Zentrandude

I vote for the red head chick in dynamite 7

its ok forget what I said then since not like we building it ourselves (would be cool to see a MW spacecraft). though we could if we want.

Uhmm, whatcha talkin' about? Both went after the Ghost. Isamu just got overruled 2-1 with Yang as the swing-vote. lol! No. Try not to pass your speculations as proof that Isamu couldn't handle the Ghost X9. As to your Hi-G stuff, it's non-sequitur. Isamu would've just use a different tactic against the X9. Guld didn't know anything else, so he went bruteforce kamikaze since it's his only option. Furthermore, skillwise, Isamu dominated Guld in every battle and contest between the YF-19 and the YF-21. There was the scoreboard to verify that. And again, Guld missed pointblank in the atmospheric freefall and missed with his final missile-barrage. Another speculation and cannot be proven since Guld's the only one who can control the YF-21 with the BCS/BDI system. Again, see my response above regarding your Hi-G speculation. It's a matter of knowing more tactics to use than just bruteforce. Huh? How did I say the test was rigged to make the YF-19 win? I don't see that in any of my posts. But to entertain you, Guld was the designer of the YF-21 and no other pilot knows how to work it. Unlike the YF-19, which lost 2-3 pilots prior to Isamu. Isamu proved to be the only one who can handle the YF-19. However back to the testing, that's just basic-piloting and synthetic tests for the YF-21 and does not compensate for actual combat-situations with other combat-variables. This is proven quite distinctly when Guld lost complete control of the YF-21 when Isamu's VF-11B popped up between him and the last dud-missile. Isamu never lost control of the situation. Think about that. Easy. It's called desperate gamble since Guld's tactics were insufficient to deal with the X9. Sure, he can follow the X9, but that's about it. The X9 pretty much tore his YF-21 apart and Guld's left with no other option but a kamikaze-run. Only because Isamu killed his engines while deploying flares. Otherwise he would have been 17 kinds of dead. This will be important momentarily. That's tactical superiority. Guld did not know that tactic at all, but Isamu does. That's a honed skill and applied to combat effectively by Isamu. Guld remembered something he had blocked, and realized he sucked as a person. He's allowed some self-pity. As a fighter-pilot or any soldier or even a welder for cryin' out loud, you are not supposed to lost focus and concentration. Otherwise, you're dead on the field quite quickly or you will cause the deaths of your comrades. That's why there's training to help avoid that specific situation. Military-training and experience in the case of Isamu. By the time Guld noticed the YF-19's shadow, it would've been too late had Isamu been bent on killing him like Guld was intent on killing Isamu. That's why Isamu had smirky attitude because both of them knew who has the superior position and there was no need to demonstrate it further. 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. Which wouldn't matter at all and is quite irrelevant since Guld did not detect Isamu at all until he saw the YF-19 shadow. Again, you're just doing some wishful thinking. Isamu had the superior position. Both of them know that when Guld finally noticed the YF-19's shadow. Because Isamu turns his plane off in mid-dogfight, and Guld had mental problems. Right. 316712[/snapback] hehehe 316777[/snapback] I thought yang got ejected b4 the ghost fight.

Sure, if you can convert a thermouclear reaction into sustained thrust (such as the Orion engine posted earlier), then effectively you have a large amount of energy to play with, yeah, you can de-orbit a lander straight down -- because you got so much thrust, you basically ignore the gravitational pull, earth's rotation, etc. etc. If you can have a system to do that, then, hey, we don't need to work so hard -- we got sustained energy out our backsides, so we simply don't care about "natural" laws. Only issue here is that we don't have such a system at the moment, and, AFAIK, nothing even remotely like it in the near future. 316799[/snapback] Lol stop doing that use that part of your brain called imagination I know you have it in you if you seen macross. In crazy land they have thermonuclear engines like valks and what not so thrust isnt an issue (talk about that one more time and ill put a helmet on you) and design a vechical yourself so 1. has extreme safety to crew 2. not needed to use heat resistant materials since in crazy land only materials avail is common stuff like steel/alum ect and 3. not violate other countries airspace since in crazy land you live in a small country surrounded by not so friendly countries wanting any excuses to invade.

K stop making a more complex statment of my examples this is MW not nasa. A friend of mine is realy laughing on what your saying but he made a realy good point. For imaginary sake lets say a lander had thermonuclear engines and lots of time and what not so its just simple thrust. He said It would seem possible to land that way but realy hard to be perfect landing with the jet stream going to push it way off coarse. also sundown is a person on the forums

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. 316781[/snapback] now your realy over thinking it also i belive you need to slow down the shuttle not speed it up and already mention you need thrusters on the bottom and fuel and blah blah blah. oh yah also post link where you cut and paste that . Maybe we shouldnt use the shuttle as an test vechical for what the guy wants and use a old fasion orbital lander so ppl wont get confused. sundown thats a good example about that.

then your not getting what hes trying to say he wants to have a geostationary object slowly going down to land.

think you guys are over thinking this abit. geostationary orbit been done alot of times but the main thing you guys are not mentioning that it requires alot of fuel to keep it up so it won't drop like a rock also it would need to hold the fuel and need thrusters on the bottom and blah blah blah.

tv media knows how to make a mountain out of a mole hill and vice versa.

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. Also, the magnetic rail gun theory ( yeah yeah its Metal Gear Solid I know) Not for human transport, but if NASA developed a large rail gun, couldn't they just fire supplies and equipment into space for later pickup? Seems to me, the biggest problem with more frequent space travel besides the delivery vehicles is the fuel/weight/fuel effieciency issue. 316279[/snapback] I remember theres a guy in alaska doing that but with smaller conical shaped objects and a laser from the old star war project.

what about those mechanical pencils only thing you need to worry is the eraser but they could just take them off before lift off. Anyways the shuttle is still good but no comment on the fuel tank issue not like nasa going to look at MW for help.

wait monster? that the doctor guy looking for this murderer he healed?

its got 4kids on it so its expected to be realy kiddy like for 8 year olds.

I know how you feel with holding glocks I just dont like it that much but some other guns feel very differnt a few weeks ago a friend brought brought over his tracker 41 taurus and looks sweet and is super light being titanium but the grips feel like a sponge and sadly its made that way since the gun being so light it the sponge grip acts as a shock absorber as it likes to twist in your hand. Being 41mag it has killing power so its a great home def gun but a horrible gun to practice with unless you like to have like carple tunnel in a few days.

Didnt need this post to see this movie going to be a mindless action/horrorish movie. theres tons of threads like this in many boards including doom3files.com.

GASP! THE SPIES DID IT! ... Why did I never catch that? 314588[/snapback] I think it was Lynn Kyle. Just because he was that much of a jerk. 314598[/snapback] then he went back in time and killed JFK.

thats a quick way to get your life time supply of lead and copper.

not impressed, if there was a 1:1 fully functional hk tank that I can run over buildings and spread plasma fire from both arm turrets then ill would pay the money.

1. sharon 2. max 3. millia/that blonde chick from fleet of strongest woman/nora 4. roy/basara/dd 5. guld/Misa (misa shot down hikaru and she piloted nicely the dedalus through a ship to fire missiles at hikaru )/gamlin/ Guravil (think thats his name the flying monkey guy) 6. hikaru/that red head chick from dynamite 7/Mylene 7. isamu/ray 8. Kamijun/shin 10. any cannon fodder alive after one misson

thats my fav too after that peter gives the list of all the shows fox killed off.

robotjox..... not

guess you can say as disk has more space and is getting cheaper, game devlopers need to hire more programmers to fill that space up and keep the cost of making a game high enough to keep the price per disk at a premium.

crap thats what i get for saying sims 1/2. never liked that game anyways, i keep killing off everybody with the common cold and the evil broken microwave.

Because the actual content-- artwork, textures, models, animation-- of the Tomb Raider "nude patch" wasn't created by the developers of the game. They were just silly textures created by a third party to replace the originals. Here we actually have adult content being created and distributed by the authors of the game that can be accessed by performing minor modification to the game's code. Sure, much of the ballyhoo over this is silly. The content is accessible only to someone actively looking for it, and capable of running the hack that enables it. But Rockstar showed a marked lack of integrity by implying that "sophisticated hackers" were responsible for this content, that these alleged hackers made extensive modifications to the code and data to produce the risque scenes in question. Their claims were designed to deflect responsibility, and their vague allusions to "hacking" and "code modification" were designed to lead the average non-programmer to think that Rockstar was totally uninvolved in how the scenes got there, without them actually saying specifically so, and thus being caught in a direct lie. Of course it turns out that most of the content and artwork was actually created by Rockstar themselves, and it required only minor bit twiddling to coax them out. So the thing that bugs me isn't so much the fact that these scenes exist, unaccessible until you go significantly out of your way to enable them. Allowing this sort of thing in your game is either genius or foolish depending on your view and on how things play out. But it bugs me much more that Rockstar won't own up and be upfront with their customers. The game's rating being changed to AO doesn't make much sense, seeing as the AO content isn't actually accessible in normal use-- but a big part of me is amused to see this happen as a result of Rockstar's schtick and their unwillingness to take responsibility. I suppose the reason it's being re-rated is this: There is adult-only content in the game, and the fact that it exists and how to go about getting at it is now public knowledge. Sure, a savvy kid who can unlock this content probably can find more explicit stuff himself on the net... but that doesn't mean that we shrug and hand him more similar stuff just because he can. And while the Mature rating should already prevent the same kid from buying the game himself, the AO rating would clearly warn a parent who for some reason isn't familiar with the game and this issue explicitly, when his or her kid might be. We can argue that a decent parent wouldn't purchase Mature games for their kids in the first place, or we can point out the silliness of our culture for its attitude towards violence versus its attitude towards sex. But in the end, ratings convey to the customer what sort of content is to be expected. And the new AO rating allows the parent to make the final call based on what actually is there, even if they're not aware of the controversy and nuances surrounding a game. -Al 313089[/snapback] think he meant the sims 1/2 desensor patch/code but you still need like a texture replacement to have something down there i belive.

That would depend on a lot of things.... 312488[/snapback] yah no kidding for the m1903 look at m1903.com for a good idea for what your gun might be worth. my rockisland 1903 was made at dec 1918 which is just barely after the new temper receivers that can be safely fired without blowing up but its been sporterized by my great great uncle simular to the nra sporterized ones so its not worth much.