For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[Gargamel]

4 hours ago, Jacke said:

@Gargamel, 3 in 1 year.  Dude, you are so lucky.

I know.   They just come bursting out of the forest, not bothering to look.  The one I hit didn't do any damage, he just went spinning off into the brush.  The two that hit me... One on each rear quarter panel.    They hit me so hard they each left a dent.  

The one that did the worst damage, snapping turtle.    Came over a rise in the road, and this sucker was sitting there.   Took a good portion of my lower bumper off, and left some marks on the undercarriage.   I stopped as quickly as I could, as it was spinning around in the middle of the road.    Once he settled, looked around, and sprinted off into the brush.   Never knew those guys could run so fast. 

Then there was the Turmooose.    College roommate is riding shotgun, we're up in the Adirondacks near school, we were talking about how much it would suck to hit a moose (they are up there).   Come around a corner, something in the road.  It's a turkey.  He yells out "Oh Crap!  Moose!"  That surprised me more than the bird, and I looked over at him confused.  Hit the bird.   He later said he knew it was a turkey, but yelled out moose before he could stop himself. 

[kerbiloid]

Isn't this obvious for everyone that there is just a deer spawner in the forest by the side of the road.

By every passing by you activate it, so it generates a new deer.

Sometines turtles, too. And they are fast and invulnerable, because they are indestructible NPC.

It makes to think that you are living in a simulated reality of some videogame.

Spoiler

 

P.S.
Can't completely get the story about the couple.
So, the pre-widow had been expected to be sitting in the tub, but made the fate make another attempt with the car and deer. Probably, so.

[kerbiloid]

Upd.
Just thought about...

As there is an infinite deer spawner by the one side of the road,
and the spawned deer are always trying to cross the road, 
so, they have destination point there.

And unlikely you can hit every of the deer, so they just disappear at that point!

We could presume a portal which teleports them back to the initial place,
but if you are hitting some of them, their amount should be decreasing.

So, no portal. Something swallows the deer behind the trees where they go to.
Something big. Something terrible... Otherwise the deer were not be disappearing in that part of the forest.

[Gargamel]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Upd.
Just thought about...

As there is an infinite deer spawner by the one side of the road,
and the spawned deer are always trying to cross the road, 
so, they have destination point there.

And unlikely you can hit every of the deer, so they just disappear at that point!

We could presume a portal which teleports them back to the initial place,
but if you are hitting some of them, their amount should be decreasing.

So, no portal. Something swallows the deer behind the trees where they go to.
Something big. Something terrible... Otherwise the deer were not be disappearing in that part of the forest.

Here's the thing... I live in a rural area.   Most places have some sort of flock of 'domestic bird' on their property, either chickens, ducks, geese, or turkeys.   The turkeys are fenced in, but the rest are pretty much free range, and there's usually a cooler or box in the yard offering fresh eggs for sale.    The ducks and geese will pretty much either graze in the fields or swim in the ponds, but the chickens run every where.    But they never cross the road.   Or at least I've never seen one try, or get hit.    They'll line up on the edge of the road, and just walk up and down the shoulders, but never attempt to cross.  It's really odd, makes me wonder where the origins of the joke came from.   

Maybe we could have the chickens teach the deer proper roadside etiquette, help reduce accidents. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but a ship should be able to enter a planetary ring edge-on safely by matching the orbital speed at the point of entry of the ring itself, right?

Question is, absent a whole lot of fuel... how would you accomplish this?

(I know: carefully)

But would the proper way of doing this (if you really really wanted to be in the ring) be to circularize outside and then drop pe into the ring?  (or the reverse, circularize inside the rings then raise ap into it?

What would you do if you wanted to get to a part mid-way, like a moon forming region?  I'd think that trying to orbit in any inclination that intersected the target region and then doing a plane shift might get awfully interesting... so how would you do that?

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, Gargamel said:

chickens run every where.    But they never cross the road. 

The zoomer chickens know that "your granny's joke" from their parents, and don't want to follow it in XXI to look like boomers.

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

But would the proper way of doing this (if you really really wanted to be in the ring) be to circularize outside and then drop pe into the ring?

The  Saturn rings are just hundreds of meters thick,

Make the ship orbital plane inclined a little, and you can be matching the speed in any known way like if there are no rings.
The ship will be crossing the ring plane in a second,  once per hours.

Also there are gaps between the rings.

***

A moon forming region is a chaotic mess of orbits where a pre-moon has crashed into something.

But as the angular momentun and rotation axis are estimated, follow the equatorial plane of the cloud.

[mikegarrison]

Speaking of evolution:

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

For a planet to catch a wanderer and turn it into a moon - does the moon have to enter the system as part of a pair of self-orbiting objects?

(I've read capture can be obtained if one of the bodies is thrown away which allows the angular momentum shift necessary for a capture of the other body... but is there another way?)

[darthgently]

14 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

For a planet to catch a wanderer and turn it into a moon - does the moon have to enter the system as part of a pair of self-orbiting objects?

(I've read capture can be obtained if one of the bodies is thrown away which allows the angular momentum shift necessary for a capture of the other body... but is there another way?)

Aerobraking?  I dunno.  But I think you are on to something that a 3rd (or more) body seems like it would need to be involved.  I could see an existing moon, in concert with the incoming and parent bodies, creating a dynamic that captured the new moon without losing the existing one

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

For a planet to catch a wanderer and turn it into a moon - does the moon have to enter the system as part of a pair of self-orbiting objects?

(I've read capture can be obtained if one of the bodies is thrown away which allows the angular momentum shift necessary for a capture of the other body... but is there another way?)

Under the usual, simplified math, capturing a body into orbit requires a third body. Aerobraking by itself doesn't work, because aerobraking means the periapsis is in the atmosphere, so it will still be in the atmosphere the next time around, which will just lead to a collision rather than a capture.

But I'm pretty sure that there are ways that in the real world, where bodies are not ideal spherical point masses, and you have tidal effects, L-points, etc., there are ways for one body to capture another body without a third body nearby. (But these rely on things like the sun being a third body that both of the other two objects are in orbit around.)

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

For a planet to catch a wanderer and turn it into a moon - does the moon have to enter the system as part of a pair of self-orbiting objects?

(I've read capture can be obtained if one of the bodies is thrown away which allows the angular momentum shift necessary for a capture of the other body... but is there another way?)

Think the Lagrange points helps a lot here, in KSP the Mun can capture asteroids, it happened with an old rocket stage once, but these orbits are unstable, get another moon intercept and off you go but the Lagrange points are much more gentle here as unlike the moon an close pass to the center is not an impact. 
Also over geological times tides tend to circulate orbits.  the moon orbit is not circular but its not like an comet orbit. The Mars moons are interesting here, low orbits and very circular.  Now if they are gravel held together with gravity I guess tides will be an strong force who might circulate them pretty fast but 9000 km, 

[SunlitZelkova]

What exactly is a "hypersonic missile"? Not in the literal dictionary definition sense, but in the "military phrase" sense.

Kinzhal was regularly referred to as a hypersonic missile prior to the events of February 2022 but once it got used in combat, some people argued it was "merely" an air-launched ballistic missile.

What I have read about Kinzhal is confusing. Some mention portions of the flight taking place in the atmosphere, but don't specify just exactly how much. A cursory Google search makes it appear as though ALBMs have a flight profile very similar to normal ballistic missiles.

No one calls the GAM-87 Skybolt a "hypersonic weapon". Likewise China's DF-21 derived ALBM is not referred to as a hypersonic weapon. Is Kinzhal special?

Or is it just a free for all where people call their weapons whatever they want to? Like how the USSR built "aviation cruisers" instead of aircraft carriers/helicopter carriers.

[kerbiloid]

A glider, with or without propulsion, like HTV-2 and X-51 test crafts.

Spoiler

 

Is either accelerated by rocket booster (put on top instead of a traditional warhead), or deorbited from LEO.

Glides using the lifting body shape and the winglets, helping itself with scramjet (if has it).

1. Flies below anti-ICBM radars, at tens of kilometers, so gets visible later. So, to hit before the command chain of the opponent can react and launch.

2. If used from LEO, can perform a 2 000 km crosswind maneuver to  hit an aim far from the platform orbit plane.

3. Glides farther than a conical warhead could with a single-stage booster, can hit aims at IRBM distance, due to lifting force.

4. Can change on command the destination point in flight if the aim is already hit.

5. Can perform turns to hide its real intentions and to make the opponent spend more AA rockets.

6. Can follow a maneuvering target (like an aircraft carrier) on command.

7. Can correct its flight to compensate the weather conditions and other disturbing factors to increase accuracy.

8. By having a great accuracy, needs a low-yield warhead, even maybe conventional or inert.

9. Due to accuracy, lets to hit a weak place of a target to use a single missile instead of a cloud of them.

58 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Like how the USSR built "aviation cruisers"

1. To pass the Bosphor strait legally (they are just "cruisers", not "carriers").

2. Are a reworked rocket cruiser. So, 2-in-1.

3. Were not to carry goodness to savage tribes, but to hit the goodness carrier (so, just for one fight instead of a long company).

Edited April 20, 2022 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

What exactly is a "hypersonic missile"? Not in the literal dictionary definition sense, but in the "military phrase" sense

@kerbiloid gives a solid answer.

Absent carrying a nuke, it is an overly complicated and expensive solution for the vast majority of military use cases.  This works out to - it's only real purpose is to kill cities with nukes... And as he writes, it has the presumed ability to evade current defensive measures. 

There is one other possible use for conventionally armed hypersonics - being a 'Carrier Killer'.  Given that almost zero of the non American carriers have significant offensive capabilities - they're designed to be a shot across the bow of Pax Americana.  Only problem is that the 'floating cities' are harder to hit than the terrestrial. 

 

 

https://news.usni.org/2021/06/14/mda-u-s-aircraft-carriers-now-at-risk-from-hypersonic-missiles

[DDE]

7 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

What exactly is a "hypersonic missile"? Not in the literal dictionary definition sense, but in the "military phrase" sense.

Kinzhal was regularly referred to as a hypersonic missile prior to the events of February 2022 but once it got used in combat, some people argued it was "merely" an air-launched ballistic missile.

What I have read about Kinzhal is confusing. Some mention portions of the flight taking place in the atmosphere, but don't specify just exactly how much. A cursory Google search makes it appear as though ALBMs have a flight profile very similar to normal ballistic missiles.

No one calls the GAM-87 Skybolt a "hypersonic weapon". Likewise China's DF-21 derived ALBM is not referred to as a hypersonic weapon. Is Kinzhal special?

In military phrase sense, "hypersonic" refers to, I would argue, two groups of weapons. One of them is novel, namely hypersonic cruise missiles of the Tsirkon/Waverider variety. The other is really not. While one would make the argument the term is reserved for glide-enabled ballistic missile return vehicles, it has clearly become abused. Kinzhal from outset seems to be an Iskander with some sort of modifications, and the air launch pushes its maximum velocity into the hypersonic realm, but its ability for limited maneuvers is unlikely to be something Pershing II or SCUD-D/Aerofon hasn't done (curiously, Uragan and Smerch MLRS drop boosters while Tochkas and Islanders don't). Worse still, the terms gets thrown around with anti-ship and anti-shore applications of the Standard SM-6 anti-air missiles, or even the Hermes, an attempt to sell the missile portions of the Pantsir as a surface-to-surface missile.

[kerbiloid]

A human lifespan is basically limited by the aging mechanism, but also by external causes, like accidents, infections. crimes, and so on.

There is a statistics of average mortality rate per every cause, like N cases / (million people * year).

So, it probably can be treated as a yearly probability of being killed for every particular cause, and by at least any of them in total.

Haven't calculated it yet, but interesting: if take a healthy and not aging person, how many years could he live until probability kills him instead of aging.
200? 500? Or still 150?

I.e. does (in average) the aging significatnly shorten the human lifespan, or it's a planned shutdown before inevitable crash a decade later.

So, how long would a not aging but vulnerable person set his alarm clock far.
Three standard lives? Five? Or maybe less than two?

So, if the person reborns  in its child body and his childhood epoch with saved current personality and memories, how many lives should it re-live statistically, before a random cause finally kills him in his 14th life,

I.e. how many times could he press irl "Return to the launch" before the probabilistic random kill.

Edited April 20, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Jacke]

I remember reading long ago that it's easier for a body to be captured into a retrograde orbit of a planet.  It's why the outer moons of Jupiter and Saturn have retrograde orbits.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

A human lifespan is basically limited by the aging mechanism, but also by external causes, like accidents, infections. crimes, and so on.

There is a statistics of average mortality rate per every cause, like N cases / (million people * year).

So, it probably can be treated as a yearly probability of being killed for every particular cause, and by at least any of them in total.

Haven't calculated it yet, but interesting: if take a healthy and not aging person, how many years could he live until probability kills him instead of aging.
200? 500? Or still 150?

I.e. does (in average) the aging significatnly shorten the human lifespan, or it's a planned shutdown before inevitable crash a decade later.

So, how long would a not aging but vulnerable person set his alarm clock far.
Three standard lives? Five? Or maybe less than two?

So, if the person reborns  in its child body and his childhood epoch with saved current personality and memories, how many lives should it re-live statistically, before a random cause finally kills him in his 14th life,

I.e. how many times could he press irl "Return to the launch" before the probabilistic random kill.

I would think that your likelihood of  accident caused death increases with age.  Example: 19 y.o. skaterdude beefs and gets up and walks away - but 90 y.o. skaterdude beefs and he's shattered. 

Mind you - the current modification to that is 90 y.o.'s don't typically skate. 

So to determine your actuarial lifespan you should take out lifestyle choices.  Use the typical city dwelling non driving basement living milquetoast as your young person baseline to compare to the 90 yo

[kerbiloid]

23 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

with age

That's why I brought a non-aging person. So, the probability stays same.

Say, somebody was born in 1970 (together with Unix), and reaching 60 in 2030 decides to reupload his current, experienced mind into his school age in 1980.
So, it's interesting, how many such 50-year cycles can he pass in average before getting a gameover from random external cause (accident, illness, crime, etc.).

How many rounds of his biographical optimization.

Edited April 20, 2022 by kerbiloid

[StrandedonEarth]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

That's why I brought a non-aging person. So, the probability stays same.

Say, somebody was born in 1970 (together with Unix), and reaching 60 in 2030 decides to reupload into his school age in 1980.
So, it's interesting, how many such 50-year cycles can he pass in average before getting a gameover from random external cause (accident, illness, crime, etc.).

How long until you roll snakeyes? Hmm, good question. That’s why we’re all…

 

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, StrandedonEarth said:

How long until you roll snakeyes? Hmm, good question. That’s why we’re all…

Actually, jokingly, I had sometimes a feeling that some people did this not once, lol.

Edited April 20, 2022 by kerbiloid

[RyanRising]

I remember the Galileo atmosphere probe had something like half of its mass just in the heatshield, but it did survive entry. So it’s possible to have something survive entry even at >48 km/s. That being said, just how bad of an idea is it to try to aerobrake an orbiter at a gas giant to save on Δv required for capture from fast transfers? 

[StrandedonEarth]

4 hours ago, RyanRising said:

I remember the Galileo atmosphere probe had something like half of its mass just in the heatshield, but it did survive entry. So it’s possible to have something survive entry even at >48 km/s. That being said, just how bad of an idea is it to try to aerobrake an orbiter at a gas giant to save on Δv required for capture from fast transfers? 

I would think it's a very bad idea unless they know exatly the conditions. Last time I tried aerobraking at Jool, there was a very narrow band of 10km between not getting captured and melting. But F9 is not an option IRL. That's something else that needs to be modded into the Matrix...

[magnemoe]

20 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

That's why I brought a non-aging person. So, the probability stays same.

Say, somebody was born in 1970 (together with Unix), and reaching 60 in 2030 decides to reupload his current, experienced mind into his school age in 1980.
So, it's interesting, how many such 50-year cycles can he pass in average before getting a gameover from random external cause (accident, illness, crime, etc.).

How many rounds of his biographical optimization.

I say if you are not aging you would be less likely to die over time as you become wiser and more knowable.  Simply you are an elf, you get 25 year old and stay that way. 
Heard 1000 year old but that was without diseases. I say 500 would be an good guess assuming risk of cancer stays the same.  
This is for modern people living nice places. 

Obviously that is not the standard the millions of years humans and their ancestors has been around. Humans are already pretty long lived, probably because grandparents was useful even a million years ago.  
Still its something we would want to solve, you get to stay young forever and if you developed it you will get idiotic rich. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I forget the author - but there was a good Sci-Fi book I read years ago where a guy lived kind of in the remnants of an advanced civilization - and without knowing it used anti-aging tech.  He got into something like a phone booth and pushed a button - something happened, but he did not know what; it cleared out all the 'dust' and aging stuff from his cells.

Was pretty cool.

Can't remember the name of the book or author.  Empire something, maybe.