Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:

Out of the Blue

Today a reporter on TV referred to the U.S. elections being two weeks off as a "fortnight, battle royale." I know the success of Fortnite has become a mainstream story, but invoking the battle royale part seemed pretty hardcore, and is a sign of Epic's success here. It was also some awesome wordplay, so kudos all around.

Mainstream Links: Thanks Ant.
Play: Count Downula.
Links: Happy 60th birthday, video games. Thank William Higinbotham for your misspent evenings. Thanks William!
Stories: Burger chains graded on annual antibiotics report card. Thanks Boing Boing.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus feted for career achievement in comedy.
Media: Underwater Camera Captures "Headless Chicken Monster." Thanks RedEye9.
Crazy Footage Of The 1971 Cannikin Test, The Largest Underground Nuclear Bomb Test In US History.
Dog Was SO Proud When Her Human Sister Finally Walked. Thanks RedEye9.
TUI Boeing 757 Comes into Land SIDEWAYS in 40 KNOT CROSSWIND at Bristol Airport During a STORM. Like a boss!

View
38 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

38. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 23, 2018, 23:26 Mr. Tact
 
Like I said, there are problems. But "ever" is a long time and there no reason to think scientific advances are about to stop abruptly. Will I as a 55 year old, live to see a successful manned mission to Mars? Probably not. But I'm guessing it will happen in less than 200 years.  
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 23, 2018, 22:53 Scheherazade
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Oct 23, 2018, 12:09:
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 23, 2018, 12:02:
Nor will we ever.
Ever? Don't know about that. We really aren't too far from being able to send people there. Yes, there are problems to solve, but none of them are thought to have solutions which are centuries away. But then again, I'll concede our chances of self destruction might get in the way...

Mars gravity is a big deal. It isn't "insignificant" like the moon.

You need to take off in a large rocket, and take another entire large rocket with you to get back off of mars.

Atmospheric density is small, so parachutes can't help you with descent.

Wings are of little use.
Temperature is cold, so speed of sound is low.
Low density needs high speed to generate lift.
No supersonic-landing-length runways for you to land on.

So you need to land a large rocket using retro thrust, and have enough fuel left to get back up into space.

You can't just bring more fuel either, because fuel is the bulk of the launch weight.
2x fuel needs 2x thrust needs 2x fuel consumption.
You would need fuel with way greater impulse (good luck with that) ... or multiple resupply trips so assemble the return flight resources.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Oct 23, 2018, 23:07.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 23, 2018, 12:09 Mr. Tact
 
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 23, 2018, 12:02:
Nor will we ever.
Ever? Don't know about that. We really aren't too far from being able to send people there. Yes, there are problems to solve, but none of them are thought to have solutions which are centuries away. But then again, I'll concede our chances of self destruction might get in the way...
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 23, 2018, 12:02 RedEye9
 
jdreyer wrote on Oct 23, 2018, 11:57:
We haven't been to Mars.
Nor will we ever.
 
Avatar 58135
 
"The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." Neil deGrasse Tyson
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 23, 2018, 12:00 jdreyer
 
Prez wrote on Oct 23, 2018, 11:12:
IIRC this particular test was of a special nuclear powered 'neutron bomb' that was only needed to detonate in the general vicinity of the incoming missile, not directly hit it. The nuclear explosion of a multi-megaton-sized bomb meant it's kill radius would be pretty huge. The neutrons, coupled with intense X-Rays, would bombard the incoming missile and destroy it before it re-entered the atmosphere. The test in '71 in Alaska proved there would be very little nuclear fallout from such a blast, again IIRC.

Right, these were "clean" nuclear tipped anti-ballistic missile missiles.
 
Avatar 22024
 
The land in Minecraft is flat, Minecraft simulates the Earth, ergo the Earth is flat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 23, 2018, 11:57 jdreyer
 
Creston wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 21:22:
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 19:34:
It's not just the math. To think that shooting down missiles is easy just means that you have not applied much thought to the problem.
It's call "rocket science" for a reason.

You seem to willfully ignore the fact that the human race is really, REALLY FUCKING GOOD at rocket science. We are so good at it that private companies are now doing it; private companies that now just make the missiles come back down and land on a barge.
As impressed with SpaceX as I am, I think we've stagnated a bit in rocketry the past few decades. Humans haven't been to the moon for almost 50 years. We haven't been to Mars. We have no SSTO spacecraft. I thought we'd be much further along by 2020.

But in any case, Russia has designed a missile meant to defeat ballistic shields, and I readily admit that I didn't think their arsenal was that advanced. (And I even read Foxtrot Alpha!)
Tyler Rogoway left FTA a couple years ago. Have you been to his new digs yet?

Fortunately, Putin owns Trump, so no danger of a nuclear war for the next six years.
True though that may be, Russia isn't the only one with nukes. Things are heating up with China in the South China Sea, and one false step could spiral out of control, Duke of Ferdinand-style.
 
Avatar 22024
 
The land in Minecraft is flat, Minecraft simulates the Earth, ergo the Earth is flat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 23, 2018, 11:51 RedEye9
 
Creston wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 21:22:
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 19:34:
It's not just the math. To think that shooting down missiles is easy just means that you have not applied much thought to the problem.
It's called "rocket science" for a reason.

You seem to willfully ignore the fact that the human race is really, REALLY FUCKING GOOD at rocket science. We are so good at it that private companies are now doing it; private companies that now just make the missiles come back down and land on a barge.
Creston wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 21:16:
I was not aware of this bit, so I stand corrected.
Thanks for making my point for me.
It's called "rocket science" for a reason.
 
Avatar 58135
 
"The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." Neil deGrasse Tyson
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 23, 2018, 11:44 jdreyer
 
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 19:34:
Of particular concern would be the "dirty bomb" effect caused by a missiles radiocative material raining down, not as damaging as detonation it's still something to keep in mind.

Most of such debris would fall into the ocean, or even better, Canada.

Don't worry about Cutter. He's played all the Fallouts. He knows what to do.
 
Avatar 22024
 
The land in Minecraft is flat, Minecraft simulates the Earth, ergo the Earth is flat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 23, 2018, 11:12 Prez
 
IIRC this particular test was of a special nuclear powered 'neutron bomb' that was only needed to detonate in the general vicinity of the incoming missile, not directly hit it. The nuclear explosion of a multi-megaton-sized bomb meant it's kill radius would be pretty huge. The neutrons, coupled with intense X-Rays, would bombard the incoming missile and destroy it before it re-entered the atmosphere. The test in '71 in Alaska proved there would be very little nuclear fallout from such a blast, again IIRC.  
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 23, 2018, 09:36 Scheherazade
 
Creston wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 15:00:
Prez wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 13:01:
As an aside to the nuclear test story, I remember as a kid hearing how much shit Reagan took for his 'Star Wars' missile defense program. Years later I came to learn that this test proved it was not only possible, but very doable. By then the political climate had shifted too much to make it a politically viable venture. Who knows, completing it may have actually heightened cold war tensions, so maybe it was for the best that it wasn't ever completed.

Star Wars would have been substantially more scary if it had been super viable. MAD only works when it is ASSURED. If the US had a missile shield that could shoot down enough of the USSR missiles that the destruction was no longer mutually assured, then what was there to stop the US from wiping the Soviet Union off the face of the map?

For that matter, if it had been that much of a certainty, the USSR would have most likely launched a strike before it ever went online.

It always makes me wonder, when they announce that there was another anti-missile test and it went wrong or it only worked "to an extent" whether that's the actual real result, or whether they're just sandbagging and giving the rest of the world misinformation, and in reality the system works great?

They keep saying it's like trying to hit a bullet with another bullet—as long as the intercepting bullet has guidance, why would a computer not be able to hit it?

I think the fact that both sides have thousands of missiles, and even a 99% intercept rate would mean annihilation for both sides, means that it's pretty well assured. IMO.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 22, 2018, 21:22 Creston
 
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 19:34:
It's not just the math. To think that shooting down missiles is easy just means that you have not applied much thought to the problem.
It's call "rocket science" for a reason.

You seem to willfully ignore the fact that the human race is really, REALLY FUCKING GOOD at rocket science. We are so good at it that private companies are now doing it; private companies that now just make the missiles come back down and land on a barge.

One has to be concerned with where a missile will fall once it has been "destroyed" (see 'Failure at Dharan'.)

Of particular concern would be the "dirty bomb" effect caused by a missiles radiocative material raining down, not as damaging as detonation it's still something to keep in mind.

You'd much rather have dirty bomb shrapnel than a nuke actually explode over your cities.

But in any case, Russia has designed a missile meant to defeat ballistic shields, and I readily admit that I didn't think their arsenal was that advanced. (And I even read Foxtrot Alpha!)

Fortunately, Putin owns Trump, so no danger of a nuclear war for the next six years.
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 22, 2018, 21:16 Creston
 
jdreyer wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 19:25:
The missile and reentry vehicles' ability to dynamically maneuver outside of their ballistic track makes producing an effective kill solution, or even predicting the TOPOL-M's target, problematic. All these features come together to make a missile that is probably outside of America's missile defense capabilities today, and the sheer number of them that exists makes the idea of defending against anything but a limited barrage totally invalid.

I was not aware of this bit, so I stand corrected. It's honestly probably better. Again, MAD only works as long as it is actually mutually assured.
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 22, 2018, 19:34 RedEye9
 
Creston wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 18:12:
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 17:31:
Creston wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 15:00:
They keep saying it's like trying to hit a bullet with another bullet—as long as the intercepting bullet has guidance, why would a computer not be able to hit it?
The Minute Man missiles flew at approximately 17,507 mph (Mach 23, or 28,176 km/h, or 7.8 km/s) (terminal phase).
You do the math and build the device that's gonna track it, take off from earth, catch up to it and knock it out of the sky.
You don't "catch up" to it, you meet it head on.
But somehow, the math to intercept an ICBM escapes them? Let's just say I'm a little skeptical about that.
It's not just the math. To think that shooting down missiles is easy just means that you have not applied much thought to the problem.
It's call "rocket science" for a reason.
jdreyer wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 19:25:
Intercepting a simple ballistic missile like ...
Anything we can do they can do better.

One has to be concerned with where a missile will fall once it has been "destroyed" (see 'Failure at Dharan'.)

Of particular concern would be the "dirty bomb" effect caused by a missiles radiocative material raining down, not as damaging as detonation it's still something to keep in mind.

This comment was edited on Oct 22, 2018, 19:45.
 
Avatar 58135
 
"The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." Neil deGrasse Tyson
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 22, 2018, 19:25 jdreyer
 
Creston wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 18:12:
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 17:31:
Creston wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 15:00:
They keep saying it's like trying to hit a bullet with another bullet—as long as the intercepting bullet has guidance, why would a computer not be able to hit it?
The Minute Man missiles flew at approximately 17,507 mph (Mach 23, or 28,176 km/h, or 7.8 km/s) (terminal phase).
You do the math and build the device that's gonna track it, take off from earth, catch up to it and knock it out of the sky.

You don't "catch up" to it, you meet it head on. And a minuteman (or Russia's equivalent LRICBM) isn't a cruise missile that gyro-stabilizes itself and makes minute course corrections that would allow it to dodge. It flies on a trajectory that's probably easily calculable halfway through its journey. At that point you launch a missile here that meets it (relatively) head on. Where else would you launch the interceptor missile from that it needs to catch up? From a ship in the Pacific or something? I mean, that would be more ideal since it drastically reduces the amount of interceptors you need, but that's not feasible.

So then is it a math problem? For all the shit I give the US Government, this is the military apparatus that gave us bombs that could fly through a window to detonate inside the target area after being dropped from 20000 feet. This is the military that has built an actual rail gun and has put it on a ship. This is the military that has actual, freaking LASERS.

Speaking not from the US perspective, but just from science the world around, we just landed on a freaking asteroid that's hurtling through space. We send space craft on missions to planets in our solar system and time it so that after 20+ years they circle said planet a thousand times, then fly practically through the rings to evaporate in the atmosphere itself.

But somehow, the math to intercept an ICBM escapes them? Let's just say I'm a little skeptical about that. Hell, if nothing else that Rail Gun could probably blow one up, provided we'd have several in the general vicinity of the potential targets.
Intercepting a simple ballistic missile like the DPRK Taepodong 2 is possible with current systems like the Aegis and its 1300 mile range SM-3. However, modern ICBMs like Russia's TOPOL-M are designed specifically to defeat ABM shields:
The missile's high speed shortens the time anyone can react to it, and every second matters when it comes to ballistic missile defense. The rocket motors were designed for a short, very powerful boost stage so that American space-based infrared detection satellites (SBIRS, DSP) have less time to detect and track it. Its decoys make it hard for radar to adequately track the correct target, and its countermeasures are said to have been upgraded to fool infrared tracking systems, which are use for mid-course interception. The missile and reentry vehicles' ability to dynamically maneuver outside of their ballistic track makes producing an effective kill solution, or even predicting the TOPOL-M's target, problematic. All these features come together to make a missile that is probably outside of America's missile defense capabilities today, and the sheer number of them that exists makes the idea of defending against anything but a limited barrage totally invalid.
 
Avatar 22024
 
The land in Minecraft is flat, Minecraft simulates the Earth, ergo the Earth is flat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 22, 2018, 19:24 Mr. Tact
 
Actually, my sister needs to meet a doctor like that. She, like you, has had a series of doctors shake their heads unknowingly at a myriad of symptoms she has.  
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 22, 2018, 18:59 Kxmode
 
Today a reporter on TV referred to the U.S. elections being two weeks off as a "fortnight, battle royale." I know the success of Fortnite has become a mainstream story, but invoking the battle royale part seemed pretty hardcore, and is a sign of Epic's success here. It was also some awesome wordplay, so kudos all around.

Or, it might demonstrate that that reporter is a fan to the degree that they felt comfortable using it. I'm pretty sure a good segment of the audience scratched their heads at the reference.
 
Avatar 18786
 
William Shakespeare's "Star Wars" Act I, Scene 1: Aboard the rebel ship. / Enter C-3PO and R2-D2. / C-3PO: "Now is the summer of our happiness / Made winter by this sudden, fierce attack!" / R2-D2 — Beep beep, Beep, beep, meep, squeak, beep, whee!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 22, 2018, 18:55 Cutter
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 18:50:
Cutter wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 18:00:
Thanks Seph. It's simply amazing how it all boils down to seeing the right person. A dozen different doctors and a million tests later and they were all, 'Sorry, dunno what the problem is.' This guy walks into the room, asks me a few questions and literally within 2 minutes finds the problem. I was in the big city today for 4 hours of testing which confirmed his diagnosis. They say he's one of the best in the country and now I know why.

His name wasn't "House", was it?

No, because House always makes 2 incorrect diagnoses before his third and final correct one - according to Lisa Simpson at any rate. This guy was like Dr. J because he took right from the tipoff straight to the hoop and dunked it.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"Ah, Impressionists, the boy bands of the art world." - Sideshow Bob
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 22, 2018, 18:50 Mr. Tact
 
Cutter wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 18:00:
Thanks Seph. It's simply amazing how it all boils down to seeing the right person. A dozen different doctors and a million tests later and they were all, 'Sorry, dunno what the problem is.' This guy walks into the room, asks me a few questions and literally within 2 minutes finds the problem. I was in the big city today for 4 hours of testing which confirmed his diagnosis. They say he's one of the best in the country and now I know why.
His name wasn't "House", was it?
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 22, 2018, 18:49 Cutter
 
jdreyer wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 18:34:
Crazy Footage Of The 1971 Cannikin Test, The Largest Underground Nuclear Bomb Test In US History.

That footage is nuts.

Also what's that music? Sounds like something from a '70s thriller.

Lastly, was that William Shatner narrating?

I was just going to say virtually the same thing, that footage is crazy, and yeah I'm pretty sure that's Bill Shatner. Wish they would have had underground footage of the cavern and explosion as it happened.

Edit: Doh! I am tired. Just occurred to me, 'How the fuck would the camera and film survive the blast, dingus?' Lol!

 
Avatar 25394
 
"Ah, Impressionists, the boy bands of the art world." - Sideshow Bob
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 22, 2018, 18:34 jdreyer
 
Crazy Footage Of The 1971 Cannikin Test, The Largest Underground Nuclear Bomb Test In US History.

That footage is nuts.

Also what's that music? Sounds like something from a '70s thriller.

Lastly, was that William Shatner narrating?
 
Avatar 22024
 
The land in Minecraft is flat, Minecraft simulates the Earth, ergo the Earth is flat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo