JB0

Hence why a railgun isn't a feasable launch system, even for supply capsules. You need guidance systems.

I'd say thank you, but I'm ALREADY hiding. You have scarred my mind for life. And this is my cranny, find your own.

A ton of ANYTHING moving at mach 25 is going to pretty much obliterate the target. Penetration power is pretty much irrelevant. 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. And we only lost one on re-entry. Sadly, that was due to the ostrich belief. If you ignore a problem, it doesn't go away. Just because foam never ripped a hole in the RCC panels before didn't mean it wasn't possible. It just took a while for it to hit right. 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. They can't go back to just ignoring potential problems without getting roasted for it, particularly as administrator O'Keefe is VERY passionate about implementing ALL of the CAIB's recommendations, ESPECIALLY the ones that do more than fix the immediate problem. Apollo 1 burned because NASA was cutting too many corners in the development of their moon mission. Challenger burned because NASA was flying rockets in an environment they weren't spec'ed to fly in due to the risk of seal failure. Columbia burned because NASA was ignoring objects falling at high velocities towards heatshield panels that weren't spec'ed for impact resistance. Why risk a fourth crew to carelessness? The above is an oversimplification of events, but at its core is quite accurate. It was the logic of the CAIB in going beyond the technical reasons for the accident, and it was logic O'Keefe found very sound.

The very mention of this movie in any sort of serious discussion makes me cry. Brief rule of thumb: anything you saw in that movie may be discarded as absurd, comical, and impossible. More descriptive answer: Using heat to generate power as The Core depicted it is not possible. It may not have registered on you, but they had what is known as a perpetual motion machine. If it WAS possible, all of our energy problems would be gone with a single well-placed chunk of flubber in the mantle. A totally source of power that will last as long as the Earth. In reality, you CAN use heat to generate electrical energy, but you have to have a temperature differential, IE: a not-hot place. This doesn't exist during re-entry except inside the cabin, which you're trying NOT to heat up too badly. That makes it unallowed for this task, as you WILL transfer heat to the not-hot place in the process of generating current. Besides that, we have no form of energy shielding, be it a force field or just tje strength amplification technology depicted in The Core. Reactive armor is a quite simple affair. There's an explosive plate on the outside of the armor. When a projectile hits the armor, it blows up. Armor-piercing explosives use a carefully designed explosive(known as a shaped charge) to make a "blowtorch" focused on the armor. The explosion from the reactive armor plate disrupts the blowtorch and prevents it from burning through anything. Not enough power, in addition to the non-linear arguments in the above posts. Except that in your comparison, the moving van isn't an unguided projectile hurtling along at mach 25 when it needs to be maneuvered into orbit and around satellites. It's still an utterly immense power drain. We're talking a nuclear power plant dedicated SOLELY to lobbing projectiles at satellites(which the chinese would very likely use it for).

Depends who you ask. Majority opinion seems to be that the larger models are more reliable, though. (I wouldn't be surprised, given there's precious little room in the slimline for heatsinks or fans). 315843[/snapback] I have em both, they behave the same. I'd say the slim one is easier to drop or knock off of something as its light and small, that is why people think it isn't built as well. 316505[/snapback] Yah. I can see arguments either way, really. Long-term, the slimline should have a more reliable drive mech. One moving part to wear out instead of 3(raising/lowering the mech and opening/closing the tray are elminated, so you only have to worry about the laser tracking). But the older models should cool better. May be offset by more efficient chips, though. Less heat to start with. 316558[/snapback] yeah but who has these things long term... As soon as the PS3 comes out, I am going to can both my PS2s. 316591[/snapback] Me, for one. PS2 hasn't replaced the PS1 because, among other things, it isn't 100% compatible. There's slight glitches here and there, and exacerbations of other glitches, resulting in some game-crash issues. Are they uncommon? Sure. But they're there. And not everyone wants a PS3. Particularly if Kutaragi's ramblings about it being not affordable for households are accurate. 316684[/snapback] True...but a lot of people do ditch their systems when new ones appear. I used to keep them all but, I wound up with way too many... Who said everyone wanted a PS3? 316696[/snapback] A1 implied everyone with a PS2 is upgrading to PS3.

HAHA!

With all due respect, Isamu never even TOUCHED the Ghost. In other words, the Ghost didn't hit Isamu at all. The Ghost didn't hit EITHER of them. Guld, however, took off after the Ghost as soon as it made itself known, because in his estimation there was no way for Isamu to win. An accurate estimation as regardless of skill, Isamu wouldn't have been able to even manipulate his controls while doing the high-G maneuvers needed to keep up with the Ghost. Or even see the Ghost at all after his eyeballs popped. ... Actually, given the maneuvers that were being pulled, I suspect Isamu would have blacked out well before it became an issue. Only reason I can think of that Guld DIDN'T is that the zentradi are engineered to have higher G tolerances. So that's 2 non-skill reasons that Guld and Guld alone could beat the Ghost(BCS and superior genetics). Well... any zentradi or half-zentradi pilot in the BCS-equipped YF-21 that hadn't been brainwashed by Sharon could beat the Ghost. But there was only the one plane, and Guld had it. A. You've just said "Project Supernova was rigged to make the YF-19 win." There is no way whatsoever that Guld EVER would have gotten the job as a test pilot for the next-gen combat plane had he NOT been a pilot of comparable skill to Isamu. Well, more accurately, Isamu wouldn't have been chosen had he not been of comparable skill, because Guld was there first. This was intended to be a scientific test with as few variables as possible. That means closely matched pilot skill levels. B. How does the ability to concentrate while your body is LITERALLY tearing itself apart prove that you aren't a skilled combat pilot? This is the only statement that could remotely be construed that way. Only because Isamu killed his engines while deploying flares. Otherwise he would have been 17 kinds of dead. This will be important momentarily. Guld remembered something he had blocked, and realized he sucked as a person. He's allowed some self-pity. Note that he never took any part of his plane offline. Sensors were still running, and he was still at full capacity. Well, as full as he could be with no missiles and probably no bullets. A. The YF-21 sensors were wired directly into Guld's mind. As soon as anything showed up on them, he'd see it just as if he was staring straight at it. And it's implied that the YF-21 has 360-degree sensor coverage. Guld had an unparalleled iew of the sky. B. Isamu's YF-19 was OFF. He had no engines, no thrusters, no transformation capability. As soon as he brought it online, he'd be lit up like a christmas tree for Guld. And(assuming Guld still wanted to waste him) would be blown away before his systems were back online. Because Isamu turns his plane off in mid-dogfight, and Guld had mental problems. Right.

Oh, what's the word I'm looking for? "Shadenwawa?" ... No.

wow... that's mean all the successful mission were based on luck!?! 316588[/snapback] Precisely. Or from another PoV, the failure of the Columbia was due to luck. Foam doesn't USUALLY break off in such a way that it collides with the RCC panels. It was pr'ly a 1/1000 chance. And it just happened that the crew of the Columbia got a bad roll. 0 friction is impossible unless you're holding still. A drop "straight down" incurs MORE friction than an angled one, as you hit the denser parts of the atmosphere while going faster. And you burn up. As was stated above, it's simply not feasable to carry enough fuel up to bring you down at a lesisurely mach 2, slowing to near-0 as you hit the ground. ... Well, maybe if you were using Saturn Vs for orbital missions it'd be workable. But the Saturn V is the largest rocket ever made. And carries a similarly large price tag. On the upside, you can put a space station up in one flight instead of a dozen. Or send 3 guys to the moon.

Blame HG. They've fought to keep the Big West-licensed toys from Japan out of the US, without providing any real alternatives for much of it. Not even really fought, just threatened legal action against people that can't afford to be in a suit.

Depends who you ask. Majority opinion seems to be that the larger models are more reliable, though. (I wouldn't be surprised, given there's precious little room in the slimline for heatsinks or fans). 315843[/snapback] I have em both, they behave the same. I'd say the slim one is easier to drop or knock off of something as its light and small, that is why people think it isn't built as well. 316505[/snapback] Yah. I can see arguments either way, really. Long-term, the slimline should have a more reliable drive mech. One moving part to wear out instead of 3(raising/lowering the mech and opening/closing the tray are elminated, so you only have to worry about the laser tracking). But the older models should cool better. May be offset by more efficient chips, though. Less heat to start with. 316558[/snapback] yeah but who has these things long term... As soon as the PS3 comes out, I am going to can both my PS2s. 316591[/snapback] Me, for one. PS2 hasn't replaced the PS1 because, among other things, it isn't 100% compatible. There's slight glitches here and there, and exacerbations of other glitches, resulting in some game-crash issues. Are they uncommon? Sure. But they're there. And not everyone wants a PS3. Particularly if Kutaragi's ramblings about it being not affordable for households are accurate.

With all due respect, Isamu never even TOUCHED the Ghost. And Guld managed to kamikaze the ghost while his organs were being turned to jello by the intense g-forces of matching the maneuvers of a machine with no fleshy bits to damage. Just maintaining focus under those conditions would be near-impossible, much less fighting effectively. Guld managed to do both. As far as outlcassed and outpiloted... The way I recall things Guld was winning when they called a truce on Earth.

Depends who you ask. Majority opinion seems to be that the larger models are more reliable, though. (I wouldn't be surprised, given there's precious little room in the slimline for heatsinks or fans). 315843[/snapback] I have em both, they behave the same. I'd say the slim one is easier to drop or knock off of something as its light and small, that is why people think it isn't built as well. 316505[/snapback] Yah. I can see arguments either way, really. Long-term, the slimline should have a more reliable drive mech. One moving part to wear out instead of 3(raising/lowering the mech and opening/closing the tray are elminated, so you only have to worry about the laser tracking). But the older models should cool better. May be offset by more efficient chips, though. Less heat to start with.

rockets require MASSIVE amounts of fuel- getting into orbit is always going to require a lot of energy- doing it electrically may very well be safer than using explosive chemicals. Its easier to generate a flaming explosion than electricity, though. And I don't believe railguns are really very efficient devices(may be mistaken). That's an interesting point- one I'd not really thought about when thinking of rail-based launch systems. that sounds like a surmountable problem though. It may be surmountable. But you add a lot of mass for the EM shielding. Which in turn adds a lot of energy needed for an already power-hungry system. :'(

Maybe they're doing it that way on purpose? Trying to set a standard? It would be a pretty low tactic, could it be possible? 315622[/snapback] Quite likely, actually. A lot of people in the position to make the laws haven't quite gotten over the "games are for kids" attitude. Of course, the fact that the ratrings board is complaining about it indicates that at least some of them rcognize the fact. 315630[/snapback] For the record, the original Phantasmagoria by Sierra was banned outright from ever entering here (Australia) due to content. Duke Nukem 3D was withheld until the "adult" content was put behind a block that adults could access by paying money and getting a "code". GTA 3 was on sale here for 6 months until it's classification was revoked, and it was banned from sale until the game removed the visuals for whenever you recieved health from prositutues. Once that was done, it was re-released with MA-15+ however the content was still in the game.. you just had to unlock it with a code. What I'm reading says Duke Nukem was originally submitted with "adult mode" totally disabled, and there were hacks made to re-enable it. The publisher later submitted and got an unaltered version rated. And GTA3 was actually put out on shelves before it was rated. Take2 ASSUMED that it would get the same rating as GTA and GTA2, so when it was banned, they were left in deep poo. So that's the latest update on that, I suppose

Millia IS sexy. You're just a xenophobe.

Aww, c'mon. Bootleg translations are fun.

Why anyone would nominate a black rectangular prism with a red dot on the side for a "babe" of any sort is beyond me. Unless... YOU'VE BEEN LISTENING TO THE CD! SHE BRAINWASHED YOU!

HEIL FOCKER!

Appears I have a suitor. NYAHAHAHA! *uploads full picture of grown-up Komillia, in all its crappy low-res glory*

I think its that he doesn't like valkgirls.

Ah, but in prison you don't propose after successfully stopping the shanking. ... Now MAX, he had some issues. That or a SERIOUS overabundance of hormones. It's pretty much exactly 30cm to a foot. *checks* Yup, the liner notes say 71. NEver noticed that before. Macross Compendium says 171, however. Yah. I think he loses a foot and a half with a haircut, though...

As a devout mechanical pencil user, I have to say... They still leave graphite powder behind. And you can break the lead fairly easily. So you've eliminated wood shavings and eraser turds, but not all debris. The ballpoint pen is the only truly clean writing utensil that I know of. And it has to be pressurized to work in space. Fisher's "space pen" went a few steps beyond what was needed for the task by making the ink so versatile. But that may have been a side effect of making it not spray out when the ball wasn't rolling. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote a book called Footfall where space elephants attack the Earth ( Yeah I know, nutty plot) Anyway the humans on Earth launch and attack cruiser thats build on like a giant iron plate of metal. And underneath it they detonate nukes in progressive stages to get the thing into orbit. Obviously they were in a dire situation and the environmental fallout was less of a worry due to the killer elephants, however I read somewhere that the theory in practice was sound. That you wouldn't have to worry about weight at all. You just keeping detonating nukes under that plate. Maybe one of the guys who read the book more recently than me, or one of the guys who is better at math/physics could tell me Niven and Pournelle were full of it, or if that was a viable though toxic way into space. It's viable, and not even that dirty. Not very efficient, though. The third law of motion doesn't care whare the force comes from, just that it exists. The US government was actually looking into atomic rockets before nukes became a bad thing. Change the nukes out for chemical explosives and confine them in a chamber to focus and direct the force of the explosion and you've got... a rocket engine. Fallout is really only an issue if you're blowing the bombs up on the ground, as the vast majority of it is irradiated dirt. The amount of material the bomb itself sheds is negligible. Moreso if you're using fusion instead of fission. An airburst with a fusion weapon can be considered clean. *sighs* Metal Gear Solid did NOT invent the rail gun. And hell, Rex's rail gun wasn't even capable of intercontinental firing, if you paid attention to the game. Much less orbital insertion. You airdrop a Metal Gear into enemy territory, or march it in from a neighboring US-controlled facility, and fire the rail gun from there. The strategy hasn't changed with time, only the delivery mechanism. The first 3 Metal Gears* fired conventional missiles with rocket engines, Rex fired thrusterless warheads with a radar-absorbant shell. That was the only signifigant diffrence. *GBColor's Metal Gear: Ghost Babel{known in the USA as Metal Gear Solid, because Konami likes to confuse people} added another mech to the family tree between the Mk2 and Rex. A. Rail guns requires MASSIVE amounts of electricity. B. You'll quite likely fry any electronics you try to send up with a rail gun due to the EMP generated in the barrel.

You are an M7 fan, YOU are the homosexual. *I should note that I hate using the word "homosexual" as an insult. It just fit as a response here. 316255[/snapback] OMGWTFGNO!!!! Millia didn't have any angst issues. ... Well, aside from the whole "I'M GONNA KILL YOU BECAUSE YOU BEAT ME AT VIDEO GAMES!" thing. That was probably the most screwed-up courtship in history.

That could be argued as a test, I suppose. Wasn't what I was thinking of, though. 316249[/snapback] I know, but trying to make sense out of M7 is like trying to argue Michael Jackson's case for adopting children. 316251[/snapback] *chuckles*