For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[magnemoe]

On 7/11/2021 at 9:49 PM, cubinator said:

Rubbers would not handle the extreme temperature shifts on Moon and Mars. They would deteriorate and fall apart. The rocks and sand on those planets are not smoothed as much by rain and wind, so every rock and piece of sand is extremely jagged and sharp. Moon dust is like broken glass. You need something that can drive over that kind of material without tearing itself apart on the first turn.

Think the Apollo moon buggies used metal wire treads. think an weave of meal springs.
Its currently many tires who don't use air. Yes most of them are still rubber / plastic and as they designed for combat use they are heavy 

[tomf]

6 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

When Apollo came back from the Moon, there wasn't much up in space to hit.  We're planning new Moon missions, prospective return missions from Mars and other bodies, and nowadays, our sky is chock full of satellites - with SX launching constellations (and other competitors likely to follow).  

Given the concept of 'Big Sky, Little Bullet' theory* I assume that there's not much chance of a collision - but am I wrong?   

 

 

 

* In aviation, the Big Sky Theory is that two randomly flying bodies are very unlikely to collide, as the three-dimensional space is so large relative to the bodies.pretty

Pretty much everything bigger than a cm is tracked on radar but for smaller objects you have to rely on shielding and the size of space. I expect missions leaving Leo don't spend any time in place where debris is thickest. Perhaps a few orbits low where debris will have decayed away quickly and then away.

[ARS]

Is it possible to die simply from sheer pain alone? (You only feel pain, but nothing actually happen on your body) Like you're inside a simulation (but you don't know about it) and have a vision in your mind that you are now burning up to ashes in reentry gone wrong, you can feel the pain, you can feel the heat, but it's all just a sensory output of your brain. In reality your body is still lying on bed, with your brain still jacked up to simulation

[kerbiloid]

If the person has cardiovascular problems.

[K^2]

2 hours ago, ARS said:

Is it possible to die simply from sheer pain alone? (You only feel pain, but nothing actually happen on your body) Like you're inside a simulation (but you don't know about it) and have a vision in your mind that you are now burning up to ashes in reentry gone wrong, you can feel the pain, you can feel the heat, but it's all just a sensory output of your brain. In reality your body is still lying on bed, with your brain still jacked up to simulation

The only possible cause of death is cellular death of neurons in central cortex either due to pathogen or starvation. Both require a physical change. This contradicts your pre-assumption that nothing physically changed about the body. In contrast, human body has a number of options for self-destruction. It is relatively easy to cause yourself sufficient injury to bleed out, for example. Does that count as dying from pain response? *shrug* Processing information and turning it into physical change is kind of our whole deal, after all. So I don't think this is a well-posed question. There is no sharp boundary between autonomous pain response and conscious decision not to withstand the pain anymore. As stated, your question boils down to, "Should person ending their own life count as dying from pain in some cases?" And that's inherently a subjective question.

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, ARS said:

Is it possible to die simply from sheer pain alone?

The organism just reacts on pain by the vessel spasm and heart beating, so if the blood pressure gets too high and pops a big vessel or the pressure gets too low and causes the brain hypoxia, the consequences will be same regardless of the pain reason and other damage.

The death from pain shock is exactly why they started using anesthesy in mid-XIX, when the human emotional feelings were not so much important like now.

And not just pain. An intensive worry can cause the same.

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The organism just reacts on pain by the vessel spasm and heart beating, so if the blood pressure gets too high and pops a big vessel or the pressure gets too low and causes the brain hypoxia, the consequences will be same regardless of the pain reason and other damage.

The death from pain shock is exactly why they started using anesthesy in mid-XIX, when the human emotional feelings were not so much important like now.

And not just pain. An intensive worry can cause the same.

Pretty sure you could kill someone healthy with giving enough relatively harmless pain over time simply by stressing them out. 
If you have an weak heart its way easier. 

[Dr. Kerbal]

Can I visit pluto with a rover? Can anyone? 

[DDE]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Kerbal said:

Can I visit pluto with a rover? Can anyone? 

It's a matter of enough dV, and either enough patience or a very autonomous rover.

[Admiral Fluffy]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Kerbal said:

Can I visit pluto with a rover? Can anyone? 

See above, and for the autonomous rover you would need a highly advanced AI system

[Dr. Kerbal]

How did I do this? 

[kerbiloid]

You is the Borg.

[ARS]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

You is the Borg.

Resistance is futile

[Admiral Fluffy]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

You is the Borg.

 

[Spaceman.Spiff]

23 hours ago, Dr. Kerbal said:

How did I do this? 

you posted a lot

[FleshJeb]

How does forum-posting etiquette differ from Discord-posting etiquette? Compare and contrast.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

How does forum-posting etiquette differ from Discord-posting etiquette? Compare and contrast.

What's a Discord?

 

 

 

(grin)

[DDE]

5 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

How does forum-posting etiquette differ from Discord-posting etiquette? Compare and contrast.

I feel like Discord is a chat. Maybe even an imageboard.

*is drowned out by terrified screams of Discord moderators*

[kerbiloid]

The imageboard megathread on this forum has been killed just a couple of weeks ago.

[kerbiloid]

They've reloaded the Hubble software.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/operations-underway-to-restore-payload-computer-on-nasas-hubble-space-telescope

***

If they were using Windows 10, it would do this itself.

Also they could add commercial banners in the sky view, to make the telescope self-sustaining.

[magnemoe]

14 hours ago, DDE said:

I feel like Discord is a chat. Maybe even an imageboard.

*is drowned out by terrified screams of Discord moderators*

I use disord a lot playing Elder Scroll Online, but then as an voice canal. 
its has treads but not like the forums, you have chat, memes and the serious stuff like raid and pvp strategies. 

[DDE]

So, we know one of the counterarguments for SpaceX (until maybe two years ago) was "well, literally no-one else is bothering with propulsive recovery and reuse, so they must be wrong".

So let's leave that behind and look at a different matter. The market for military airlift, whether helicopters or long-range transport aircraft, appears to be fairly diversified, with Europe usually having an equivalent for whatever comes out of the 'States (except maybe the C-5, but they don't need their own version of that chonker when they can hire a Ruslan or the Mriya). And then there's, of course, China.

So why is it that we're seeing zero noises about tiltrotors outside of Bell and adjacent groups (e.g. Boeing's megaquadcopter)?

[SunlitZelkova]

Assuming it is reasonably correct, looking at the Wikipedia page on V-22 development provides some clues.

Further development of tilt-rotor technology in the US appears to have been spurred by two events-

1. The failure of Operation Eagle Claw (Iran hostage crisis rescue attempt)

2. The need of the USMC for a high performance replacement for the CH-46 for performing amphibious assaults

The USSR/Russia has no such problems.

In the USSR/Russia’s case, the amphibious fleet is pretty small in comparison to the US and is focused around landing craft instead of airborne assault (just judging from the aviation capacity of the ships, I do not have knowledge of actual Soviet/Russian naval doctrine past 1953). Even if there was some sort of hostage crisis, the USSR and now Russia do not possess the power projection capability needed for a rescue attempt. So there is no requirement for tilt-rotors and helicopters are good enough. I think despite the existence of the V-22, “helicopters are good enough” is still evident in the US- after all, the V-22 is not replacing the UH-60.

China actually does have tilt-rotor development going- https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2016-12/21/content_27728950.htm

It is slow and steady as with most of China’s modernization, and as to whether it will really outperform the V-22 is a question. But they have time, as China’s Type 075 and Type 076 amphibious assault ships still have a long ways to go for being operational.

Edited July 18, 2021 by SunlitZelkova

[kerbiloid]

The peaceful and friendly USSR didn't have colonial sea forces and expensive aircraft carriers (also requiring all-year sea ports, numerous destroyers to guard and support, and a lot of money for that).

Its potential humanitarian operations would happen above land or crossing the rivers and mountains (so, the love to swimming APC), crossing a big lake at the South or two minor straits at the very North-East  and South-East (thanks, ekranoplans and others).
Also a visit of peace to the Mediterranean friends, but mostly to a ship and one-way. So, the carrier-not-carrier aircraft carrying cruiser improvised from a missile one.

So, unlikely a vertibird was actual for any of those purposes.

Edited July 18, 2021 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 hours ago, DDE said:

So, we know one of the counterarguments for SpaceX (until maybe two years ago) was "well, literally no-one else is bothering with propulsive recovery and reuse, so they must be wrong".

So let's leave that behind and look at a different matter. The market for military airlift, whether helicopters or long-range transport aircraft, appears to be fairly diversified, with Europe usually having an equivalent for whatever comes out of the 'States (except maybe the C-5, but they don't need their own version of that chonker when they can hire a Ruslan or the Mriya). And then there's, of course, China.

So why is it that we're seeing zero noises about tiltrotors outside of Bell and adjacent groups (e.g. Boeing's megaquadcopter)?

Tilt rotor aircraft are very difficult, from what I understand.*  Prior to fleeting them, they enjoyed a well deserved bad reputation for killing crews and in a not predictable manner.  People designated 'crew' and their extended families did not appreciate this and expressed themselves until the 'engineering difficulties were solved'... and now they are all over the place (in the USMC - the Navy gets theirs soon). 

However

"The MV-22 Osprey has a dismal mission capable rate hovering near 60 percent, according to data from the Marine Corps. Corps officials say that mission capable rate is an increase from the low 50 percent levels maintained throughout fiscal year 2018"  https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2019/06/24/despite-massive-show-of-air-power-nearly-40-percent-of-marine-corps-mv-22-ospreys-are-not-mission-capable/

So as you can see - there is nothing to worry about and more nations should invest in the clearly capable technology! 

 

 

*This 'understanding based on client-side observations rather than manufacturing knowledge.  Given that client side users rarely donate to Senate campaigns quite as aggressively as Defense Manufacturers, Client - Side concerns are of no importance when deciding whether to fleet a given miltech 

Edited July 18, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli