For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Before WWII, the British were rather averse to the idea of storing their aircraft in the open in the deck given their typical operating climate. This led to the two-hanger and hangar-and-half designs. Meanwhile, the US had open hangar decks and a huge deck park - i.e. they were, at least on paper, specified to carry more aircraft than they could take below deck.

Afterwards, even as the US became more and focused on the former British home field in the North Atlantic, they still relied on the deck park and a single hangar deck.

What changed? And is there even an alternative? Do agoraphobics just have to accept an air group in the low 30s?

British carriers at the start of WW2 was armored, most US and Japanese was not. Reasoning was that the British assumed the would operate in more confirm waters like north sea and the Mediterranean there they would be under treat from land based planes and more risk of being boxed by enemy warships. In short it had to be designed to take hits even if it reduced the air group.
US and Japan mostly faced other carriers and bases on small island, an larger air group was seen as more important than armor as you could have larger strike groups and have more planes up to defend the carrier. 
US carriers also tended to have higher hangars so you had some planes stored winched up under the roof as pare planes as you lost more planes than pilots. 
 

 

[wumpus]

9 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Very Kerbal

 

I think I used to build a lot of stuff that looks like that  -- especially when I did not know that side mounted stuff only accepted one mount - and I kept trying for two for extra stability.  Took me a while to learn that my extra explosive decouplers were actually the cause of the detonating rocket

When was that (or is it the latest and "greatest" version)?  Once I realized that (typically smaller) SRBs often cost more than the coupler in KSP, I'd tie groups of SRBs together and just use two couplers (one group on each side).  Pre-1.0 stability issues, I might want three SRBs in the first stage (save a coupler) then have an additional stage on top.  With the new aero model the horizontal launch would have more drag,  but be more stable.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

34 minutes ago, wumpus said:

When was that (or is it the latest and "greatest" version)?  Once I realized that (typically smaller) SRBs often cost more than the coupler in KSP, I'd tie groups of SRBs together and just use two couplers (one group on each side).  Pre-1.0 stability issues, I might want three SRBs in the first stage (save a coupler) then have an additional stage on top.  With the new aero model the horizontal launch would have more drag,  but be more stable.

When KSP first came out (or rather once I discovered it, years and years ago), I literally just slapped stuff together to see what worked.  On one lift I had the long SRBs and the thing blew up mid flight because they wobbled so much.  So for the next several builds I carefully applied two couplers for each SRB, thinking that the SRB would attach to both, and that would stop the wobbling.  These builds often had both couplers on different segments of the central rocket theoretically attached to the one long SRB. ( Little did I know, that KSP only allows one attachment point. )  Then I'd carefully make sure both couplers for each rocket were in the same stage.

Many things went boom during this phase of my Kerbal's efforts at attaining an orbit.

Later on, I discovered struts - and that stopped the wobbling... but I had to go through a lot of explosions to figure this out.

4 hours ago, DDE said:

Before WWII, the British were rather averse to the idea of storing their aircraft in the open in the deck given their typical operating climate. This led to the two-hanger and hangar-and-half designs. Meanwhile, the US had open hangar decks and a huge deck park - i.e. they were, at least on paper, specified to carry more aircraft than they could take below deck.

Afterwards, even as the US became more and focused on the former British home field in the North Atlantic, they still relied on the deck park and a single hangar deck.

What changed? And is there even an alternative? Do agoraphobics just have to accept an air group in the low 30s?

Whenever I see a cut-away of a Navy ship, I find my hand creeping up to the top of my head to trace the many scars there.  So many things for a tall Marine to scrape or bang his skull against!

[SOXBLOX]

US carriers in WWII had to carry as many planes as possible, in order to cover the huge Pacific expanse, and so the decks were loaded with fighters and torpedo bombers, which were built at a faster rate than carriers to hold them. British carriers were not designed to deal with enemy carrier air groups defending targets; their targets were German and Italian battleships and cruisers, or land targets. No fighters needed, though they were often embarked.

Edited September 1, 2020 by SOXBLOX

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Whenever I see a cut-away of a Navy ship, I find my hand creeping up to the top of my head to trace the many scars there.  So many things for a tall Marine to scrape or bang his skull against!

On SSBN 655, we had a dude who was 6-6...  Walked around with a permanent crick in his neck.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

25 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

On SSBN 655, we had a dude who was 6-6...  Walked around with a permanent crick in his neck.

I've got him beat. 

 

Marines are thick skulled and hard headed. 

 

Navy ships are harder

Edited September 1, 2020 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[SOXBLOX]

1 hour ago, DerekL1963 said:

On SSBN 655, we had a dude who was 6-6...  Walked around with a permanent crick in his neck.

And "Henry L. Stimson" stamped on his forehead from running into bulkheads, I'm sure. Poor fellow...   Think short, think thin...

Edited September 1, 2020 by SOXBLOX

[TheSaint]

3 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

On SSBN 655, we had a dude who was 6-6...  Walked around with a permanent crick in his neck.

Yeah, we had a guy in our division back on the boat who was 6' 5". He had to decide which side he was going to sleep on when he got into his rack, because there wasn't room enough for him to roll over. I had it hard enough at 6' 1".

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

At 6'7", I found the M1a1 to be a tight squeeze with the Flak jacket.  No way I could get in with the SAPI plates we were told to wear... But once inside it was quite comfortable (and way better than any ballistic insert). 

 

What killed me was trying to get into a Challenger 2, when we ran into some Brits and played you show me yours I'll show you mine in Kuwait. 

Fit through hatch?  Check. 

Room to move inside?  Check. 

Close the hatch in case of arty or rain?  Nope. 

 

Apparently only American tanks accept tall people.  Discrimination, if you ask me! 

Edited September 1, 2020 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[kerbiloid]

Poor submarine hulls... They get convex from the permanent ramming.

[DDE]

7 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Apparently only American tanks accept tall people. 

Russian tank forces have an officially stipulated limit of 6'2".

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 hours ago, DDE said:

Russian tank forces have an officially stipulated limit of 6'2".

In the same way that Tom Cruise's contracts stipulations say he can't be portrayed as short? 

8D

RU tanks are not comfortable for most folks - a 6'2" dude would be unhappy (but Cruise would be fine) 

Edited September 2, 2020 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Spacescifi]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

In the same way that Tom Cruise's contracts stipulations say he can't be portrayed as short? 

8D

RU tanks are not comfortable for most folks - a 6'2" dude would be unhappy (but Cruise would be fine) 

 

I have noticed that Europeans visiting the US are often shorter than Americans. The only Russian I knew personally was female and she was both shorter and skinnier than American gals. Paler too. One Russian guy I worked with was average height and also paler than average.

The reason I have heard some say is because America has more food options for health, so if Americans choose to do so, they can get big vertically... or horizontally. It's a personal choice. They are not as limited as European stores are by selection of foods.

Beyond that I dunno... maybe it's all the additives we add to our foods? Genetically engineered chicken? Who knows?

Edited September 2, 2020 by Spacescifi

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

25 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

 

I have noticed that Europeans visiting the US are often shorter than Americans. The only Russian I knew personally was female and she was both shorter and skinnier than American gals. Paler too. One Russian guy I worked with was average height and also paler than average.

The reason I have heard some say is because America has more food options for health, so if Americans choose to do so, they can get big vertically... or horizontally. It's a personal choice. They are not as limited as European stores are by selection of foods.

Beyond that I dunno... maybe it's all the additives we add to our foods? Genetically engineered chicken? Who knows?

Very interesting article came out recently (http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20200823-why-are-the-dutch-so-tall ) about why the Dutch are so tall.  Lots of dairy and exercise.  It references a time when Americans were the tallest on the planet (we've been bypassed) - and part of it had to do with 'breeding rates' of the population.  Tall dudes in Holland get the 'average sized' girls and breed quite often, while, currently in America, the highest breeding rate is among those men Cruise can cruise with... and again 'average sized' women... (Edit Whoops - got this wrong; see below)  but mostly its about the food

Quote

 

 in just 160 years, Dutch men have shot up by 20cm, soaring past their American counterparts, who have grown just 6cm.

“That’s too fast for it just to be a genetic effect,” said Barrett, although she believes natural selection played a part. Indeed, her study found that the most fertile couples in the Netherlands – those who have the most children – are tall men and average-height women. And the most fertile American couples? Short women and average-height men.

 

Oddly enough, I've actually read that a child's greatest predictor of adult height is actually the Mother's relative height.  (Apparently, this is anecdotal, b/c the easily discoverable references are mostly pap)

 

But yeah - access to both plentiful and varied foods is a predictor of size; look at what's happened in China (incl HK) and the other highly developed Asian countries over the last 75 years as food scarcity has largely become a thing of the past https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/1994996/tall-tales-asians-hit-new-heights-largest-growth

 

Edit: oh and another anecdote: When I visited Germany in 1994, despite being markedly taller than pretty much everyone I met in Europe (as in America) - folks assumed I was German when we met.  Apparently there's lots of tall there too.  What always trips me up, however, is when I say 'yeah, I'm pretty much the tallest person here (wherever 'here' may be) -- Invariably I run into two people who are taller still!

Edited September 2, 2020 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[kerbiloid]

53 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

why the Dutch are so tall. 

Spoiler

Shorts sank.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

 

I have noticed that Europeans visiting the US are often shorter than Americans. The only Russian I knew personally was female and she was both shorter and skinnier than American gals. Paler too. One Russian guy I worked with was average height and also paler than average.

The reason I have heard some say is because America has more food options for health, so if Americans choose to do so, they can get big vertically... or horizontally. It's a personal choice. They are not as limited as European stores are by selection of foods.

Beyond that I dunno... maybe it's all the additives we add to our foods? Genetically engineered chicken? Who knows?

Think its mostly an confirmation bias, or perhaps East Europeans are shorter and you mostly run into them.  
Granted if you was an US soldier during WW2 you would be taller than most Europeans, far more if WW1. 

Height is an matter of genetic and diet, 18th-1960 US had benefits here. Its an reason why premium US cooking is: Take an large piece of premium meat and grill it
 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

22 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

... premium US cooking is: Take an large piece of premium meat and grill it
 

Great - now I'm hungry.

 

(Thankfully I have two pieces of grass-fed Ribeye sitting in the fridge and a pellet grille on the back porch)

[TheSaint]

One of my best friends in South Africa was a girl who was (by South African standards) fairly average height, about 5' 8". She told stories about how after she graduated college she took a job with a company in Edinburgh, Scotland and felt like a giant. She was the tallest woman in the entire company, and taller than most of the men. She was all, "I kept thinking about 'Gulliver's Travels', I was worried I was going to wake up one morning tied to my bed or something."

[magnemoe]

43 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Great - now I'm hungry.

 

(Thankfully I have two pieces of grass-fed Ribeye sitting in the fridge and a pellet grille on the back porch)

Yes but its kind of true, now lots of the native Americans had gone back to hunter gathering or hunting supported by limited farming as most had died in the plagues after first contact so it was no lack of game or land. None of their old food traditions survived. the new one was grill an deer. 

[Spacescifi]

1 hour ago, TheSaint said:

One of my best friends in South Africa was a girl who was (by South African standards) fairly average height, about 5' 8". She told stories about how after she graduated college she took a job with a company in Edinburgh, Scotland and felt like a giant. She was the tallest woman in the entire company, and taller than most of the men. She was all, "I kept thinking about 'Gulliver's Travels', I was worried I was going to wake up one morning tied to my bed or something."

 

That's kinda tall... since by and large all the girls I have worked with were usually shorter than me (5'9). Except for the 6ft ones, I have worked with those too.

One thing I bet must be kinda alarming is for 'giant' Americans to walk around east Asia where people are known to be tiny.

It would be a comical contrast.

[DDE]

49 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

One thing I bet must be kinda alarming is for 'giant' Americans to walk around east Asia where people are known to be tiny.

It would be a comical contrast.

There are many local differences.

[Spacescifi]

29 minutes ago, DDE said:

There are many local differences.

 

I know.... yet there are surely enough that it won't be hard to occur.

For extra laughs get a basketball player.

[DunaManiac]

If we had a habitable planet that was in orbit around, say a Red Dwarf and was tidally locked, wouldn't there be a large amount of wind in the temperate zone or at least very violent storms there due to the amount of air trying to get from the high pressure areas to the low pressure areas, and wouldn't this be exacerbated by the slow rotation periods of said planets? Even if the temperature on both sides were equivalent, then you wouldn't get the deserts on one side and glaciers on the other.

[DDE]

15 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

If we had a habitable planet that was in orbit around, say a Red Dwarf and was tidally locked, wouldn't there be a large amount of wind in the temperate zone or at least very violent storms there due to the amount of air trying to get from the high pressure areas to the low pressure areas, and wouldn't this be exacerbated by the slow rotation periods of said planets?

SpaceEngine seems to be very insistent it's all one giant cyclone:

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

There are many local differences.

I'm insufficiently familiar with China to know this, but did the source for this provide any explanation for the differing heights?  E.g. availability of high quality and varied food, food scarcity, relative poverty or ancestral group?  A 10 cm spread that is as geographically distinct as shown between the shorter south and the taller, coastal north is intriguing.

1 hour ago, DDE said:

SpaceEngine seems to be very insistent it's all one giant cyclone:

Well - wouldn't that be largely determined by land and water distribution?  Hard to have a cyclone if your tidally locked 'face' is an enormous, high desert plateau  (he wrote, realizing that all of this is speculative given the lack of habitable, tidally locked planets with atmospheres in our current knowledgebase)

2 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

 

I know.... yet there are surely enough that it won't be hard to occur.

For extra laughs get a basketball player.

It gets annoying after a while.  People either ask or assume I was a basketball player, even though I'm built like an aging lineman.

 

I mean, I never ask people if they're jockeys