Re: China on track for Aircraft Carrier in 2010


Did I tell you it is dropped from a space vehicle like, for example,
the Space Shuttle?

You aren't going to "drop" it from anything, bonehead.

You release the bomb from the satellite.  Guess what?  The bomb is
moving at the same velocity as the satellite; it is essentially
"falling" with the satellite.  You seem to think that the bomb will
suddenly drop downward as if dropped from an airplane; when the
reality is that the bomb will CONTINUE TO ORBIT THE FUCKING EARTH.

It is not from a satellite.

I said at the atmosphere re-entry point at about 100 km above the
surface. All you need is disengage the object and give it a nudge and
it will start the fall into the Earth.

Oh, I see... a nudge. What sort of "nudge" do you suppose would be
necessary to force an object out of orbit? Remember, according to you
the object not only needs to fall but needs to fall practically
VERTICAL. Go ahead, show me the math.

But let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you add a booster to
force the bomb towards the Earth.  A typical satellite in
geosynchronous orbit at around 140 miles up (which, by the way, would
be considered "low" for a satellite - your notion of one 30 miles up
is frankly retarded) has to move at nearly 18,000 miles per hour in
order to maintain orbit integrity.

Apparently you don't have any knowledge of geophysics, or physics in
general. You can only have geosynchronous orbits above the equator.  I
will let you ponder this one. I will explain to you if you ask me.

Geosynchronous or not is irrelevant, bonehead - it was used as example
to illustrate the stupidity of your thinking. I guess it wasn't
obvious enough for you...

The point, jackass, is that whatever vehicle you have up there is
going to be moving very, very fast in order to *stay* up there. So
fast that the very idea of "dropping" something out of it is
ludicrous; even with the "nudge" you've proposed.

Once again, I said release the bomb at atmosphere re-entry height,
about 100 km above the surface, from a space vehicle.

So now you're proposing that some sort of vehicle is going to come
down from orbit in a controlled manner to an altitude of 100km, and
then drop a free-falling bomb in a precise enough manner as to ensure
proper delivery to a target?

The point being, the very idea that you are going to "drop" a bomb in
such a manner as to cause it to drop straight down is ridiculous.
Because of it's orbital velocity, the bomb would instead fall along a
very long curve; which means it will take a LOT longer than your
asinine guess of two minutes.

Not if you drop it at the atmosphere re-entry height.

Right, because at that height it's only moving at 12,000 miles per
hour instead of the previous 18,000 miles per hour.... As much as I
hate to break this to you, jackass, your hours spent alone watching
Star Trek have not prepared you to hold a discussion on space reentry
vehicles.

And as far as accuracy goes...  why do you suppose it is that whenever
NASA or the Russians or anyone else who uses a free-fall style space
vehicle tends to aim for oceans or, in the case of a dry landing, the
middle of some fucking plain somewhere?  Don't hurt yourself - I'll
tell you.  It's because those things have the potential to go MANY
MILES off course, and they need to give themselves enough room for
error.

Use you brain. They want the people in the space capsule to live. They
design the size of the capsule with excess air drag to naturally slow
the capsule down. Plus, they deploy the parachutes well above the
surface before the g-force will kill everybody inside the capsule if
the parachutes are deployed later. That is why they are often miles
off course.

Actually, no. They design the capsule to direct the heat away from
the occupants; maximizing air drag would be stupid (which is why it
came to you) because it would *increase* the heat generated.

And the parachutes are deployed very late during reentry - they
actually have little effect on where the capsule lands. Mercury 7 for
example landed over 250 miles off the estimated target; surely you
aren't retarded enough to believe that it sailed for over 200 miles on
parachute? Or maybe you are.

Oh, and as an aside, even if we disregard the obvious problems with
your thinking, your math was wrong too.

I suppose you don't have post-secondary math and physics edition.

Did you mean to say "education" bonehead?

It is normal if you are an old-timer. Most people in the workforce
before the 1980's have only high school education or less.

Maybe in your line of work... but then, how much learning do you need
to dump a garbage can into a truck?
.

Loading