JB0

I wants it! Sheesh, why does no one start threads about the GOOD games.

Doesn't really predict its demise, except possibly on the first flight. You could argue it predicted the Challenger's death, as they mentioned exploding solid rocket boosters. But again, they were expecting them to fail on the test flight, not once they were in "routine" use. And it doesn't do much explanation of the history at all, really. Just that the program was over budget, below spec, and behind schedule. If you want history, read the CAIB report.

He said something about midget siamese twins attached at the nipples. 317595[/snapback] I thought his muscles just got so big there wasn't enough blood left for his brain and he collapsed into a coma.

As I said, reactors in Macross don't quite work the way we think they do due to Overtechnology. The process is similar to fusion, but doesn't say that it is fusion. It is intentionally vague on the point, and that's how I'll answer it it. Does it produce radioactive byproducts? It may produce a little, it may produce zero. But obviously, it's nothing to get excited about. 317590[/snapback] I still take exception to Kawamori's description, though, as the statement that the fuel doesn't have to be nuclear is true of real-world thermonuclear reactions too. Though it's really minor quibbling over a technical detail that was easily overlooked. I tend to hold programs that attempt to brush with real-world tech to a higher standard than ones that just insert Trek babble to explain why their cardboard box with wings is capable of flight. Macross is one of the shows that attempts to stay on this side of the absurd. Sure the planes fold into robots, but they at least make the planes look like flyable vehicles and the robots like planes that folded into robots instead of totally new vehicles.

Double-dipping?

Errr, no. That only applies to bombs. For obvious reasons, detonating an A-bomb inside a fusion reactor is very much NOT an encouraged activity. The techniques used in fusion weaponry also don't lend themselves to the sustained reactions needed for a fusion generator. Although PACER would have provided fusion power generation without a sustainable fusion reaction, and thus WOULD use a fission explosion to initiate fusion. And a controlled fission reaction doesn't generate NEAR as much heat and pressure as the explosive uncontrolled ones used in weapons, making it pretty much useless for a catalyst in fusion power generation. Not to mention the techniques used for fusion power generation don't require anywhere near the incredibly high pressures of a fusion weapon. Without knowing exactly how Macross' overtech generators work, I would predict that they're most closely related to modern tokamak reactors, which use magnetic fields to constrict the plasma and either inject high-energy particles or use EM radiation to heat the fuel.

In this case, it's a game that, knowing Rockstar, quite likely glorifies an activity that's already unofficially condoned by the majority of people in a position to do something about it. While I reserve final judgement until the game is actually out and real information becomes available, as things stand currently I am unamused. And quite bluntly, more than a little pissed. 317411[/snapback] Doesn't change the fact that it's still a game, a game not intented for kids to play anyway. That's the bottom line, it's not for kids, these people are getting mad for no real reason. The only thing I'm somewhat pissed about is that this game is most likely going to have repetative game play and not much in the way of innovation. 317430[/snapback] Fine. I'm annoyed because Rockstar is exploiting childhood traumas for money.

He fears our non-master's-degree educations.

A VF's thermonuclear engines don't work exactly how we think they do thanks to Overtechnology. http://www.anime.net/macross/story/encyclo...tion/index.html They may not even produce that much radioactivity. 317481[/snapback] Actually, the original question is a basic misunderstanding of nuclear power.Thermonuclear = fusion. Fusion uses non-radioactive fuel(typically hydrogen or helium), and depending on the reaction may or may not release radioactive byproducts(He3 fusion, used in Gundam, is a "clean" reaction, although it is not known to release minovsky particles in the real world as it does in the anime). The only thing special about overtech fusion is the mechanism used to sustain the reaction.

In this case, it's a game that, knowing Rockstar, quite likely glorifies an activity that's already unofficially condoned by the majority of people in a position to do something about it. While I reserve final judgement until the game is actually out and real information becomes available, as things stand currently I am unamused. And quite bluntly, more than a little pissed.

The vast majority of it is merely applying logic or taking the show at face value. When I said the YF-21 didn't get hit by the X9, I meant BEFORE Isamu and Guld split off. You know, when the X9 could reasonably be expected to attack both of them as opposed to JUST the plane trying to kill it. If I meant over the entire sequence, I could say Custer was never beat by Jackson, so clearly Custer is a better strategist than "Stonewall" Jackson. The scoreboard is often cited in Plus debates(to prove the YF-19 is the bette rplane, usually), but it has no real context attached to it. The scale of the bars is totally unknown, as is what they're actually measuring. Bigger bars could be good. Smaller bars could be good. Centered bars could be good. A set increment could be an exponential movement, of either increasingly smaller or increasingly larger steps. Or a linear scale. The main thing it shows, in my opinion, is that Isamu is a wilder pilot than Guld.

NOOOOOOO ... 317223[/snapback] Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Yah. I was debating starting a Stealth1 thread just to see what would actually happen if I started a Stealth2 thread. But that would've been immature. So I didn't start a Stealth3 thread. But then other people started Stealth4 threads. So now I can just make a Stealth5 post in someone else's Stealth6 thread and see how many times I can say Stealth7 in one Stealth8 post in a Stealth9 thread. Which isn't really that much more mature than starting a Stealth10 thread, but it lets me maximize my Stealth11 density. So I can fit more uses of Stealth12 into a post than if I was starting the Stealth13 thread, which would require me to have some ACTUAL Stealth14 content in my Stealth15 post.

The AI drone goes crazy and starts killing people after getting hit by lightning. And the astronauts get blasted by radiation that gives them super powers. Spoilers over. 317093[/snapback] Oh you forgot, one fo the pilots lands in super-hot lava, is ressurected by an evil warlord and turned into a cyborg killing machine with a cool black helmet, while a group of Resistance fighters meets in a bar in Casablanca to try to get the cynical barkeep to give them the letters of transit, and a gigantic monkey climbs the Empire State Building... 317146[/snapback] *thumbsup*

And Darth Vader is Luke's father.

ahh, that was one of the coolest episodes ever! ... 316687[/snapback] :/ Nothing was cool about M7. But I will take your post as a confession. Watch Predator twice and Conan once to purge the lameness from your soul. 317036[/snapback] Oh, c'mon. Even you have to admit that Max's first VF-22 attack, while tragically short, was 13 diffrent kinds of awesome.

You can always tell when a troll is trying to star a flame war. Less fanning the fire, more mecha boobies!

Yes, actually. If you have a known good system that fails to oot when connected to teh tester power supply, it means the PSU is likely bad.

Mmmm, sausage.

The AI drone goes crazy and starts killing people after getting hit by lightning. And the astronauts get blasted by radiation that gives them super powers. Spoilers over.

You are correct of course. My bad. However was that orbit an orbit about Earth or an orbit about the Earth/Moon system? Depends on where in the mission you are. If I recall... Saturn 5 lifts you to Earth orbit. From there, you turn the service module around and dock it with the lander module. Then use the service module engine to boost out of orbit and towards the Moon. Fire the service module engine again to insert into lunar orbit(in the case of Apollo 13, they never actually entered Lunar orbit, and used the Moon to slingshot back towards Earth). And when you approach Earth again, you use the service module engine one last time to decelerate. I think you enter orbit before dropping down(which would make TWO service module firings). If you don't... you still pass through a velocity-altitude combo where you're TECHNICALLY in orbit for a moment or so. That's the first I've read anything about the atmosphere actually adding energy to the shuttle. I thought the friction with the atmosphere would result in kinetic energy being turned into heat and dissipated. Though most of that heat might just end up getting stored in the tiles at that altitude. Can you point me to an article on this trampline effect? Eh-heh... That was actually kind of a rushed post. I should've clarfied that I THINK that's how it works. Or did, anyways. I think I was being a dumbass earlier, now that I've looked at the problem in more detail. Thinking about it, there's a lot of variables that should factor in. Whether you're approaching with or against the Earth's rotation is going to be more relevant than any (hypothetical) trampoline effect. I think this is the most important variable. If you're going against the Earth's rotation, the atmosphere should decelerate the ship if it just skims it. If you're going WITH the rotation, it should accelerate the ship on a skim instead. But even if it decelerates you, the bounce may convert too much forward motion to upward to get back down again. You aren't JUST gaining or losing speed. You're also having some of it changed from one type to another. It's actually a fairly complex problem, now that I think about it, without a single clear answer. You COULD skip off into space, or sit there bouncing across the atmosphere until you slow down enough to "fall in." This just doesn't sound quite right to me. Its possible to gain altitute without gaining any net energy. Like I said above, that was rushed. Got a more accurate version now, involving changed motion vectors. You gain energy in one axis, but this may corespond to a loss in another axis. It's not that it gained energy as much as the energy it DOES have is redirected(assuming that the ship comes down going "into the wind," so to speak). But when it STARTS going up, it's had energy imparted to it from the throw. That would be the instant of the atmospheric skip, when you release the rock. Using the analogy, anyways. Assuming the shuttle's new vertical velocity is low enough that it doesn't break orbit before it starts falling again.

OMG STELTH AM TEH MACROSS RIPOFF!11111

Munimula!!! 316747[/snapback] Hummakavulla! 316891[/snapback] I don't think EITHER of you played Afterlife.

What you describe is pretyt much impossible. Just because you have a fusion reactor doesn't mean you have infinite thrust. For one, you have to carry enough fusable material to keep the reaction going during the entire mission. For two, you need enough reaction mass to jetison. Once you run out of reaction mass, you lose the ability to maneuver in space, even if you brought enough hydrogen to run for a million years. And reaction mass is simple newtonian physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Eject a pound of stuff out at 30 miles an hour, you impart a momenteum of 30 miles an hour/pounds of space ship in the opposite direction. I think the tiles are ceramic, actually. I forget how many get shed with every re-entry, but it's a lot. And we haven't had tile impact problems yet, just hte one RCC panel. Though NASA did observe a "sandpapering" effect after one foam reformulation. The foam USED to powder off during liftoff. As I recall, they reformulated it to stop that because it was putting nasty gouges in the tiles and they were worried about heatshield integrity. Of course, chunks weren't considered an issue because "it never hit the shuttle before." That was an idea they pitched. It likely wouldn't ahve done any good, as any trajectory low enough to prevent blowtorching wouldn't have been too low to actually re-enter. The Apollos were in orbit too. Just a larger orbit. If it bounced up, it GAINED energy. You can't go up against gravity without actually accelerating. And you can't accelerate without gaining energy.Skipping off the atmosphere is sort of like jumping on a trampoline. You hit it, it bends a little, and then throws you back up. Now imagine gravity has only the slightest hold on that rock, and the rock has to fire thrusters to move down towards the water. And that the lake is curving away from the rock as it travels.

No, we're just looking at them a LOT closer than we used to. Like the current shuttle mission. There was "grout" sticking up between some of the ceramic tiles. They know its happened before, and that we've seen up to a quarter inch of it after the shuttle lands and who knows how much has burned off. But the don't have a clue if this one is safe, because that's aLL they know. They've no clue as to how much burns off on re-entry. The part that takes the brunt of things is actually the leading edge. That's why the front faces are all RCC panels instead of ceramic tiles. The black parts get the hottest. The belly DOES take more than the top, though. In space, yes. And not burn up. Aerodynamics don't mean anything in space. In an atmosphere, they mean less friction, which means less heat. Well, it'd be a lot more complex, for very little gain. The tiles aren't a problem. And it would greatly reduce the control you have over re-entry.