Youtube comments of Helium Road (@RCAvhstape).
-
4000
-
3700
-
3300
-
2800
-
2700
-
2200
-
2200
-
1800
-
1600
-
1200
-
1100
-
1000
-
985
-
938
-
929
-
911
-
884
-
880
-
840
-
771
-
766
-
761
-
744
-
734
-
655
-
650
-
609
-
605
-
601
-
538
-
510
-
503
-
464
-
460
-
454
-
432
-
430
-
425
-
418
-
417
-
411
-
404
-
400
-
397
-
367
-
364
-
361
-
355
-
351
-
343
-
341
-
330
-
323
-
317
-
306
-
286
-
276
-
267
-
264
-
256
-
239
-
238
-
238
-
237
-
227
-
227
-
227
-
227
-
224
-
221
-
219
-
218
-
217
-
215
-
203
-
197
-
196
-
193
-
192
-
191
-
191
-
188
-
182
-
182
-
180
-
179
-
178
-
176
-
175
-
175
-
173
-
173
-
173
-
171
-
171
-
168
-
168
-
167
-
166
-
163
-
156
-
156
-
156
-
156
-
154
-
152
-
151
-
150
-
148
-
148
-
147
-
146
-
143
-
143
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
141
-
138
-
136
-
136
-
135
-
134
-
132
-
131
-
126
-
124
-
121
-
120
-
117
-
116
-
116
-
115
-
115
-
115
-
111
-
110
-
106
-
106
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
103
-
102
-
102
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
99
-
97
-
96
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
91
-
89
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
79
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
Given how many times you've used that Pinto-looking graphic in your videos, it's about time you've actually covered the legend itself! I am old enough to remember these cars being quite common, and like most 70s American "compact" cars I thought it was crap. Or, well, my dad did, anyway, and I was like 7 or 8 so I tended to agree with him. But I remember what they looked like up close, with cheap chrome and trim, a finish that was sure to rust through after a couple of winters' salted roads, and that awful exhaust smell. Some old cars, with no smog pumps or catalytic converters, smell cool, but in the 70s when they tried to clean up the exhaust they stank horribly. Nowadays cars hardly smell at all. When an antique hotrod drives by though, that smell suddenly transports me back to my childhood.
76
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
Yeah, we've heard that before, it's called the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Everywhere communism has been tried it's been a disaster, and evil that results in, at best, a stagnant economy and an oppressive regime, and at worst, megadeaths (and an even more repressive regime). There is absolutely no reason to believe that guys like you will finally "get it right" if we just give you another chance, give up all our liberties and property, and hope for the best. Ill take my freedom with all its flaws and imperfections, thank you very much.
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
I'm going to love this series. When I was growing up, I read a book about Old Ironsides that, IIRC, was written for boys, and was very inspired by it. Later when I visited Annapolis and then Constitution herself, I had a deeper perspective of what I was seeing. Sadly, I'm not sure how many younger Americans (or of any age for that matter) are aware of this ship and its relevance to US history, but anyone who enjoys films like Master and Commander, pirate stories, Hornblower books, etc., would probably love to know the real stories about age of sail warfare.
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
I've rode the Southwest Chief several times both ways. Takes 3 days and 2 nights to get from Chicago to LA, but I enjoy it, especially if I get a sleeper roomette. Passenger trains can be a pretty comfy ride, and accidents are rare, but things like this make you wonder how awful it would be for those inside these rail cars when they are involved in collisions or roll-overs. There are no seatbelts or airbags inside them, just some padded seats and lots of metal fittings, doorframes, tables, etc. If you are in the process of walking between the cars you are in even greater danger one would imagine. Still my favorite way to travel, though, especially eating in the diner car with random passengers and having conversation.
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
In reality heating and air conditioning both heat the whole neighborhood by burning energy. Whether your energy source is coal, gas, nuclear fission, or even someday nuclear fusion, there is waste heat generated all along the circuit starting at the generating plant. It's a problem for the future if fusion becomes cheap and easy someday, because while pollution, carbon output, and cost will drop immensely, civilization demand will go up and our main problem becomes dealing with waste heat. Arthur C. Clarke mentions this in 3001: Final Odyssey novel, but he doesn't say how the problem was overcome, presumably because he had no idea.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
Asking people not to be jerks on the internet is likely to be as effective as asking people not to look at pr0n or cute cat pictures. But you're not wrong. Where I live the cops went digital and possibly encrypted, and the fire department too, so my 125 is no longer usable for them, but I still have air, rail, and marine traffic at least. Public safety, in my opinion, shouldn't be encrypted. Some police activity needs to be, but the bulk of it, stuff like accidents and so on, should be in the clear for the public. One of my favorite photographers is a guy known as Weegee who, back in the 1940s, made his living by scanning New York City police radio in his car at night so he could drive to the crime scenes and get the photos. He was friendly with the police, and they never had a problem with him. I guess that sort of thing is old fashioned now.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@pedrolmlkzk Nope. Launch vehicles and weapons have very different requirements. Generally, launch vehicles can tolerate things weapons can't such as delicate handling of hardware and propellants, slow tanking and slow preparations for launch, trading speed for higher payload mass to orbit. A missile is basically a bullet sitting in the chamber of a gun (silo) which needs to be able to stay ready for years on end and able to launch at a moment's notice. Missiles trade efficient performance for speed and reliability, and must be easy to handle for maintenance people. The liquid fueled Atlas, America's first ICBM, was mediocre as a weapon but made for a great launch vehicle later. Atlas had to be stored empty until an alert, when it would be raised out of the silo or coffin, and it took 15 minutes to load it with fuel and ox, while the current ICBM, the solid fuel Minuteman family, is much better suited to the task.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Lest you dismiss the Bulova Accutron too quickly, it's interesting to note that the Apollo spacecraft that flew men to the moon used Accutron movements in their cockpit clocks, because at the time (1960s) the quartz movement technology was considered too young and untested for NASA to trust.
The astronauts themselves were issued Omega Speedmaster mechanical wristwatches, which of course became super famous and popular, are still made to this day, and are now very expensive luxury items. On the Apollo 11 mission, one of the cockpit clocks failed prior to landing on the moon, so Neil Armstrong strapped his Omega watch to the control panel of the lunar module and left it there when he and Buzz Aldrin stepped outside. In the famous photo of Aldrin standing on the moon, where he is facing Armstrong's camera, Aldrin's Omega watch can be clearly seen strapped to the wrist of his spacesuit with a long Velcro strap, right out there in hard vacuum on the moon. That watch was later stolen when he shipped his belongings after the mission and is still missing.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
There was an article recently about how Boeing's merger with McDonnel Douglas changed Boeing's corporate culture, and not in a good way. Basically, before the merger was the old Boeing that created the 707, the 747, the B-52, and other long-running success stories, but since the merger something changed and the 787 and newer versions of the 737 (such as the Max) have seen a decline in various aspects. Something else to consider, though, is that Boeing is a huge company and the space side is pretty separate from the jetliner side; much of the space side came from the merger with Hughes Space, which is a whole different story than the MDD merger. Big corporations are complex organizations and it's hard to make broad generalizations, although it's fun to joke about it.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
When I was taking flying lessons and was obsessed by all things aviation, I used to read flying magazines and always skip ahead to the accident and incident report articles. Weird maybe, but I always thought that a key part of not making mistakes is learning how not to repeat others' mistakes, and also to imagine yourself in their position to think what could or should have been done differently. I think that's true of any risky undertaking, including operating a facility that handles nuclear power or material.
It's also worth noting that while nuclear reactors get all the attention, it's these smaller facilities like the one in this video, as well as medical devices, which are more likely to be near your home, in nondescript buildings that do not look scary, and which may have knucklehead operators attending them. It's worth educating the general public to be cautious and know what to look out for. Think of the two untrained fellows in this vid, or the scrap metal collectors we've heard about who accidentally hurt their own children.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
The US has, in the past, made conscious decisions not to implement certain types of new weapons technology, in order to avoid sparking new arms races. Project Pluto, for example, the nuclear ramjet cruise missile, was canceled, along with nuclear powered bombers, and treaties were signed by the US to preclude certain types of weapons which US engineers absolutely know how to build. But we are now entering a time where major US adversaries, China and Russia, are starting to build this stuff despite America's restraint. The US can certainly build hypersonic weapons as well as anyone else; the question is whether it's good policy to do so.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
On the differences between the USAF and Navy versions of the A-7, there was a sea story* I heard once. A couple of USAF A-7's landed at a Navy base in California, and in addition to fuel, the pilots asked the Navy guys to recharge the pilot oxygen systems. Apparently, Navy A-7's used a higher pressure O2 system than the USAF version, but nobody told the poor young petty officer who was sent out to the flightline with an oxygen cart. He plugged in the cart, cranked up the pressure and opened the valve. The Corsair promptly exploded! I saw a photo: the engine was sitting there surrounded by airplane parts. They sailor was thought to be dead, but they couldn't find his body. A couple of days later he showed up and explained: After the plane blew up, he took off running and hopped the fence to go hide out in town, thinking that for sure he was going to burn for this. I didn't hear what they actually did to the guy, but I'm guessing he didn't get punished as bad as he was expecting lol.
*In US Navy/Marine parlance, a "sea story" is a story which may be true or may be complete BS or something in between.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
I was involved in field artillery years ago, and it was similar stuff. Each gun has its own logbook, and everything that is done with that weapon gets recorded. How many shells it fired, what the charges were, etc. These are all inputs to the computations, along with wind, temperature, humidity, and so on. The computations are mostly done with software, but, at least in my time, all artillerymen are trained to do things old school using firing tables and slide rule computers, which don't ever break down. The gunnery, when done right, is supper accurate. Batteries would sometimes write their name in the sky using illumination rounds and timed fusing at the end of a field exercise. The scariest thing I saw was a regimental time on target, when the entire 14th Marine artillery regiment timed all their guns to hit the same target at the same moment, resulting in a massive mushroom cloud. I'd hate to be on the wrong end of that.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Interesting thought about the Shuttle's aesthetics. The Soviet Buran shuttle orbiter was a very similar design, approximately the same size and shape, but it was not a direct copy system-wise. It turns out that to do what STS did, your orbiter has to look pretty much just like it did. Function over form, as has been stated. But if you look at the two spacecraft side by side up close, the Rockwell orbiter looks a bit different than the Buran orbiter. The nose is a bit different, the windshield frames, the tile pattern, all these things represent the differences in philosophy between American and Russian aerospace engineers. The Buran looks Russian, while the Rockwell orbiter looks like it came out of a US aircraft factory, like it has some Boeing or Lockheed DNA mixed into its aesthetics. Personally, I think the US orbiter is better-looking, but that's subjective.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
This channel keeps getting better. I have always thought the USAF leadership were a bunch of pricks over this business.
The Army needs dedicated air support, the Air Force doesn't want them to have it, yet at the same time the Air Force doesn't really want to do it either. The USAF has never really liked the A-10, for example, and expecting the USAF to acquire and operate dedicated squadrons of aircraft such as the OV-1, the OV-10, the Harrier, or some sort of A-4 equivalent, and then to have them work as closely with the Army as the Army's own aviation, is not a good bet.
The US Marine Corps, with cooperation from the Navy, has steadfastly maintained its own very powerful aviation element and has no asinine restrictions placed on it like the Army does. The result is that the Corps has entire air wings of both rotor wing and fast movers dedicated to supporting Marines on the ground, and which operate in the field as integrated parts of the whole fighting force.
The USAF should develop this kind of relationship with the Army, or alternatively, allow the Army to procure and develop its own aviation equipment and training as it sees fit.
At least Ken Lee got to hear about his confirmed kill from legends like Robin Olds and Chappie James, I bet that was cool for him!
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The thing about Atlas and Titan is that they were such good launch vehicles, and so inadequate as alert-worthy weapons, that they actually stayed in production as launchers long after they were retired as weapons. These solid fuel jobs, on the other hand, are really optimized as weapons, designed to sit in storage for years, like cartridges in a rifle magazine, and then work simply and reliably if fired in anger. They will get warheads to the other side of the planet very quickly, but they aren't as efficient as liquid fueled launchers, can't lift as much mass for a rocket of their size, and their high accelerations, desired in a weapon, can be rough on more delicate payloads. But it's good that they've found a niche launch market.
8
-
I've heard this story many times and I find the conventional interpretation of it to be a bit dubious. The Arrow was indeed a very advanced aircraft, but it was likely limited due to its pure interceptor design. In its intended role for continental defense it may have done as well as its later American counterpart, the F-106, which stayed in service until the 1990s, but the Arrow would likely lacked the multirole versatility of the F-4 Phantom, which was used for air-to-ground missions extensively as well as air-to-air. Could the Arrow even handle itself in a dogfight against other fighters? The Phantom certainly could, when flown right, and in tests the F-106 even did well.
Then there's the question of how fragile the Canadian aerospace industry was. When one big project cancellation results in the shutdown of your nation's entire industry, it doesn't say much for the resiliency of the business to begin with. A lot of big projects in the US were canceled over the years as well, and while occasionally a company would go out of business or merge, the US aerospace industry was never seriously in trouble. The B-70 comes to mind right off the top of my head.
Finally, the idea of Canada pulling off an Apollo-Saturn style moon landing project is a bit much to believe. Where to even start with that? Sounds a lot like the lost golden age myth fantasy. Canadians have played a large role in the US space program, but to imagine the Canadian government shouldering the financial burden of a NASA type moon landing program, with all the public scrutiny that comes with it, is just too much for me. Public perceptions about government spending is what led to the guy who canceled the Arrow, after all.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
IIRC the orbiter's tile heat shield system was the biggest expense in terms of time between flights. All those tiles had to be inspected, many replaced, and it was painstaking manual labor that cost a lot of time and money. The main engines were expensive to maintain, too, but they had a rotating pool of engines to swap out after each flight; while some were being torn down and refurb'd there were good ones available off the shelf, so the engines did not cause as many headaches as the heat shield. There were also a lot of other, smaller things that added up; swapping the windshield glass after every flight, for example, or even the tires after every landing. These things were technically good for many flights but NASA was trying to eliminate as many sources of accidents as was practical, and compared to O-ring redesign or debris shedding, these little things were easy to do.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Bomb damage comes in three types: radiation, heat, and blast. Blast damage includes flying debris, such as tree trunks, fragments, and splinters. If you're hiding in a ditch or a hole you may be safe from the heat and radiation, but if the trees overhead are exploding and showering you with splinters that might be bad. So one purpose of testing is to look for things like that. ("Radiation" in this context means the prompt, direct radiation from the bomb when it detonates, which doesn't last long but is very intense if you are close. Think of a camera flash, but instead of visible light it's gammas, X-rays, and neutrons. Radioactive fallout is radiation you worry about hours to weeks later.)
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
It's worse in the US Navy, where we name our spanking new nuclear carriers after politicians, some of whom are pretty obscure (how much of the public has any idea who John Stennis was?) or even still alive, instead of giving them proper USN names like Hornet, Ticonderoga, Wasp, Intrepid, etc. At least they plan to name a new one Enterprise again. All of our cool names go to amphibs and cruisers, which is okay, but still... At least the new frigates on order are to be given names from the old sailing frigates, such as Constellation.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
This is a fun and interesting thread. Couple of things to add: there were colonists of German ancestry in the Continental Army, in particular from Pennsylvania, where some people still speak a dialect of German to this day (especially the Amish and Mennonite communities), but they were small in proportion to the rest of the army. I think I read somewhere that many Hessian mercenaries who were taken as POWs wound up settling in Lancaster County, Penna. after the war, but I don't have a source to cite at the moment.
Also, when the war began, most of the American rebels thought of Parliament as the enemy, not King George III. The American Colonies had no representation in Parliament and it was believed to be unfair that Parliament impose taxes and other laws on the Colonies, treating the colonists as second class Englishmen. There was initially hope that by going around Parliament and appealing directly to the king they could regain their rights as Englishmen, end the uprising, and continue as loyal subjects of the crown. Obviously things didn't work out that way and the revolution took a more radical turn with separation being the result.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I read Subaru Sakai's book. He was a IJN Zero ace pilot. In his book describes Japanese naval aviator training leading up to the war. It was brutal, with a huge washout rate. They were trained in swordfighting and hand to hand combat as well as pilot skills, and at the beginning of the war they were basically the best naval pilots in the world. But their training pipeline was so long and slow that when they started to take losses they couldn't fill the cockpits with replacements fast enough, and they waited too long to speed up the training. In addition, they flew their best pilots until they were killed, while the US Navy would rotate their best pilots out after they were seasoned combat vets and send them back as instructors, so as the war went on, USN aviation got stronger while IJN aviation got weaker, until we see things like the Marianas Turkey Shoot and carriers with no planes being used as decoys at Leyte Gulf. Sakai survived because he was critically wounded, shot through the eye, and flew hundreds of miles back to base where he got medical attention but was taken off flight duty.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Reminds me of a story from a few years ago. My band is not "punk rock" but it's "punk" in the sense that we're almost completely DIY, no money, and very little formal music training. At the time, I think I was the only one who had taken lessons (to play bass, years ago), and we had no support from any label or anyone else. We decided to try and make a demo recording in one of the guys' dingy basement. I used my little Korg handheld recorder, on a coffee table in the middle of the room, between the drum kit, the amps, and the little PA speaker, and we just played 2 takes of each of our tunes, about 8 or 9 originals. We were fairly well rehearsed, so the playing and singing were fine, but obviously the recording was very lo-fi, and not in a good way, and worse, there was an extra snare drum in the corner of the room that rang constantly. But the band was on fire and the recordings were high energy, with all the things that make rock bands cool, all the little finger squeaks and small mistakes and feedbacking guitars. Later we went into an actual studio and recorded an album, and while the pro versions of the songs sound way better, they seem to lack a bit of that magic that we got in that filthy basement, bad sound quality and all. If only we'd captured that basement session with good gear and somebody who knows what he's doing...
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Re. combining services: The US recently created a separate Space Force because the USAF wasn't adequately prioritizing space, which is to be expected since their main focus is strategic air power. As a separate service the Space Force now has its own budget to manage and doesn't have to compete with the F-35 or the next gen bomber, etc. Within the Department of the Navy, the USMC has its own air component, which, while still part of naval aviation, is focused on supporting its own Marines on the ground, freeing Navy air power to focus on actual naval warfare. Combining things may look good on paper, and sometimes it is good, but often it's more complicated than just saving money (looking at you, Robert McNamara.)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
What you said about how the forest has changed so radically in the last 100 years made me think. When we think about what makes our time different from the past we always think about things like technology, clothing fashion, hairstyles, etc., but it's important to remember that even the very land itself was different, something movies never rally seem to convey. I was in Virginia at the Bull Run battlefield and besides the obvious incursion of sprawl in the area, I couldn't understand the sight lines as described in history, and then someone explained to me that in the 1860s there were a lot fewer trees than there are today, because it was all clear cut for farming. Look at a map of Boston today and compare it with a map of the same city in the 1770s; not only are there obviously more buildings, but the landscape itself is completely different, rivers and shorelines all changed.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@SephirothRyu I'm sorry, but people have this sci fi movie idea of how VTOL jets are supposed to work, that taking off vertically all the time is expected, but it's not. Fact is, any VTOL jet that has wings can take off a lot heavier with a forward roll than it can straight vertical, because wings generate lift. The F-35 isn't expected to take off vertical, and the Harrier rarely does it except at air shows. These jets main strength is short field operations, and being able to use smaller flight decks at sea. The US Navy has a fleet of full size carriers, but it also has about twice as many amphibs, that, thanks to USMC squadrons, also operate fixed wing aircraft. And anyone who doubts the effectiveness and usefulness of the Harrier can just ask the Marines, who have used them extensively in heavy combat since the 1980s. A Harrier is the difference between conducting landing ops with just helicopters and conducting ops with solid fast mover support. The F-35 has some big shoes to fill for the USMC.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@toohardtowatch Yes, lack of atmospheric haze is a big thing. Human stereo vision stops being good at angular range-finding beyond a certain distance, but we can still estimate the range to a distant building or mountain based on haze and humidity. We also have familiar objects to aid us, such as trees, animals, people, cars, light poles, etc. On the fractal surface of the moon, though, most of these advantages are not present. During the Apollo landings, the landings were all set up so that the sun was behind the LM and the crew would be able to see the shadow of the spacecraft on the surface during final approach, which gave the crews a familiar shape to help judge distance and height.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Great video. I've always been interested in this sort of thing. The United States east coast has a lot of old coastal fortifications which have now been turned into parks or museums. Some date back to the colonial days. During the War for Independence, when the British army occupied Philadelphia, the Americans made an effort to throttle the British supply lines by constructing a system of fortifications along the Delaware River south of Philly, consisting of Forts Mercer and Billingsport in New Jersey, and Fort Mifflin on the Pennsylvania side, with a set of submerged barrier obstacles strung between them across the river. The fire plan was apparently to get enemy ships caught in the barrier and then bombard them from the shore batteries. Fighting there resulted in at least one Royal Navy ship, the Augusta, running aground, catching fire, and being destroyed by a magazine explosion. Fort Mifflin stayed in service until well into the 20th Century as a US Army depot and is now a park next to the airport, while the other forts have been turned into parks as well. The forts saw intense combat, including land-based assaults.
While I understand you were focused on fixed coastal defenses, particularly those that were armed with guns, I think you might've spent a few more minutes at the end talking about modern coastal defenses. As you mentioned they consist mostly of mobile surface to surface missile launchers as well as other dynamic defenses such as aircraft and maritime patrol vessels, but they still have a large influence on planning for modern warfare. The example that immediately comes to mind is the Iranian defenses on the Strait of Hormuz, which are apparently designed to control the Strait or at least to try to deny use of it by potential adversaries. This has likely had an influence on US policy in the region, and at least some deterrent effect on war. The loss of an aircraft carrier or an amphibious ship would be a pretty major disaster for the US Navy, which faces numerous seaborne platforms and batteries of missiles in a very confined region, barely large enough to even operate a carrier.
3
-
3
-
Electronics used on spacecraft are usually several years behind what you can get here on Earth, because they need to be tested extensively for years in vacuum, temperature, and radiation environments, as well as cycled on/off, vibrational testing, etc., before you trust it to not fail on your super-expensive space mission, which you'll only get one shot at. Add to that the fact that JWST was delayed for many years so components like the main computer were designed and spec'd out a long time ago, and there's huge risk in altering the design once construction has begun. Even if you do make changes, they must go through a series of engineering review boards and be signed off by the program leaders, who are all very conservative-minded about taking on new risks, and then it costs a ton of money to implement the changes and retest everything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Excellent work, Mr. Ringway. Thanks to you, I've started doing more SW listening. I even bought an ATS-20+ because why not? It's super affordable. Even with an external wire antenna, though, it doesn't seem to get great reception where I live, and since it doesn't come with any instructions I'm left to hunt around the internet for hints on the various features and controls. My best SW radio, though, is an old Grundig FR-200 that I bought years ago, probably at Radio Shack before they folded. It's an analog tuner so I never know exactly which frequency I'm on, but even with the built-in telescopic antenna I can pick up a lot of stations at the right time of day. I swear I heard that some morse code station the other night, around that same frequency.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@giovannirodriguesdasilva646 Because the USAF, unlike the US Navy, hates the names of its own planes for some reason. The F-16 Falcon is called a "Viper", the A-10 Thunderbolt is called a "Warthog", and so on. To be fair, some of the official names of their aircraft are stupid and god only knows what Pentagon idiots chose them. The B-1 Lancer, for example. Or the B-2 Spirit. Seriously. The Navy and Marines, on the other hand get planes that mostly come with cool enough names to keep. Tomcat, Hornet, Harrier, etc.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I love your channel, History Guy, I find myself clicking on one after the other, and I especially love these ones about significant events that should be remember but have faded in memory for some reason. I have a suggestion for you: The collision, fire, and explosion of the Queeny and Corinthos on the Delaware River near Philadelphia on January 31st, 1975. I was very little at the time living nearby and I remember the explosion and then my dad watching the fire on the local news, it was a huge event, giant column of smoke, the river was on fire, and several sailors were killed, but the weird thing about it is that many people living in the area today, even those old enough to remember it, don't remember it or only dimly remember it. Funny how the internet makes it seem as if things that took place before we could upload video didn't really happen.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
OMG I almost forgot about those Shreds vids! About Whiplash, though, the thing about movies like this is that musicians were going to hate on it no matter how "realistic" it was. This is not a movie for snobs and nitpickers of technical details, it's a movie that uses a fictional music school setting to tell a good story about obsession on the part of both a student and his teacher, and how destructive it can be. Fletcher is obviously a manipulative, abusive jerk, but Neiman is also a horrible person, and actually chooses to be so, showing his family disrespect, ditching his girlfriend as an abstraction, and deliberately buying into Fletcher's worldview, almost like Anakin Skywalker choosing to follow Palpatine. He deliberately lets Fletcher help him ruin his life for the dream of being the greatest drummer. It is pretty funny that he admires Buddy Rich, who was a top notch asshat in real life, as abusive as Fletcher and an opinionated jerk to boot. Anyway, it's not a movie for musicians. Nobody cares what musicians think. It's a movie for people who love good storytelling.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It is, but I doubt any stories from people claiming to bring back pictures of Hitler. For starters, the Navy went through it pretty thoroughly decades ago when the wreck was discovered, mainly to remove as many munitions as possible (some are still there, inaccessible, including at least one live torpedo warhead). Since then, the wreck has been dived on by thousands of people. Getting inside the sub is dangerous and stupid, as the hatch openings are very narrow and the wreck is deep for a sport dive, at 110 feet, so going inside means removing your dive rig and pulling it in behind you, while only having about 8-10 minutes of bottom time. Also, not sure, but I think it may be illegal to remove anything from inside the wreck, could be wrong about that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Part of me wants to laugh at this woman, but part of me is just sad. I actually know people like this, two of them in fact, who used to be close friends. 2016 broke one of them, she threatened to end our friendship if I didn't vote for Hillary. I dodged the question and we drifted apart. My other friend was this dude who ignored me over and over when I told him I didn't want to discuss politics, invited me and my girlfriend to dinner at his house, and then cornered me with questions about whether I believed in all the C19 vax stuff and if I thought the 2020 election was on the level. It was creepy, I knew him for years but it's like he had lost his mind and was obsessed with the orange man and all the craziness of the last few years. He no longer responds to my texts or emails, and I find it very upsetting.
So back to our crazy woman here, there are no doubt people who love her and wish she could just drop the obsession and go back to being normal. Some of these people disown their own parents and so on, and it's awful. So I hope she comes around soon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great video, Drach, and thank you Dr. Scholes! While most comparisons of gun ships compare speed, armor, and firepower, I think it's important to remember how vitally important the other technologies are, especially the fire control systems. For example, people always compare the Iowas to the Yamatos in fantasy matchups, but do they factor in the differences in radar, computers, and precision of the gun-pointing mechanisms? I'd like to see you talk about the Japanese fire control tech in a future video (and German, Italian, etc. as well).
2
-
2
-
2
-
I used to work in a building with a framed photo hanging on the wall of a formation of US Navy destroyers steaming in line ahead, colors flying. These were modern Arleigh Burke class destroyers, not WWI ships, mind you, but destroyers nonetheless, and the photo was amazing. When people think of the US Navy they tend to think of aircraft carriers, planes, and other big ships, but those destroyers just conveyed power and might like no other. The old school Navy, the surface fleet with its guns and missiles and masts and yard arms, radar antennas, and flags flying, plowing through the waves into harm's way. Hats off to the destroyer crews on patrol around the world.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I am an American but I watch lots of British TV shows and movies, as well as subscribe to several British Youtubers such as Mark Felton, Techmoan, and Drachinifel, so as a result I enjoy the differences in pronunciation, spelling, and vocabulary. Potato chips vs. crisps, french fries vs. chips, trucks vs. lorries, trash can vs. skip, color vs. colour, aluminum vs. aluminium, etc. I also like the way Brits often end a sentence with "yeah", as in, "We've got to get this job finished, yeah?", whereas an American might use the word "right" or something. Some British slang took me a while to decipher; in one TV show a woman says a teapot is "minging" and that they might get "minginitus". I paused it and looked it up, took me a while to figure out that "mingy" is British slang for "nasty" or "dirty" or "crusty", and thus she was saying the teapot was old and rusty or dirty. Watching Canadian TV is a bit weird, because Canadian English is just North American English with a regional accent, but they use a lot of British words and spelling and so on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
If you search around you should be able to find interviews with Cunningham and Driscol where they describe the air battle that day, both back when they were still in the Navy and more recently since the 90s. Cunningham also wrote a shorty stor about it for a book about fighter pilots. Driscol, IIRC, still talks to Navy pilots about air combat tactics, or did for a long while, anyway. Cunningham got stupid, went into politics, elected to the US Senate, and sent to prison for a while for corruption. But the story of the fight that day is still amazing. They became the only Navy aces of the Vietnam War that day, having two kills going into the mission and coming with three more. Their Phantom was falling apart as they raced for the sea, knowing they would have to eject, trying to get over water so the Navy could rescue them after they punched out, and they barely made it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HootOwl513 Truman stated that Marines were nothing more than the Navy's police force, and that's all they'd ever be if he had his way. And that was after the Pacific campaign. Truman was old school Army from WWI and the Corps was in a transitional period then, acting as a second land force in Europe and moving away from its maritime roots, while encroaching on the Army's "turf". Thanks to Lejeune, the Corps found its current role the nation's amphibious power projection force, getting back in touch with the sea, and this paid off in the war with Japan, which Lejeune correctly saw coming. After the war, though, guys like Truman and others tried very hard to break up the Corps and divide its assets and troops amongst the other services. Various excuses were made, such as "no amphibious warfare in the atomic age" and so on, but the Corps' proponents lobbied hard and Congress codified the mission and strength of the Corps in law as a result. Even in modern times, there are still people who don't understand why we have a Marine Corps, or why Marines aren't part of the Army instead of the Navy Department. David Hackworth was one of the latter; despite respect for the Corps he thought it should be merged with the Army. I lost a bit of respect for him when I read that. The Corps derives its strength from its partnership with the Navy and its ability to develop and manage itself apart from Army leadership (and importantly, Army budget controls), while being able to operate alongside the Army when called on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Interesting. The only digital camera I ever bought is a Fujifilm in 2004. It's a 6MP, which was decent for the time, and has tons of features, but it's one major flaw is that it has horrible shutter lag. Any film camera blows it away in that one department. I never bought another digital camera, though, my smartphone does the job. Ironically I shoot film as a hobby and love the old beautiful vintage cameras. Film is now a niche art medium. Fujifilm film is still one of the best quality films on the market. I still use Kodak Tri-X film, too, but I don't think it's actually made by Kodak anymore, rather it's made under license using Kodak's formula, or so I've heard. Kodak film has also become unreasonably expensive, which, in a market chock full of films to choose from, is not good.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Navy and Marine Corps have safety magazines and training films that show gruesome accidents, the results of not following safety rules. There was a magazine article that showed what happened when a Marine didn't duck down as he walked away from a helicopter with drooping blades. The blade swiped the top of his head, scalping him. His cranial helmet probably saved his life, but there was a photo of the scar on his head and what is probably a permanent bald spot.
Another incident was a Marine who improperly disassembled the nose landing gear of an A-4 Skyhawk, resulting in him laying on the hangar floor with the nose of the jet on his chest. Marines came out and lifted the jet off of him by sheer muscle power, but he didn't live long.
A Navy mechanic was trying to get up to the cockpit of an A-6 Intruder, so he thought he would just back his plane tractor up to the side of the jet and stand on top of the tractor. He failed to notice he was approaching the engine intake, which hit his back and forced his body forward onto the steering wheel and jamming his foot on the accelerator. He was crushed to death by his tractor.
There is a famous video on youtube of a sailor on a carrier flight deck being sucked into the engine of an A-6. He was fortunate that his body was jammed against an inlet vane before he reached the spinning engine blades. His cranial helmet got sucked through and damaged the engine, while he had nasty injuries.
Flight decks are particularly dangerous places, because with all these engines running all around you you cannot rely on your hearing to protect you. My dad served on a carrier in the 1960s and witnessed a man walk into a propeller, killed instantly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I really think it's rude when people constantly harp on this. Lots of people don't speak English, either, but you don't expect him to translate, too, do you? The strongest economy in the world uses English units, so maybe it's in your best interest to learn a bit about them. They are historical units, used in old literature, so it's worth the time. And for the record, Americans do use metric, maybe more so than even they realize. Beverages are sold in liters, some foods are sold in kilograms, the US military uses kilometers, and any American who receives science or engineering education has to learn metric to the point where it's second nature. Rough conversions in your head are not difficult, if you just take a few minutes to learn and memorize them.
2
-
2
-
The book is so much better than even the best of the films, mainly because the Martians, while unbeatably tough, are not invincible, and do take damage from soldiers and sailors with the guts to stand up and fight them. It's always fun to speculate how the Martians would fare against other ships, such as, for example, a Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser, popping off Martian tripods at long range with Standard missiles, or Fletcher class destroyers, peppering the tripods with 5" shells.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+andrew hall It's hard to explain this...the bottom number is almost always a 4 or an 8 because the 4 represents a beat (quarter note, usually a kick or snare) and the 8 represents a half beat (eighth note, think of the high hat in surf rock). The terms "quarter note" and "eighth note" represent a quarter or eighth division of a 4-beat measure, even when you're not in 4/4 time, it's a naming convention. So play a complex piece of music, listen to Money by Pink Floyd, for example: the main riff of the song, Waters' bass intro, repeats every 7 beats. These beats "feel" like quarter notes, so if you notate that bass riff it's easiest to write it in 7/4 time. You could notate it in, say, 7/8 on paper if you want, but it would divide that riff into two awkward halves and make it "feel" wrong to a musician trying to read it. To answer your question, it is not common to think of beats as anything other than quarter or eighth notes, which is why you don't see time signatures with a 7 or a 13 in the bottom.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't know about other services, but the US Marines teach their guys a technique to use your pants as a life preserver. You take them off, tie the ends of the legs together, put them behind your head, and use your belt to attach the pants to your waist upside down so the open part of the pants is facing the water in front of you. Periodically, you swish water, and air along with it, into the open part of the trousers and then hold that part just under the surface. The soaked pant legs will actually hold air pretty well for a while, and the whole thing allows you to stay afloat much easier. I was trained to do it and it works really well. Not as good as a real life vest, but way better than nothing at all. In 1995 Lance Cpl. Zachary Mayo fell overboard off the USS America in the Indian Ocean and used this technique to survive for 36 hours before being picked up by Pakistani fishermen. Here's the story: https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19951130&slug=2155247
Also, one thing I was taught was that you have to maintain a positive attitude if you want to survive. No matter how grim things look, don't give up. You may or may not survive, but if you give up you are doomed for sure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I find it weird that so many people today don't know about record changers. I grew up with my dad's 1960s era Garrard record changer, which I still use today. It has that fake wood paneling like the one in this video, so it's very 60s style. My dad eventually replaced it in the 80s with a very sleek modern Technics turntable (which I also still have), and so the whole time I was in high school I played all my records on the Garrard. Over time, as the Garrard sat in storage, the grease in the mechanism would get hardened and the automatic functions would stop working, but I got it fixed and it all works fine now. If I stack more than about 3 records on it it starts to have issues, and it works better with older lightweight records then these newer heavier ones they sell today. But it's great, I stack up a few records while I sit down to read, and if I fall asleep on the couch or whatever then it shuts itself off when it's finished.
Also, what you said about audiophiles. I have met some truly dumb people over time, and one of them was an audiophile who told me he had paid hundreds of dollars for a special power cable and that he could hear the difference. Okay. No point in arguing with that guy. As for damage to records, my records from the 80s are doing just fine. The damage they do have is from dirt and scratching. Also, storing them horizontally for long periods of time will result in some warping. But the Garrard record changer has never hurt them and with a good amplifier and speakers (and a good stylus) it sounds great.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@greenpedal370 Well, for starters, their fighter jets suck, their tanks suck, their navy ships suck. They dress them up to look cool and give them powerful engines but when it comes to electronics they all suck. Speaking of Russian electronics, when's the last time you bought a piece of Russian electronics kit? Over my years I've seen electronics come from the US, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, PRC, UK, Finland, etc. Never bought a radio or a computer or a cell phone that was made in Russia or the old USSR.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I know some people won't like this, but I kind of hope a meteor comes along and blankets the sites with a nice coat of ejecta powder, so we can quit acting like the sites are so sacred nobody may ever be allowed to disturb them. Nobody preserved the spot on the beech where Columbus first stepped off his boat, and nobody knows where the first human set foot on North America from the Bering Strait, and it doesn't matter. Trying to preserve every footprint on every Apollo landing site is a fool's task, especially the later sites like Apollo 17 where they drove miles from the ship on the rover. Armstrong's footprint? Sure, coat it with some kind of cement and put a marker stone next to it. Get really good detailed photos of everything, then move the equipment to a museum somewhere indoors, maybe underground on the first moon colony, where it can be protected. Put stone markers on all the sites, and then quit worrying about trying to disturb a single grain of dirt for crying out loud. Luna is a world we should be allowed to walk on and live on, not some kind of holy ground we have to treat like walking on eggshells for the rest of human history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These little things are the kind of thing that can kill astronauts on long missions to places like Mars. In concept, a spacecraft is such a simple vehicle; you fill a can with air and food, stick an engine and some sensors on it, man it, and launch it into space. Since the early days when Clark and Heinlein and Asimov wrote about this stuff we have learned, and keep learning, so much about the space environment and how it interacts with spacecraft equipment and crews, but we still miss things like this in designing the devices. These RWA's were tested rigorously by the vendor, under the watchful eye of NASA and other customers, and passed every test, and yet there was something going on that nobody had ever though to model. If we are going to start sending people into deep space, or even long duration missions to the Moon or near-Earth solar orbits, we need to make sure the mission can absorb the weird things nature will throw at us. These unknowns, and the risk incurred, is part of what makes spaceflight so expensive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's a bonus fact I was hoping you'd mention: In the 50s or 60s there was a machine called the "Lady Godiva Device" which was an unshielded nuclear reactor. It was used by US nuclear scientists to create short bursts of radiation for testing purposes, and it was basically a metal framework with two fuel elements. One element was fixed and had a hole through it, and the other element slid down a rail and passed through the hole as it fell. For a brief moment, as the two elements passed, they formed a critical mass and reacted, creating a blast of neutrons and gamma rays, which would be used to dose items placed nearby. The reaction was less than a second, so the thing wasn't supposed to get hot enough to need a cooling system, but there was an accident once when the element didn't slide fast enough and the reaction created enough heat to bend the metal structure and wreck the machine. From what I've read the machine was operated out in the open air desert in a pit, and the operators stayed a safe distance away. I don't know why it was called Lady Godiva but I would guess because it's a "naked" reactor, maybe?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is a school of thought that land-based ICBMs are more of a liability than an asset, because in a full blown attack they have only about 30 minutes to get off the ground before they are destroyed in their silos. This puts enormous "use it or lose it" pressure on the president, who, by the time he is awakened and told what is happening, might have only a few minutes to decide to launch a retaliatory strike or not. If it's a false alarm and he launches, the world dies. If it's the real thing and he doesn't, then the enemy's first strike gambit wins. As long as missile subs are at sea and bombers are airborne, the president (or whoever is in charge if he is taken out) still has a way to ride out the first strike and take some time to decide how to respond. Thus, some people, including a former US Defense Secretary, think focusing on sea and air based weapons that can survive a first strike is a better idea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The modern laws of warfare are an outgrowth of the concept of chivalry. Concepts like treatment of POWs, accepting surrendering enemies, and so on, as well as refraining from using certain weapons deemed to be too uncivilized. There is a practicality to it, in that you don't want your own troops to be abused if they get captured, and maybe more importantly, you don't want to cede the moral high ground representing your own society by stooping to the level of barbarity. As with the old codes of chivalry, modern laws of warfare can be conflicting or irrational, get broken pretty much all the time, and get enforced more often against the losers, but we need them as a ideal to strive for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The fact that he murdered JF Sebastian alone makes him evil. Some of the other people he killed may have had it coming, but JF was never anything but a nice guy who suffered from a similar condition as the replicants, a disease that was shortening his life span, and which probably also disqualified him as a candidate for travel to an off-world colony as well. Pris played him for a fool and he took her in off the street to give her food and shelter, and later Roy as well, and in return Roy and Pris terrorized him, forced him to gain entry to Tyrell's quarters, and then murdered him really for no reason at all.
Yes, in the last minutes of his life, Roy "saw the light" so to speak and decided to stop being a murdering bastard, but a murdering bastard is exactly what he was up to that point. Guys like Roy were the reason replicants were outlawed in Los Angeles and why Blade Runners had jobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nice to see some optimism for a change. I love dystopian sci fi as much as the next guy, but when I was growing up sci fi was a mix of light and dark. Lately it's just all dark. I have a theory that pessimism and self-loathing is bad for society, for nations, and for humanity in general, and risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy at some point. Deep down inside, I still believe a Star Trek-ish future is possible, even if we have to go through a period of Blade Runner-ism before we get there.
BTW, Arthur C. Clark, in his novel 3001, Final Odyssey, predicted a possible future such as the one described here, where fusion power results in nearly limitless energy availability, but causes a new problem: runaway heat pollution from all the waste heat generated by less-than-perfectly-efficient devices using that energy. Somehow humans found a solution to that, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Back in 2007 or 2008 I remember telling people that no matter what NASA was planning with Constellation, the next administration was going to cut it and change it to something else. And now, again, we see the same thing happening to Constellation's successor. If you want something to happen, you need it to have a shorter timeline, preferably before the next president gets elected. That's the basic reality for a government agency like NASA. It's not the 60s anymore, nobody is trying to beat the Soviets to the moon, and the president who started the current program was not loved and admired before being tragically cut down like Kennedy was. Even, then, remember, after Apollo 11 the writing was on the wall for major cuts and Apollo was dead within a few years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To answer your question re. what do I think? It is certainly an exciting idea and would be awesome to get involved in the field as it grows, but there are definite drawbacks, some immediate, and some growing in the future.
For starters, concerning large collectors and transmitters in GEO, the GEO belt is already a crowded space and there are lots of entities competing for various longitudes just for relatively tiny communications satellites, each of which eventually dies and either gets boosted to a graveyard orbit or dies in place and becomes a navigational hazard. This problem will be bigger when you're talking about multiple giant orbiting solar farms.
These large structures will also require maintenance, as the components will all have limited lifespans. They will also create issues for astronomers and any instruments using stars for navigation. The industrialization of local space may cause issues not yet thought of.
Meanwhile, on the ground, the unsightly receiving stations would, if the technology is successful, multiply and pop up everywhere, using up large swaths of previously undeveloped land. Maybe this can be dealt with by building them above buildings, to solve two problems at once: reducing heat islands while generating power. There are currently zoning battles underway in parts of the US over the construction of vast solar farms in the countryside; needless to say getting renewable energy by way of cutting down a forest seems a bit counterintuitive.
Also, although you mentioned the system would create no pollution, I wonder if you considered the heat caused by beaming all that energy onto the earth's surface, all of which will either get burned and converted to heat, or will get wasted before being collected, converted to heat as it strikes the air or ground? Waste heat from cheap, abundant energy is something Arthur C. Clark envisioned in the novel 3001: Final Odyssey, and is something that may be worth thinking about in advance.
All that said, I would love to be one of the engineers working on something like this. Social problems and all, count me in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If I find out a band I like is using a backing track, I instantly lose a bit of respect for them. Period. Especially if they are faking it and trying to hide that fact. In the case in question, a band that becomes helpless without a laptop holds no interest for me. You have a drum set? Guitars and bass? You mean you can't play anything at all? No backup plan? Seriously? That just comes off as lame to me. Ashlee Simpson had no excuse, either. In her case there was an actual band on stage with her. Call an audible and roll with it. Those guys know how to play, right? You know how to sing, right? It's SNL, you only need to know ONE song to get through to the commercial break, for cryin' out loud, but instead she and her band choked on the goal line and here we are 18 years later still talking about it. If you're a musician, be a freaking musician and remember that all that technology is an addon, not the main show.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The A-6 is regarded by some as the best naval bomber ever built. All weather, night time capability with a bomb load comparable to a B-17, and the later models had advanced avionics upgrades as well. The only reason the US Navy isn't still using them is because they wanted to save money for the F-35. Northrop Grumman was on the verge of building new ones in the early 2000's. Yes, I know the RN used the Buccaneer, not the A-6, but I was comparing what the RN had in 1982 to what the USN had in 1982. In the early 80s Phantoms were the naval interceptor of choice before the F-14 replaced them. Regarding the Sea Harrier, I am a big fan of the Harrier family of jets; the USMC has used them extensively in combat for decades now, but a force based on Harriers alone is a bit thin. They lack the speed and firepower of a Phantom and the payload and survivability of a Buccaneer or an Intruder. When the USMC uses them, it's within the context of a force that included Tomcats, Hornets, Intruders, etc. And USMC Harriers are optimized for ground attack/close air support. Argentine fighter pilots were at the edge of their range when they went up against Harriers, and the RN pilots used this to their advantage. But with a CATOBAR carrier and Phantoms, the RN could've had more influence over the airspace closer to shore and made life more difficult for the Super Etendard's and other Argentine aircraft.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I remember as a youngin', listening to the radio in Philly at midnight, Jan 1st, 1984, when the DJ spun up the first two tracks of the new Van Halen album: 1984, followed by Jump. Oh, the buzz that followed in the halls of high schools over the next few weeks, "Did you hear the new VH? What's up with the synths?!" A woman DJ on the radio station, 94.1 WYSP IIRC, she even said out loud on the air, "Congratulations, guys. Now you sound just like everyone else!" Synths on a VH album was a HUGE deal at the time. Fortunately, for those of us who bought the album, it was still a solid heavy guitar rock album. The whole thing with DLR's acrimonious exit afterwards still sucks to this day; the band was at the top of their game when he left.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
STS was imperfect, expensive, and yes, it was dangerous. But it was the first of its kind and it represented several bold technological leaps. And while we like to think of the Apollo-Saturn system as being safer, let's not forget that it killed 3 crewmen even before its first flight, nearly killed three more in Apollo 13, had its share of technical problems, and only flew a handful of times, compared to STS's 133 successful flights and 2 failures, so it doesn't have a large enough sample size to declare it superior. Spaceflight is dangerous. Space Shuttle scared me every time it flew, along with thrilling me, and I'm glad it's retired, but you have to give it credit where credit's due. The ISS is built, the Hubble is still in service along with many other payloads, and future spaceplanes will benefit from the lessons learned.
1
-
Actually lots of people are dreaming of using something pretty like it. Starting with the unmanned vehicles, the X-37 is using shuttle tech and it's in active service with the USAF, so it's more than just a dream. Buran was an example of a shuttle-like side-stacked vehicle that avoided the foam and solid booster issue, so at least in concept it was safer. VentureStar was another spaceplane idea that would've avoided boosters and external tanks altogether. Then there is the British Skylon project, which may or may not ever fly, but it's prompting some advanced engine and airframe research. Had Congress the willpower to go with a "Shuttle 2.0" instead of the SLS, NASA may have been able to solve problems that STS couldn't, such as debris strikes, reusable first stage, and crew bailout options during launch. As for the SRBs, they worked fine as long as you paid attention to the engineers who told you not use them in freezing weather, and after the post-Challenger redesign, that quit being such a problem as well. There was also the idea of swapping them to kerolox LRBs, which would return and land at the launch base after separation, but no money was ever allocated for it. It would've made boost-phase aborts possible and increased the performance of the whole system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In an abort scenario it's a good idea to keep everything as simple as possible. Capsules, Russian, Chinese, and American, are usually designed so that if you do nothing, it will settle into a heat shield forward attitude, making it inherently safe. You just need to rotate it to cancel out any lift, and just let it hurtle through the sky until the altimeter senses you are low enough to open the chute. This is the simplest way to get the crew safely back to the surface even if the autopilot electronics all fail, if there is no way to tell what your attitude is, if the crew is already unconscious, etc. Just get the thing back to the ground in one piece.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem with projects like this is it's such a high stakes gamble, it drives up the price, which makes the stakes higher, which drives up the price, which makes the stakes higher, which drives up the price, which makes the stakes higher, which drives up the price, which makes the stakes higher, which drives up the price, which makes the stakes higher, which drives up the price, which makes the stakes higher, which drives up the price, which makes the stakes higher, which drives up the price....anyway, the damn thing better work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think it's a sign that aeronautic technology plateaued around the middle of the last century to some degree, at least when it came to large utility aircraft that don't require stealth and stay subsonic. The C-5, C-130, B-52, Tu-95, these are all large airframes that don't have to do anything particularly fancy other than carry large amounts of stuff long distances and in some cases, drop that stuff. Even modern jetliners all started looking the same as early as the late 70s. As long as they don't stress the airframes too much by pulling hard Gs or flying low level too often, they can avoid metal fatigue for many decades. And because they are big airplanes they are pretty easily upgrade with new avionics and other subsystems. That said, C-130 is still in production and new ones are rolling off the line today, much improved versions at the beginning of their service lives, while the last B-52 was built in the 60s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adamc1713 Yeah, that's true, but the fact is that STS really was kind of dangerous. When it was designed the idea was to limit it to a catastrophic accident about once every 1000 flights or so, which is totally unacceptable by commercial aviation standards, and that turned out to be wildly optimistic. The actual accident rate was about 1 in 60, with almost no hope for crew survival or rescue during most of the flight. Now that may be acceptable for a test plane with test pilots, like an X-15 type program, but for a vehicle that is to be the core of the nation's space access and which risks 7 people at a time, that's too much to ask. Especially since the Shuttle had a huge public profile and had the emotions of millions of Americans (and quite a few American friends and partners) riding on it, watching 7 people die live on TV is unsustainable. Would've been better had, say the USAF operated it and kept it mostly hush hush, SR-71 style. I'm just rambling now, of course, the real world did not and does not work that way. Friend of mine worked on the Challenger mission that failed. To this day he still feels guilty even though he had no part in the mistakes that caused it. That's a heavy load to bear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Before 2016 I used to read all sorts of left biased media, such as The Atlantic, 3 Quarks Daily, the Washington Post, etc. You knew the bias was there but the articles were still mostly truthful and on the subjects of art and culture usually interesting. Comment sections were free and open. Then, as the election approached, and certainly after Trump won, all these absolutely crazy comments and articles started showing up talking about how racist Trump was, often using foul language, which was very rare prior to this, and never backed up by facts. Comment sections started becoming restricted, with logons required, and then came the censorship. Just like that, in a very small period of time, the Left completely lost their minds and went hardcore into totalitarian speech controls, and they've only doubled down in the years since. Wouldn't surprise me if youtube deletes this comment silently as they've done so many times lately.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I often pause these vids to look up locations in google maps when THG mentions them. I immediately looked up 129 Spring St. in Manhattan, and looked at the indoor photos. Sure enough, there's that well, right against the wall on the sales floor next to the cash register! It's like 6 feet tall so you can't just walk up and look down into it, and it looks like it has some sort of planks covering the top, but I wonder if the store's owner or employees ever climb up and look down into that creepy hole where that poor woman's body was found. Just being in that shop in broad daylight with people walking around looking at clothes next to that thing seems creepy enough. https://www.google.com/maps/place/COS/@40.7239954,-74.0004869,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipNoBgnokbTM6HwxIuQxFLoNwcNmko9Y6hpJ3pAl!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNoBgnokbTM6HwxIuQxFLoNwcNmko9Y6hpJ3pAl%3Dw203-h114-k-no!7i5312!8i2988!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x89c2598c5e51e2f3:0xce2f3449f490f818!2sSoHo,+New+York,+NY!3b1!8m2!3d40.723301!4d-74.0029883!3m4!1s0x89c2598ea0e79733:0xbf80e2cfade1daaa!8m2!3d40.7239953!4d-74.0004871
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Boeing did this in the past with the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, which is a development of the B-29. It's worth noting that in order to make a passenger version they had to make the fuselage a lot wider for cabin space and comfort, and even after all the changes it was still basically a commercial flop. It was a maintenance hog and expensive to operate compared to other dedicated passenger propliners of the era, such as the more famous (and way better-looking) Lockheed Constellation. In addition, the 377 was built when the B-29/B-50 production line was still open and the tech was still fairly young. The last B-52 was built in the mid-1960s, the production line is all gone, and the guys who built it are all retired or passed on, so building brand new airframes would cost a fortune, in addition to shoehorning passenger requirements into it and getting it certified for service. Operating it would cost a fortune, too, since passenger plane tech has advanced so far since the 60s, nobody wants to buy 4-engine ultramodern jets anymore, why would they want to buy a jet with 8 old school low-bypass engines?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From a technical standpoint, this isn't hard to do, and in fact by now we should've had one or two missions sitting "in the hangar" in case of something like this, since we've been worrying about it and putting it in the public conscience for about 30 years or so now. But politics, bureaucracy, etc. will probably bog everything down as it gets talked to death and likely by the time they determine whether it's going to hit it will be too late to get a mission up in time. Or they'll try, and it'll be a Starliner-style SNAFU where whoever is doing the launching embarrasses themselves and faceplants.
Meanwhile, in the target area, they'll drag their feet evacuating...
Okay, reading what I just wrote, I guess I am way more jaded than I thought I am. I will stand by my first sentence, though: we know how to do this stuff, and we should be ready by now, for at least a limited number of scenarios.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Plainly Difficult did a good video on this too. While obviously the manufacturer bares a huge responsibility for the poor software testing and QA, something needs to be said about the operators' procedural discipline or lack thereof. Blowing off error messages without knowledge of why you are getting them is fine when it's your buggy home PC you are playing with, but when you are operating machines that can kill people, this is unacceptable. It's similar to the space business: when astronauts got computer errors during the Apollo 11 landing, they checked with people who knew exactly what the implications of those errors were before committing to a landing. And speaking of spaceflight code, the code used in the Space Shuttle flight computers is thought to be among the most error-free, best configuration-controlled code in history, and was one of the finest achievements of that program. It was expensive, and it was worth it, because whatever else was wrong with the Shuttle, the flight software was never an issue. The medical industry should take a lesson from that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For aggressive exploration of the Solar system, nuclear power is really the only realistic option. And right now, "nuclear" means "fission". If fusion ever becomes practical, that makes it easier, but for right now fission power, be it nuclear thermal or nuclear electric, is what we have to work with. We need to get over the political objections, get to work to make these things as safe and reliable as possible, and start building and flying them. It doesn't have to be NASA or some other government, it can be private/commercial or whatever, but it has to be. If humans are going to get beyond the moon with enough numbers and mass to make it worthwhile, this is the way to go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These were foisted upon us by political policy makers, as opposed to economy driven innovation, so it's no wonder they suck. I still have a few around my house, such as in the bathroom lights, which will be there until they fail. But I and lots of people I knew resented being essentially forced to buy these pieces of crap, and to add insult to injury we were also admonished for not disposing of them properly, so lots of people just said fuck it and threw them in the trash. You want to force us to use this crap? Fine, you can come to my house and pick up the dead ones, right then? No? Fine off to the landfill they go then. They never worked right with my porch lamp timer and they gave off a harsh light in the living room which was unbearable. They only ones I thought were cool were the colored ones they'd sell around Halloween, I still have a bunch of those in a drawer I pull out for holidays and will miss them when they fail, but I imagine there are LED versions of those around somewhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jerry Pournelle's CoDominion books do a pretty good job of portraying physics-based space combat, to the point where The Expanse almost looks like a copy. These kind of hard sci fi stories always involve a few magic future technologies that make them plausible, mainly the super high thrust, high specific impulse propulsion systems that allow the ships to stay under high accelerations for long periods of time without running out of fuel. Robert Heinlein called this a "torch drive". It allows transiting the Solar System in days or weeks instead of years, and makes for exciting combat encounters where the characters are as likely to die from acceleration injuries as they are from weapons fire.
In a sense, the sub light impulse drive in Star Trek is a torch drive, but matters less because it is overshadowed by so many more magic technologies on that show that take beyond the realm of "hard" sci fi, especially the warp drive, transporters, magic gravity, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This band was so talented. Kurt, of course, but Krist is underrated as well, he looked like a know-nothing punk rocker what with his antics (like knocking himself out with his own bass), but his lines are solid, and of course Dave Grohl behind the drums, (WHERE HE BELONGS). Lightning in a bottle.
I have seen a lot of music snobs over the years who hate Nirvana for whatever reasons, the one I hear most is that Nirvana had no talent and thus made talentless music popular, killing the wonderful melodic hard rock and guitar solos of the 80s. Well, I was in high school in the 80s and I can tell you that hair metal, MTV, and commercial garbage was killing rock and roll. The phony nature and schlock factor of it was so obvious. I was into prog rock, but there was nothing progressive about the commercial MTV stuff on the radio.
Nirvana was a huge shot in the arm for rock and roll. Here was a real band, who put it all out there, with something that was kind of punk but so much more. When this came on the radio you cranked your car stereo to ear bleed levels.
And as Rick points out, hidden under that punk aesthetic was sophistication, and yes, guitar solos for anyone who cares to actually pay attention.
The last great rock revolution happened in 1991. Can't happen today with the changes to the industry brought on by technology, no one rock band can be this big today. Radio is pretty dead and the internet dilutes fan bases across lots of genres and regions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The most impactful statement Rick makes here is, "Nobody cares."
Of course there will always be a small minority of music fans who care, but the average public doesn't give a damn about real vs. fake music, or art, or anything else. Musicians, who have always had a hard time getting paid, and even harder lately, will now be utterly worthless. Making real music will now be as much a monetarily worthless hobby as fingerpainting. There will still be a handful of megastars needed to keep around to be trotted on stage at events like the Superbowl halftime or whatever, your Taylor Swift types, etc., but holograms may kill that gig as well. Wait until individual tavern owners can use AI to generate their own music, then there will be no need to ever hire a live band or pay an ASCAP/BMI fee again. Music will be as worthless as trying to sell snow to penguins.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1