Lynx7725

Err. It's not like I want to SPEED UP the shuttle, it's that it "naturally" speeds up when you drop in altitude. The unpowered shuttle can't avoid it; the shuttle can only use other "passive" means to shed the Kinetic Energy, and the way chosen was to shed it as heat. Change it to a orbital lander, you get the same results. Drop it from orbit, it will gain KE while losing GPE. Unless it has some means of shedding or converting the KE to some other energy type, the orbital lander will smack into the ground at a high velocity. Not good. Which is why old-fashioned orbital landers (like the Eagle) has retrothrusters. In energy terms, retros turns stored chemical energy (fuel) into counterthrust, reducing the KE of the orbital lander to somewhat survivable levels. Parachutes also work in a similar sense. Sundowner is a powered vehicle. Cut and paste what? EDIT: Actually, I'm simplifying things. There are a lot of other factors such as changing mass, reentry angles, etc. etc. Lots of mathsy stuff. I'm just talking in basic physics terms, which leaves a LOT of the story unspoken.

Still won't happen. Geostationary Orbit is a orbit at 35,786 km above ground, where your object appear to stay fixed over a location.. say, Washington D.C. The orbital velocity for a Geostationary Orbit is approximately 3.07kps. If you go out of Geostationary Orbit, but wish to appear geostationary relative to Washington D.C., you have to increase your orbital velocity to compensate for your loss of gravitational potential energy. Meaning, you go lower, you fly faster. Meaning, when you get to 0km above ground, your orbital velocity is so fast, you smack into the ground leaving an impact crater. That's provided you don't burn up on reentry or skip off the atmosphere due to your insertion angle. EDIT: I think it's easier to explain if you consider the energy state of a shuttle. At the start, the shuttle is in space, in orbit around the Rarth. It has an energy of X, comprising of Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) of A (from its high position relative to Earth) and Kinetic Energy (KE) of B (from its orbital velocity). It also has a Heat energy of C (from its latent heat energy), but this is fairly small at this stage. You drop the shuttle out of orbit, by principle of conservation of energy, X must be constant. Since C does not change (until it hits the atmosphere), a reduction in GPE (A ) must be compensated with an increase in KE (B ). So the shuttle must speed up. But the Shuttle's eventual goal is to reduce both its GPE and KE to zero (relative to Earth). GPE, no problem, just drop down in altitude. KE is a problem, since each reduction in GPE will increase KE. But the shuttle must shed enough KE to bring it to zero.. and since the shuttle is a dead-stick glider, it can't burn thrust to reduce the KE to zero. So, it instead uses the atmosphere and converts KE to increases Heat energy (C ) and use thermodynamics to dissipate the energy into the atmosphere. This allows the shuttle to reduce its KE to zero (by eventually getting slow enough to land and stop on the runway). I think what happens is the shuttle will typically aim ahead of its intended landing point, reentry and slow down, and let Earth catch up via its rotation, and then land. It becomes a mathematical ballet.

A ton of ANYTHING moving at mach 25 is going to pretty much obliterate the target. Penetration power is pretty much irrelevant. Uhm, I was being facetious. It's not throwing a lot more issues up than before. It's just that the inherent flaws are becoming more visible after the CAIB review's scathing indictment of the entire NASA culture. 316760[/snapback] Honestly? I think age is starting to cause the flaws to be more visible too. Of course, I'm not really certified to say anything much on it, but I would dearly like to see some additional progress in this area. Having a "dead-stick" glider as our most replacable/ servicable aerospace asset strikes me as somewhat wrong.

So, if you screw up on re-entry, you either burn up in a fireball, or you freeze when your shuttle skips off into the Big Black. Either way, it's a risky business, and having only 2 shuttle failures is actually indicative of the professionism at NASA. The issue still stands though; the shuttle design is starting to throw up more problems than solutions. It's really time for an overhaul of the whole system.

Err. The Great Wall of China is more likely to shatter from the repeated shockwaves from the rail breaching the sound barrier. Remember the Great Wall is not built with modern construction techniques, and parts of the Wall is actually crumbling to the extent where tourists are being barred from them. It's better to build a dedicated railgun in the desert somewhere. And, "its just Cheeze Its and KoolAid packets"... except, for efficiency, we would be shooting tons of Cheeze Its and KoolAid per shot, and last I check, a ton of KoolAid is still a ton. Penetration power may differ, but one ton moving at Mach 25 is going to leave a nice dent on anything it hits... provided the target survives the impact.

My 2 cents. 1. The space program must go on. Yes, it's risky, yes, the ROI is hideously long term, but it's the logical way to go -- Earth's only so big after all, and as a race we are literally having all our eggs in one basket. So no question, the space program must proceed. 2. The Space Shuttle.. well, the design is pretty ancient by aviation standard, and most of the airframes are pretty old already. Time to bring in a successor -- which private enterprise is trying to do. Honestly, I think the risk of using the Space Shuttle is only going to increase exponentially from this point. Unless you build new airframes, the existing airframes are just going to have more and more problems. Even though the risk of space exploration is there, I think it is still necessary to minimize the risks to the people who are willing to put their lives on the line to help push the boundaries. As for budgetary concerns.. it's a given constraint that NASA must work with. Regardless of what some of the people here might think, any government must be fiscially responsible.. and to many people in the US, the space program is a luxury when compared to other problems like social security, defense, legal system, education, health care etc. Want more funding to the space program? Then be prepared for cuts in industry or defense or education, or healthcare, or... So which has priority, the immediate solutions to problems, or the long-term solutions to problems? For various reasons, including politics, most governments would opt to put money into the immediate solutions. (Aside: I think I will restrict the political discussion to the above two paragraphs.) Coming back, if NASA can come up with more creative ways to send payload into space and reserve the shuttle strictly for fundamental research trips, that would probably be the best compromise between funding and fulfilling its (supposed) mission. NASA probably should start production of a new generation of "shirtsleeves" vehicle, as the Shuttle is in all probability reaching the end of its useful life cycle.

14800 is the RRP. The ad is probably giving a discount from the RRP. 314488[/snapback] A 20+% discount? Woah

Another odd thing. HLJ is charging JPY14800 for the CF. Different item?

Hmm, a few comes to mind. Max vs. Millia in DYRL Isamu vs. Guld in the training grounds, or their dogfight on Earth The Cyclops Kampfer attack on the Colony, ending with Alex's defeat of the Kampfer in Gundam 0080. Not quite one-on-one, but the Kampfer rules. Barney's Zaku II FZ attack on Alex at the end of Gundam 0080. Classic Phyrric one-on-one fight. GP01 vs. GP02 in Gundam 0083, various fights. The Gouf Custom vs. EZ-8 in Gundam 08MST, great one-on-one action. Take your pick.

If those are the rear wheels, I'm not too sure. True, they are accurate to line art IIRC, but their positioning and available space suggest very thin and spiny gears.. which may not support the weight. I'll wait and see a nearer-to-production piece before making a decision, but likely to purchase at least a Red Beta.

I don't think so. Thing is, a lot of things have (say) Aug release, but they release on 31 Aug.. technically that's still in August. Shipping times have to be accounted for too, as mentioned. Mid Sept is a good estimate provided nothing else go amiss.

What bothers me is that we have yet to see a single pic of the Beta in Fighter mode alone (i.e. without the Alpha attached). We don't see the Beta's cockpit, or landing gear or how it sits (hopefully not like a strung bow). Hip joints look a bit thin though.. I've got the J-type Alpha, and I intend to get the Shadow Alpha. I'll get a Beta at least for the J-type, but still.. I'm a bit leery.

Very nice! Think they will come colour-matched? (Shadow Beta?)

If I strictly compare the Alpha vs. the 1/60, it's really hard to say who has better Quality Control. Design-wise, the Alpha is overly complicated as compared to the 1/60, and that hurts it in production and assembly. A lot of the compression/ extensions in the torso simply wasn't necessary, and the darn Cyclone compartment is a waste of my time... In terms of material engineering the Alpha falls flat on its (off-center) face; the materials chosen are too thin and brittle for the design chosen. 1/60 is a lot better -- you don't hear too much of breaking parts, and you don't see the sun shining through supposedly opaque areas. In terms of Quality Control, which to me refers to ensuring your production and assembly are according to spec, the Alpha and 1/60 are probably on par with each other, meaning, if we ignore design and material issues, the two products are assembled and produced properly. The issues about the Alpha are mainly poor choice of material and overly complicated design -- QC does nothing for that. Regardless how good the QC is, it ain't going to fix the basic problems. The 1/60, though not perfect, goes for a simpler design and used the right material in the right places, and as such is a better overall product.

Words look too clean.. feels like a photochop.

There appears to be a hole on the reverse section of the crotch now where a piece of the destabilizer can fit into the back of the jet. Ewweh, no (printable) comments there. The sad thing about the Alpha is it's not a very sharp looker in fighter mode no matter what. That being said, you can really minimalize how bad the arched back looks by transforming this thing properly (pain in the butt). If you manage that you'll also be able to put all the landing gears down with clearance for the chest. After that, there still is a bit of an illusion of an arch but you can only notice it from a dead side shot and it's not that noticeable... Aye, I have the red Alpha, and it is possible to transform everything just right so that it looks... unbrokenback. Pretty much what jenius says, everything's got to go in just right to make it good. Frankly, I prefer the Alpha in Guardian/ Diver mode. The feet are really built for the mode and it shows. Come to think of it, all MPC to date seems to look best in Guardian...

Ok, let's see if Knight can replicate this.

Murphy's Law applies here....

Err. White metal isn't the same white as plastic. It's just whiter than die-cast. You still need to paint it. Frankly, I've been waiting for Yamato to improve that part for quite some time already, I guess it's best that when I get my CF I create molds for the part..

Just you wait 'till I get home. DH is making me pull out the toughest photo I've ever seen.

Most of the post I read here are about mods to weapons, increasing reliability, optionals, discussing rep etc. Nothing really different from a car discussion really, is it? I see no issues there. But if we ever get around to talking about stopping power, ballistics of bullets over absurd distances, how to conduct proper suppressive fire, breaching and entering -- then yeah, I would get concerned. Frankly, the discussion here is not much different from say those in the Toys section about modding a Valk. Both Valk and gun (and car!) can kill if used correctly.. JsArclight -- just how many do you own?

This one's good too. More A-10 goodness.

24th, I think.

If that's your POV, why bother to feed him the attention he wants? Let's just wait and see what happens with regards to the MPC line.

Excuse me guys, but Kevin posted to keep us in the loop. Let's wait for him -- or other retailers -- to get more news. There is no reason to turn this into a "feed-the-..." thread. I think enough is enough, let's just leave things to develop on their own. So Toynami intends to expand their MPC line. Like that's a big surprise. Let's just see how well they can push it -- or not. As an aside: I refuse to label MGREXX as a troll, even though I've seen some of his threads. Some of our reactions are just as trollish, I can't in good faith label someone as a troll when I could be staring at myself in the mirror.