The irony is that you don't see that your entire post boils down to ad hominem.
You say you're superior because of your unverfied status as a scientist. Again, I could as easily claim to be the queen of france. But who you are or who I am is not material to which of us is right.
A beggar drinking dog piss can be right and the man dressed in silks and sitting on a throne can be wrong. This is a core tenet of science. That you keep claiming to win on the basis of status shows that you're a bad scientist if you are one.
Then you continue with more identity politics crap... and an appeal to authority.
Who I am is not important. And if you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that.
What matters is the facts. And on the facts, I crucified you. You lost. Because you don't know how to structure a logical argument. All you know how to do is point at diplomas no one can see and claim to be the holder of privileged knowledge that you cannot verify.
With Bethesda games that just means you're in for a boring feature poor game with fuck tons of bugs.
They've been making the same game at least since Oblivion, possibly before... but I didn't play any of their earlier titles... They make big giant worlds... and they fill them with boring shite.
The writing is generally bad, the objects and maps are generally just empty and unimaginative.
And what I like about the mods is that it makes the games more interesting. You get play made stuff. Player made quests. And player made bug fixes.
And on top of that, their leveling system is retarded. In every one of their games I've ever played all the enemies in the game scale with your level.
Which means when you level up, you basically don't get stronger because everything in the world gets stronger with you. What doesn't scale is your gear. Which means that when you level up... you gear gets shittier. Given that large portion of your damage is determined by flat variables in your gear, this means that if you level up too much... the game becomes completely obnoxious. I remember in Oblivion I was very high level when I tried to finish the game and it was taking about 30 seconds to kill each garbage mob. They had so much HP and my weapons which were the best you could get in the game were complete crap.
Mods solve this problem. You can cause the way enemies level to change, you can add higher level gear to the game, you can cause gear to level up the same way that you do, etc.
The funniest example of this was in Fallout 3 when I found that at full level, I could hit a man in the face with an anti material rifle... and he would keep coming at me.
Understand, this is a rifle designed to fire shells through engine blocks and destroy them. This is not a gun designed to kill people. This is a gun designed to punch through inches of metal and destroy machines. It was taking three and four shots to the FACE of completely normal bandits in fallout 3 to kill them because of the stupid leveling system.
Now by comparison, in Fallout 2 which was not a Bethesda game but was instead a Black Isle game... a single shot from a sniper rifle if you were high level and had put a lot of points into perception would below the head clean off super mutant. One shot. One kill. And this isn't even an anti material rifle. This is just a sniper rifle.
Why is that? totally different leveling system. In Fallout 1-2 the levels and stats of enemies were fixed and did not scale with your level. This effectively kept you from exploring areas that you were too low level to go to because everything there would insta-kill you. it also meant that if you did a lot of side quests and leveled up... you could blow through the main story quests much more easily because you were a few levels above that content.
Say what you will, I hate Bethesda's leveling system. I'm not the only one. Many people have commenting on it being shit. They refuse to change it. They were told at least as far back as Oblivion it was bad. They're still using it. So. I'm not feeling especially inhibited on the subject.
Point is, mods make these games tolerable for me. Absent the mods, I couldn't even play them. They'd be too annoying.
You set your firewall rules up so that isn't how it works.
You let authorized users in and out... and only to access other authorized systems.
If someone says "but I want to access my facebook account"... you tell them to save it for when they are off government time.
The firewall rules are too permissive and that is a large part of the problem. Lock it down so the systems only communicate with known systems that are known to be good. And only through VPN.
The hacks are not coming through VPNs. Fix the firewalls and the hacks will stop cold. Its not as hard as people make it out to be. It just has the price that employees no longer treat the workstations like personal computers.
They are not personal computers. You lock down the communications so they can't access anything they do not need to access and then you lock down the application privelges such that only code that is approved by the admin can run. Nothing else.
No checking your face book... no installing angry birds.
I've seen sysops so bad they had some users running torrents on their workstations. F'ing torrents. They were downloading pirated movies and stuff to company systems. Installing malware ridden games and other programs...
There's only one way to stop that. You lock the systems down so they don't do anything that you don't want them to do.
Everywhere I've done that has flawless security. Never a breach. Never an issue. The systems are also a lot more stable. The employees don't like that they can't check facebook on those system. But I give literally no shits.
No, fucktard. I didn't say vaguely take me out of context in an attempt to conflate my criticisms of fraud with ALL OF SCIENCE.
I said CITE... that is QUOTE one thing I said that was anti science.
Calling frauds the bane of my civilization is not anti science. I'm not attacking science, i'm attacking FRAUDS.
I presented plenty of evidence for that point and frankly the OP of the entire topic had some evidence of it as well.
Evidence would matter to you if you cared about science but it doesn't because you don't.
As to what makes ME an expert? You're going to try ad verecundiam again? You're like some science experiment that can only think in fallacies.
Comical. Another massive failure on your part. You're just tiresome now. This is like kicking a sack of kittens to death. I mean... you really are the fucking the black knight.
You lose and lose and lose... and then because its the internet, you think you can maintain credibility through contradiction. What a fucking retard.
You want to talk about the people that say that ducks live in their finger nails as well?
You're basically attempting a political strawman by pretending that a tiny tiny fraction of the political spectrum represents about HALF the political spectrum... which is opposed to your little tribe.
Rather than argue against what they're really talking about, you instead strawman the whole group by saying they believe something they don't, then pat yourself on the back when you show that thing they don't actually believe to be stupid.
Riddle me this, liar... are you actually able to answer the ACTUAL criticism they're leveling against your tribe?
Here it is: "That Obama is basically letting Iran's nuclear program complete itself, that Obama is removing the sanctions in return for nothing, and that in the event that Iran inevidably betrays their word and turns their peaceful program into a bomb... the US really won't be able to do anything about it."
That is the argument from your political opposition. The argument is not to nuke Iran. The argument is rather to maintain sanctions on Iran.
Sanctions.
And because you're too feeble and cowardly to actually deal with that argument, you instead strawmanned them by saying that they wanted to Nuke Iran.
But you know what, lets just assume you weren't a dishonorable stain on the species, what is your response to your opposition's ACTUAL position?
That is they want sanctions to be maintained on Iran. What do you say to that?
Note... nuking Iran does not enter into their argument at any point. At all.
I say again... why not just have a bigger deck? The deck size isn't what makes a carrier expensive. If you prioritize the deck, the carrier is probably the cheapest warship possible.
Again, go off and buy a cargo ship... slap a big flat deck on it... and then put some sort of cat at one end.
Worst case, put those little rocket pods on your planes that we used to put on cargo planes during Vietnam that had to take off from under sized air fields. Those things can't cost much... I mean... they shouldn't... weapons contractors could make a roll of toliet paper expensive. But we're talking about glorified firecrackers here.
You could also damage the brain so it never really obtained what you'd think of as human level intelligence.
If it sort of had animal intellgience it would be hard to feel that badly about killing it eventually... I mean, we do that with animals all the time.
People are going to be upset. But think about it like this... if you can figure out how to morally justify it to yourself... you'll live. If you don't... you'll die.
What is going to happen here?
People are going to find a means of justifying it to themselves because they want to live.
I'm not especially interested in body swaps etc. I just find the morality of it interesting and how people would of course justify it if it meant life.
Life needs no justification for itself. And death has none. To paraphrase the old Roman maxim about victory and defeat.
I think the long term solution to the whole death problem is going to be more a matter of genetic engineering at first, then some sort of cybernetic singularity.
Long after I'm dust in the wind. Possibly thousands and thousands of years... who knows. But I think that's where its going.
I envy those generations. Live that long and know that much. Oh well.
*gets back to converting microwave into a time machine*
Double dog dare you. ONE. You've so far utterly failed to back up even one accusation against me.
My ramblings were anti fraud in nature. Not anti science. I've noticed there is a pattern when you accuse unethical people of fraud that they change the subject and accuse you of something else.
Like if you accused a teacher of fraud you'd say that I was anti education?
Or if I accused a business of fraud you'd say I was anti business?
Or if I accused the government of fraud you'd say i was an anarchist?
You're hilariously stupid. The only thing that makes you effective is that most people don't pay attention long enough to connect the dots. They just respond to your strawman without realizing you're just making shit up.
Do you equate science with fraud? Is that it? Is being against fraud mean that I'm against science in your mind because you think the two are the same thing?
I don't... but since you're a liar and a sophist, possibly you consider the height of human achievement to be the greater advancement of deceit and fraud?
I can't tell... you're so full of shit you're obviously confusing yourself half the time. You can't keep your lies straight.
As to scoring a troll game, winning arguments and debates is a time honored tradition. And so is smack talking the loser for losing.
Relevant to the British but not especially of any concern to the US Navy or the Pentagon for that matter.
I've always been confused as to why the British don't just build their carriers a bit longer. Its not as if building a ship the size of a Nimitz is actually that expensive. its all the warship stuff that makes it expensive... not the size. There are ships a great deal larger than the Nimitz that are cheaper than the British carriers. They're cargo ships. But that's mostly what an aircraft carrier is in the first place.
In WW2, we built cheap shit carriers like crazy. Just big enough to carry enough planes to make the ship worth having... and that's about it. They were basically cargo ships with flat decks for planes. That's all you need really. I don't quiet get why the British designs are the way they are... its the wrong compromise. They should have taken an existing cargo ship design from a commercial yard and just thrown a big flat deck on the top of it. Cheap as hell and you'd be able to launch more conventional craft off the top. Especially if you added a launch system. I'm pretty sure the US was quite happy to sell the damn thing to the british if they wanted it. Not that they'd need us to, I'm sure they could design such a thing themselves if they wanted one.
It kills me that the British make these undersized carriers. If they need to economize than cut down on the non-essentials. But you need to have enough of a deck to actually launch a proper plane from. I know they like the harriers but that carrier design limits them to VTL aircraft. That's just a really heavy compromise. I question how much money you save by doing that when you're probably spending extra money on VTL for all those planes. Overall... the costs probably don't work out. And even if they did... just seems you lose a lot of flexibility.
You said that the rest of my post was nothing but the dead kitten comment writ large.
I asked for examples. Lets go through that little assertion... I've got the blades on the chipper oiled and I'm more than happy to feed your argument into it.
A distinction without relevance to this discussion. The point is that the "electric" drive trains are ultimately powered by a hydrocarbon fuel or nuclear fission.
... I know but... like... I've seen nothing about this until now and who the fuck are these people... and etc etc?
I mean, should I take this more seriously than any jackass saying "I like this"... is this supposed to be like the academy awards or golden globes or something?
The very idea of this thing is baffling to me because I don't think the community or industry is organized enough to have such a thing.
I don't really have a problem with their selections, I just think the way in which they go through this needs to be declared and obvious.
You're correct, though... I'm actually looking through the literature and it doesn't appear the nuclear ships are going electric in their drive drain. Correct me if I'm wrong. But the Ford class carriers appear to be using gear boxes still. I'm not sure what the subs are doing.
We've hundreds of years of experience with live steam... in battle and in peace.
I also know how dangerous live steam is... I keep hearing people ask me this question as if of course I wouldn't have any idea what live steam was like. Give me a break.
Any well designed steam system is going to have pressure safety valves. Which means explosions are not likely especially when engineers are watching the boiler. The steam that is in the pipes is going to be within spec for those pipes and applications.
If a pipe is ruptured then it can fill a compartment with steam which will cook everyone in the compartment unless they get out. These are issues that the navies of the world have been dealing with since the age of steam and they have pretty much got it handled at this point.
... okay but all our carriers are nuclear. And will remain so for the next hundred years or so at least. The Ford Class carriers are slated to be in service for another 90 years.
So... where do I care about gas turbines when I'm fitting my ships with nuclear reactors and steam turbines?
As to managing the piping and seals on the catapult being a PITA... I'll take your word for it. But we don't really know if the electromagnetic ones are going to be better until they've been in service for awhile.
You could be right. I hope you are.
Sometimes technology goes backwards. It annoys me when that happens.
Often some new thing seems like an innovation until you look at something from a previous generation that did the same thing, was more reliable, and way cheaper.
The carriers are moving to all electric? What are you talking about?
Furthermore, I don't think you know what all electric means.
The carriers already use electric motors. They are however supplied with power from nuclear reactors and those reactors produce power with STEAM.
now if we go with a destroyer or smaller craft that has electric propulsion, what you'll find is that they all have diesel generators in them. That is they burn GASOLINE... and the gasoline produces electricity and that electricity then drives electric motors.
To say we're going with a fully electric system implies what... batteries and solar panels? I don't know what you're talking about.
Lets look at the new generation of American super carriers: Those would be the "Gerald R. Ford-class" carriers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
""Two Bechtel A1B nuclear reactors will be installed on each Ford-class carrier, with each A1B reactor capable of producing 300 MW of electricity,[24][25] compared to the 100MW of each Nimitz-class reactor.[citation needed]""
So... contrary to what you're saying, the new carriers will not only have steam on them... but actually more steam than the old carriers... the Ford class carriers have three times the reactor power output of the Nimitz class carriers. And that means they're boiling water at three times the rate.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony is that you don't see that your entire post boils down to ad hominem.
You say you're superior because of your unverfied status as a scientist. Again, I could as easily claim to be the queen of france. But who you are or who I am is not material to which of us is right.
A beggar drinking dog piss can be right and the man dressed in silks and sitting on a throne can be wrong. This is a core tenet of science. That you keep claiming to win on the basis of status shows that you're a bad scientist if you are one.
Then you continue with more identity politics crap... and an appeal to authority.
Who I am is not important. And if you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that.
What matters is the facts. And on the facts, I crucified you. You lost. Because you don't know how to structure a logical argument. All you know how to do is point at diplomas no one can see and claim to be the holder of privileged knowledge that you cannot verify.
You remain pitiful.
With Bethesda games that just means you're in for a boring feature poor game with fuck tons of bugs.
They've been making the same game at least since Oblivion, possibly before... but I didn't play any of their earlier titles... They make big giant worlds... and they fill them with boring shite.
The writing is generally bad, the objects and maps are generally just empty and unimaginative.
And what I like about the mods is that it makes the games more interesting. You get play made stuff. Player made quests. And player made bug fixes.
And on top of that, their leveling system is retarded. In every one of their games I've ever played all the enemies in the game scale with your level.
Which means when you level up, you basically don't get stronger because everything in the world gets stronger with you. What doesn't scale is your gear. Which means that when you level up... you gear gets shittier. Given that large portion of your damage is determined by flat variables in your gear, this means that if you level up too much... the game becomes completely obnoxious. I remember in Oblivion I was very high level when I tried to finish the game and it was taking about 30 seconds to kill each garbage mob. They had so much HP and my weapons which were the best you could get in the game were complete crap.
Mods solve this problem. You can cause the way enemies level to change, you can add higher level gear to the game, you can cause gear to level up the same way that you do, etc.
The funniest example of this was in Fallout 3 when I found that at full level, I could hit a man in the face with an anti material rifle... and he would keep coming at me.
Understand, this is a rifle designed to fire shells through engine blocks and destroy them. This is not a gun designed to kill people. This is a gun designed to punch through inches of metal and destroy machines. It was taking three and four shots to the FACE of completely normal bandits in fallout 3 to kill them because of the stupid leveling system.
Now by comparison, in Fallout 2 which was not a Bethesda game but was instead a Black Isle game... a single shot from a sniper rifle if you were high level and had put a lot of points into perception would below the head clean off super mutant. One shot. One kill. And this isn't even an anti material rifle. This is just a sniper rifle.
Why is that? totally different leveling system. In Fallout 1-2 the levels and stats of enemies were fixed and did not scale with your level. This effectively kept you from exploring areas that you were too low level to go to because everything there would insta-kill you. it also meant that if you did a lot of side quests and leveled up... you could blow through the main story quests much more easily because you were a few levels above that content.
Say what you will, I hate Bethesda's leveling system. I'm not the only one. Many people have commenting on it being shit. They refuse to change it. They were told at least as far back as Oblivion it was bad. They're still using it. So. I'm not feeling especially inhibited on the subject.
Point is, mods make these games tolerable for me. Absent the mods, I couldn't even play them. They'd be too annoying.
Make me?
No.
You set your firewall rules up so that isn't how it works.
You let authorized users in and out... and only to access other authorized systems.
If someone says "but I want to access my facebook account"... you tell them to save it for when they are off government time.
The firewall rules are too permissive and that is a large part of the problem. Lock it down so the systems only communicate with known systems that are known to be good. And only through VPN.
The hacks are not coming through VPNs. Fix the firewalls and the hacks will stop cold. Its not as hard as people make it out to be. It just has the price that employees no longer treat the workstations like personal computers.
They are not personal computers. You lock down the communications so they can't access anything they do not need to access and then you lock down the application privelges such that only code that is approved by the admin can run. Nothing else.
No checking your face book... no installing angry birds.
I've seen sysops so bad they had some users running torrents on their workstations. F'ing torrents. They were downloading pirated movies and stuff to company systems. Installing malware ridden games and other programs...
There's only one way to stop that. You lock the systems down so they don't do anything that you don't want them to do.
Everywhere I've done that has flawless security. Never a breach. Never an issue. The systems are also a lot more stable. The employees don't like that they can't check facebook on those system. But I give literally no shits.
Yahtzee! Some tool just invoked Godwin's law.
The Bethesda games are crap unless you can install mods on them. And you can only do that on the PC versions.
QED... play the PC version or don't play.
Some games are great on the console. Bethesda games are not amongst them.
... you missed the irony that you're that guy... didn't you?
No, fucktard. I didn't say vaguely take me out of context in an attempt to conflate my criticisms of fraud with ALL OF SCIENCE.
I said CITE... that is QUOTE one thing I said that was anti science.
Calling frauds the bane of my civilization is not anti science. I'm not attacking science, i'm attacking FRAUDS.
I presented plenty of evidence for that point and frankly the OP of the entire topic had some evidence of it as well.
Evidence would matter to you if you cared about science but it doesn't because you don't.
As to what makes ME an expert? You're going to try ad verecundiam again? You're like some science experiment that can only think in fallacies.
Comical. Another massive failure on your part. You're just tiresome now. This is like kicking a sack of kittens to death. I mean... you really are the fucking the black knight.
You lose and lose and lose... and then because its the internet, you think you can maintain credibility through contradiction. What a fucking retard.
You can find people that will say anything.
You want to talk about the people that say that ducks live in their finger nails as well?
You're basically attempting a political strawman by pretending that a tiny tiny fraction of the political spectrum represents about HALF the political spectrum... which is opposed to your little tribe.
Rather than argue against what they're really talking about, you instead strawman the whole group by saying they believe something they don't, then pat yourself on the back when you show that thing they don't actually believe to be stupid.
Riddle me this, liar... are you actually able to answer the ACTUAL criticism they're leveling against your tribe?
Here it is: "That Obama is basically letting Iran's nuclear program complete itself, that Obama is removing the sanctions in return for nothing, and that in the event that Iran inevidably betrays their word and turns their peaceful program into a bomb... the US really won't be able to do anything about it."
That is the argument from your political opposition. The argument is not to nuke Iran. The argument is rather to maintain sanctions on Iran.
Sanctions.
And because you're too feeble and cowardly to actually deal with that argument, you instead strawmanned them by saying that they wanted to Nuke Iran.
But you know what, lets just assume you weren't a dishonorable stain on the species, what is your response to your opposition's ACTUAL position?
That is they want sanctions to be maintained on Iran. What do you say to that?
Note... nuking Iran does not enter into their argument at any point. At all.
Hey bingo...
I still have an excellent rating you know.
And it will always be hypocritical for an AC to talk about Karma points. You've got none, shitstain.
I say again... why not just have a bigger deck? The deck size isn't what makes a carrier expensive. If you prioritize the deck, the carrier is probably the cheapest warship possible.
Again, go off and buy a cargo ship... slap a big flat deck on it... and then put some sort of cat at one end.
Worst case, put those little rocket pods on your planes that we used to put on cargo planes during Vietnam that had to take off from under sized air fields. Those things can't cost much... I mean... they shouldn't... weapons contractors could make a roll of toliet paper expensive. But we're talking about glorified firecrackers here.
You could also damage the brain so it never really obtained what you'd think of as human level intelligence.
If it sort of had animal intellgience it would be hard to feel that badly about killing it eventually... I mean, we do that with animals all the time.
People are going to be upset. But think about it like this... if you can figure out how to morally justify it to yourself... you'll live. If you don't... you'll die.
What is going to happen here?
People are going to find a means of justifying it to themselves because they want to live.
I'm not especially interested in body swaps etc. I just find the morality of it interesting and how people would of course justify it if it meant life.
Life needs no justification for itself. And death has none. To paraphrase the old Roman maxim about victory and defeat.
I think the long term solution to the whole death problem is going to be more a matter of genetic engineering at first, then some sort of cybernetic singularity.
Long after I'm dust in the wind. Possibly thousands and thousands of years... who knows. But I think that's where its going.
I envy those generations. Live that long and know that much. Oh well.
*gets back to converting microwave into a time machine*
Cite one thing I said that was against science.
Double dog dare you. ONE. You've so far utterly failed to back up even one accusation against me.
My ramblings were anti fraud in nature. Not anti science. I've noticed there is a pattern when you accuse unethical people of fraud that they change the subject and accuse you of something else.
Like if you accused a teacher of fraud you'd say that I was anti education?
Or if I accused a business of fraud you'd say I was anti business?
Or if I accused the government of fraud you'd say i was an anarchist?
You're hilariously stupid. The only thing that makes you effective is that most people don't pay attention long enough to connect the dots. They just respond to your strawman without realizing you're just making shit up.
Do you equate science with fraud? Is that it? Is being against fraud mean that I'm against science in your mind because you think the two are the same thing?
I don't... but since you're a liar and a sophist, possibly you consider the height of human achievement to be the greater advancement of deceit and fraud?
I can't tell... you're so full of shit you're obviously confusing yourself half the time. You can't keep your lies straight.
As to scoring a troll game, winning arguments and debates is a time honored tradition. And so is smack talking the loser for losing.
Suck it. ;)
Nuke? Hyperbole much? There's no relevant political faction in the US that is calling for a nuclear strike on anything.
And really, is it the US that likes to have little death to Iran rallies? or is that Iran that likes to have death to america rallies?
Who is burning who's flag?
Come now. Perspective.
Relevant to the British but not especially of any concern to the US Navy or the Pentagon for that matter.
I've always been confused as to why the British don't just build their carriers a bit longer. Its not as if building a ship the size of a Nimitz is actually that expensive. its all the warship stuff that makes it expensive... not the size. There are ships a great deal larger than the Nimitz that are cheaper than the British carriers. They're cargo ships. But that's mostly what an aircraft carrier is in the first place.
In WW2, we built cheap shit carriers like crazy. Just big enough to carry enough planes to make the ship worth having... and that's about it. They were basically cargo ships with flat decks for planes. That's all you need really. I don't quiet get why the British designs are the way they are... its the wrong compromise. They should have taken an existing cargo ship design from a commercial yard and just thrown a big flat deck on the top of it. Cheap as hell and you'd be able to launch more conventional craft off the top. Especially if you added a launch system. I'm pretty sure the US was quite happy to sell the damn thing to the british if they wanted it. Not that they'd need us to, I'm sure they could design such a thing themselves if they wanted one.
It kills me that the British make these undersized carriers. If they need to economize than cut down on the non-essentials. But you need to have enough of a deck to actually launch a proper plane from. I know they like the harriers but that carrier design limits them to VTL aircraft. That's just a really heavy compromise. I question how much money you save by doing that when you're probably spending extra money on VTL for all those planes. Overall... the costs probably don't work out. And even if they did... just seems you lose a lot of flexibility.
You said that the rest of my post was nothing but the dead kitten comment writ large.
I asked for examples. Lets go through that little assertion... I've got the blades on the chipper oiled and I'm more than happy to feed your argument into it.
A distinction without relevance to this discussion. The point is that the "electric" drive trains are ultimately powered by a hydrocarbon fuel or nuclear fission.
... I know but... like... I've seen nothing about this until now and who the fuck are these people... and etc etc?
I mean, should I take this more seriously than any jackass saying "I like this"... is this supposed to be like the academy awards or golden globes or something?
The very idea of this thing is baffling to me because I don't think the community or industry is organized enough to have such a thing.
I don't really have a problem with their selections, I just think the way in which they go through this needs to be declared and obvious.
I'm baffled as to why we've not as yet built a single robot that can do that and survive in one of these reactors. They've all broken.
when did a hall of fame for games get created that wasn't just some guy's opinion?
Where is this?
You're correct, though... I'm actually looking through the literature and it doesn't appear the nuclear ships are going electric in their drive drain. Correct me if I'm wrong. But the Ford class carriers appear to be using gear boxes still. I'm not sure what the subs are doing.
We've hundreds of years of experience with live steam... in battle and in peace.
I also know how dangerous live steam is... I keep hearing people ask me this question as if of course I wouldn't have any idea what live steam was like. Give me a break.
Any well designed steam system is going to have pressure safety valves. Which means explosions are not likely especially when engineers are watching the boiler. The steam that is in the pipes is going to be within spec for those pipes and applications.
If a pipe is ruptured then it can fill a compartment with steam which will cook everyone in the compartment unless they get out. These are issues that the navies of the world have been dealing with since the age of steam and they have pretty much got it handled at this point.
... okay but all our carriers are nuclear. And will remain so for the next hundred years or so at least. The Ford Class carriers are slated to be in service for another 90 years.
So... where do I care about gas turbines when I'm fitting my ships with nuclear reactors and steam turbines?
As to managing the piping and seals on the catapult being a PITA... I'll take your word for it. But we don't really know if the electromagnetic ones are going to be better until they've been in service for awhile.
You could be right. I hope you are.
Sometimes technology goes backwards. It annoys me when that happens.
Often some new thing seems like an innovation until you look at something from a previous generation that did the same thing, was more reliable, and way cheaper.
Cite one, shortstack and I'll either admit error and thank you for the correction or correct you and expect you to thank me for that correction.
Hurry up. The posturing and pretension bores me. Either pull the trigger or put it away.
The carriers are moving to all electric? What are you talking about?
Furthermore, I don't think you know what all electric means.
The carriers already use electric motors. They are however supplied with power from nuclear reactors and those reactors produce power with STEAM.
now if we go with a destroyer or smaller craft that has electric propulsion, what you'll find is that they all have diesel generators in them. That is they burn GASOLINE... and the gasoline produces electricity and that electricity then drives electric motors.
To say we're going with a fully electric system implies what... batteries and solar panels? I don't know what you're talking about.
Lets look at the new generation of American super carriers:
Those would be the "Gerald R. Ford-class" carriers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
""Two Bechtel A1B nuclear reactors will be installed on each Ford-class carrier, with each A1B reactor capable of producing 300 MW of electricity,[24][25] compared to the 100MW of each Nimitz-class reactor.[citation needed]""
So... contrary to what you're saying, the new carriers will not only have steam on them... but actually more steam than the old carriers... the Ford class carriers have three times the reactor power output of the Nimitz class carriers. And that means they're boiling water at three times the rate.
That's a lot of steam.