 210^9) and therefore if you claim that you "just happened" to be in possession of this "number", the odds of it being accidental (and not a deliberate act to acquire the media) are astronomical in the extreme. So in essence, yeah, you can "own" numbers, because there are so many of them. A largely meaningless discussion, but an interesting take.