Captain Postal posted:

Have a closer read of the text

or is this a within a ? If so, how far do the go down the rabbit hole?

Powercube posted:

This, a thousand times this- and they always have random policy changes where you have to end up opening your whole carry on and just looking like a total rear end in a top hat bag of dildos.

Wingnut Ninja posted:

That looks like a pretty bad wifi leak, it's spraying out and getting all over the tail.

Previa_fun posted:

The thread title got me thinking about the su-34. When was the last time you took a poo poo at mach 0.8 and +7g.

Slo-Tek posted:

In light of MH-17 shootdown Mark Kirk (R) Ill. Wants missile shields for US Airliners. Indicating a lack of understanding of the EM spectrum, as he advocates DIRCM systems....that aren't even built in his district.

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/212690-gop-senator-wants-missile-shields-for-airplanes

joke from comments: Kirk would also like photon torpedos and a cloaking field.

Mazz posted:

Seems like a decently interesting question all things considered. A late war boom and zoom might do surprisingly well with a decent height advantage, but we're talking about a 40 year gap here. I'd be surprised if most WW2 fighters had the ammo to really get the job done on something built to fly into Shilkas.

MrChips posted:

One of my instructors in college (and a close friend to this day) was born with a congenital defect that left him with nothing below the elbow on his right arm. It didn't affect his flying ability one bit, nor did it stop him from riding a motorcycle or driving a car with a manual transmission.

Duke Chin posted:

Make sure The Media and their associated soccer mom viewers never catch wind of this video and maneuver or they'll never get to do this again. It'll be 787-9 Farnborough 2014 all over again. That's legitimately awesome.


ed: oh my god the comments in that are the best.

Ola posted:

...it's only about half the size of a HP printer driver for Win XP.

azflyboy posted:

The newer generation of GPS satellites were actually built and orbited without the hardware for selective availability, so the decision to disable it has been made effectively permanent.

Interestingly, all civilian GPS receivers have some built in "kill switches" to keep them from being used to build something like a ballistic missile. Specifically, civilian GPS receivers are required to disable tracking if the device sees itself moving at more than 1200mph or going higher than 60,000ft.

evil_bunnY posted:

You laugh but building a GPS guided missile with RC jets is actually trivially easy.

azflyboy posted:

The newer generation of GPS satellites were actually built and orbited without the hardware for selective availability, so the decision to disable it has been made effectively permanent.

Interestingly, all civilian GPS receivers have some built in "kill switches" to keep them from being used to build something like a ballistic missile. Specifically, civilian GPS receivers are required to disable tracking if the device sees itself moving at more than 1200mph or going higher than 60,000ft.

keyboard vomit posted:

Someone patented an airline seat that would poke you in the butt with poison if someone decided you were going to hijack the plane.

ehnus posted:

Wonder when we'll have the first autocorrect-induced friendly fire incident.

Ola posted:

I love how it makes a friendly doorbell chime to indicate its kill circuits have gone live.

PCjr sidecar posted:

Including space ships, excavation, nuclear weapons, surplus military equipment, gas exploration, other nuclear weapons, Pacific islands, plant seeds, and schoolchildren.

hobbesmaster posted:

Why did they even report that?

Fucknag posted:

The rocket is specifically designed to deliver its rated payload while leaving enough fuel for the flyback maneuver. Customers who have a heavier payload can opt to dip into that reserve to get it to orbit, at higher cost (since the rocket will fall into the ocean instead of being reused.)

Getting 10 flights out of a rocket instead of one will reduce the per-launch costs significantly. Currently, the Atlas 5 costs about $13,000 per pound of payload to low Earth orbit. Falcon 9 already has that beat at ~4,000 per pound, but with full reusability SpaceX has stated they're aiming to get under $1,000, and possibly as low as $500.

Captain Apollo posted:

I flew model airplanes as a kid all the time. Loved em. Great hobby, great skills.

Drones? Well - take it out of the box and you're ready to go! I really think it's awesome, but when people are removed from their actions like they are with a drone it gets weird.

All the model RC guys take pride in their aircraft and their abilities. It takes a lot of skill to fly an airplane/helicopter that's remote controlled. You need to keep it within sight and have intuitive knowledge of the planes abilities.

From what I understand of drones, it takes much less skill, and as long as you keep mashing the FULL POWRE button it'll keep climbing..


I really want you to have fun with drones, hell I may want one at some point, but we are in a thread called Aeronautical Insanity. We give a poo poo about airplanes and flying and the awesomeness that is aviation in general.

Cletus and Bob give no fucks about any of that, they just want to go to the top of a roof somewhere and fly their drone that they aren't really responsible for, pilot wise.

Duke Chin posted:

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=0ff19736f5c2 Here's a fun little jaunt around the old course. I'm a big fan of the tree line directly at the end of the finish line and the real flat and fast landing on the main straightaway of the racetrack.

Godholio posted:

It's amazing how wrong every part of this is. Except airplanes. There's a few of those in here.

For example, the most outspoken opponents of the F-35 program in this thread are actually active duty or veterans.

evil_bunnY posted:

It's cool but yeah, good luck timing your launch with strike package in a non-permissive environment. I still love the "we brought more poo poo to this partay than we have pylons for" concept

MrLonghair posted:

When was the last time you noscoped at Mach 0.48? I mean while not in a passenger plane

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2vwqrz/when_you_have_a_long_flight_you_find_a_way/

Ambihelical Hexnut posted:

This was one of the results when I image searched for avenger pics:



My favorite part about this image is that the lower missiles are mounted to the upper missiles. Why not?

A Handed Missus posted:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-a-10-might-have-become-a-nuclear-strike-plane-8f065b09afe0

lol

Jeff "Soviets are poisoning my precious bodily fluids" Wise posted:

There aren’t a lot of places to land a plane as big as the 777, but, as luck would have it, I found one: a place just past the last handshake ring called Baikonur Cosmodrome. Baikonur is leased from Kazakhstan by Russia. A long runway there called Yubileyniy was built for a Russian version of the Space Shuttle. If the final Inmarsat ping rang at the start of MH370’s descent, it would have set up nicely for an approach to Yubileyniy’s runway 24.

As it happened, there were three ethnically Russian men aboard MH370, two of them Ukrainian-passport holders from Odessa. Could any of these men, I wondered, be special forces or covert operatives? As I looked at the few pictures available on the internet, they definitely struck me as the sort who might battle Liam Neeson in midair.

vessbot posted:

Kenlon posted:

Where are they going to find a Sarlacc, though?

Nice piece of fish posted:

interviewing the neighbor - the pirate.

sofullofhate posted:

Guys. GUYS! Did you miss this? Because OHMAGAWDITSF19STEALTHFIGHTERIMSOEXCITED!!!!!!!!

But it doesn't run on OS X

CommieGIR posted:

True, quite true. Its hilarious how so many people jumped on the Hydrogen fuel crowd without any research whatsoever

"I'm fighting the Petroleum Mafia!"

Tremblay posted:

I really hope there is a way to address this. Nuclear has its complications but its one of if not, the cleanest way we can provide power in a stable way in the quantities needed.

Phanatic posted:

Aside from actually producing hydrogen, the big problem is that while it's massic energy density is top notch, its *volumetric* energy density is awful:



Note that that's cryogenic, and that tank's a *lot* bigger than the LOX tank. This is a big reason why so many rocket first-stages use kerosene as the fuel rather than hydrogen even though hydrogen would naively calculate out to better performance.

Aviation kerosene's about 38 megajoules/liter. Hydrogen at 33 MpA, just shy of 5000psi, is about 3 megajoules/liter.

Cryogenic fuel storage for private aircraft is never going to be a thing. And pressure vessels that can withstand pressures of that magnitude are not exactly light. So unless your airplane's wing tanks are of similar volume to a dirigible, I don't think hydrogen propulsion for aircraft is going to be a thing either.

Yeah, metal hydrides, hydrogen sponge, etc, but you're talking about storing ~5% hydrogen by weight. Also not going to get a plane very far.

Lilbeefer posted:

Can someone explain to me the finger over 2 rising moons thing to me? Awesome story!

Plinkey posted:

Probably has to do with max (signed) int of 2,147,483,647 ~= 2,142,720,000 (ms in 284 days) which gives you about 4,763,647 ms or ~13.23 hours before an overflow.

Of course assuming the LSB is ms since boot.

Godholio posted:

I'm sticking to search radars, since that's where this conversation came from, and most of those types are mechanically scanned.

BIG HEADLINE posted:

Kind of hard to spin drama around "he drank too much the night before and plowed into a mountain."