lasers are pretty easy to deflect with reflective surfaces. or you could just vent a cloud of gas or vapor that will attenuate the beam (obviously you'd have only so many uses of this tactic, but essentially "chaff" for lasers). plus even though lasers are coherent, they still diffuse some over extreme distances, which amplifies the power requirement in order to actually concentrate enough energy to do damage. plus the laser source would ideallyneed to be space-borne itself, simply because having to go through the atmosphere will also sap a lot of its power, in which case the advantage goes to whoever's weapon is already up there.
as far as dodging, it wouldn't take much. it would be limited, true. but once a missle or kinetic weapon missed you, it would have a helluva time trying to re-orient; it'd likely be completely unable to unless it had a ton of extra fuel. now on the other hand, a slower speed interceptor or missile, could better handle a dodging target. but then, that gives the target more time to use its countermeasures, such as its own laser or missile to take out the incoming threat.
I think the new part here was being able to reach targets in geostationary orbits. We've long had the ability to take out the orbits closer to earth, but geostationary is typically 22,000+ miles out. I'm not sure if our weapons yet have the capability to reach those satellites.
B.S. More solar energy lands on the planet in one hour than the entire world uses in a year. As such the amount we actually need to capture and store is miniscule. A solar array 158 miles square could power the ENTIRE WORLD. We're talking 0.03% of the area of north africa. Obviously it's more practical to spread the array out, to save on transmission cable... and you REALLY need a smart grid for it to work most practically (our patchwork system is a mess)... But even so, it's possible we could turn just one county in Arizona into a massive solar array, the US would be energy independent for all time. We could spread arrays around the globe to provide continuous power at all times...or we could just make every home and building energy independent.
Point is the future of planetbound humanity is solar. And that STILL leaves room for wind (a solar derivitive), tidal, etc. We could eliminate most hydropower, restoring river ecosystems.
Someday fusion may be practical...but it isn't yet (and no, the lack of funding doesn't help), and won't be for some time. But solar is here. Today. Now.
We could do it, NOW
Point is, the notion that there isn't enough to go around, is pure stupidity.
what works for you may not work for others, as others may have reasons or other issues that preclude what works for you. shortly, you cannot speak to everyones situation and to do so is extreme arrogance. thus, this potential treatment is a huge boon to those people.
of all the plot devices and changes that have occured in the history of comic books, those paragons of serious literature, THIS is the one that people finally get upset over?
it's comic books. we've seen our heroes go through hell (literally in some cases) only to die when convenient. in fact we've seen HUNDREDS of heroes and villains die only to be resurected, replaced, cloned, imperonsated, have someone else adopt the mantle, etc. we've seen magic be manifested in science fiction based stories, or vice versa. we've seen absolutely ridiculous origin stories. weve seen gender swapping before, we've seen various orientations before. we've seen she-hulk created because "hey, wouldnt a female hulk who sleeps around be cool?". there's both a superwoman and supergirl. How many "Robins" are we up to now?
Come on. there are so many things we could talk about in terms of comic book story plotting, and character deveolopement, or anything else related to comic books that could be described as lazy, or pandering, or gratuious, or any other negative viewpoint that we frequently heare from non-comic book fans......BUT THIS IS THE ONE that you finally say is too far?
It's comic books. Get over it and just enjoy the show.
this is the new tactic: don't like something? bar any funding frm being used for it.
They don't like global warming, so they passed a bill barring hte military from doing its job and making plans to study and deal with emerging security threats as a result of it...yes, Republicans directly harming national security over global warming, because of their corporate masters.
They don't like global warming, so they also passed a bill barring the Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Energy from doing its job and studying and pursuing projects designed to mitigate or deal with the effects of global warming, such as rising sea levels and changing weather patterns....yes, Republicans directly harming state and local economic activity, waterfront developement, reservoir planning, crop irrigation, etc, over global warming because of their corporate masters
there's many others. And now we can add this to the list: They don't like net neutrality, they're passing a bill to block the FCC from doing it's job and fostering economic growth and development of the internet by maintaining a level playing field on open internet, in order to favor current already established interests....so yes, Republicans hurting economic growth and competition because of their corporate masters.
no, they arent the same thing, and "progressivism" is not an ideology, but an attribute, a direction of society, not a school of thought or system of government. "i dont see where progrssivism succeeded"... because you've seen it so long you dont even see it any more.
reigning in the power of the king and granting the citizenry basic rights (Magna Carta): progressive creating a nation under ideals of liberty: progressive ending slavery: progressive expanding the right to vote to women: progressive reigning in corporate excesses, busting trusts, regulating banks: progressive expanding the vote to minorities: progressive creatign social safety net: progressive creating rules to protect the water we drink and air we breathe: progressive expanding equal rights to LGBT community? progressive
So where is progressivism working? Everywhere it's ever been done, currently that's most of Europe, and to a degree, in the US on some issues). conservatism is by definition the holding back of society to maintain the status quo, and progressivism the opposite. As such, both are constantly shifting political forces, and not political philosophies you can nail to a wall for all time.
further food for thought: both socialism(and its kin) and social democracy were created in responce to the excesses of rampant uncontrolled capitalism ("the gilded age"). the difference being social seeks to end it entirely by taking over control of it, while social democracy simply tries to reign in those excesses through regulation, polishing its sharp edges while still channeling its better qualities towards the service of society.
much like the famous quote concerning democracy, capitalism is a rotten system that is ultimately self-destructive....yet still better than the alternatives. so if you can control those excesses, and steer it away from its self-destructive tendencies, you can make it serve society, instead of letting it force society to serve capitalism.
Skip trying to create competition entirely. make internet a local utility with heavy regulations. stop making laws (created by telcos) that bar cities from instituing their own connectivity.
and finally force the telcos to use the funds they recieved as part of the tax breaks for past decade or two to expand and improve service....you know, like they were supposed to with those funds, instead of just pocketing it, increasing their profits with money supplied by taxpayers.
no, the science is EXTREMELY clear. and you are an idiot, who repeatedly quotes non-experts and non-scientists or scientists who are not subject matter experts. reality DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE MODELS. the fact is that reality has continually proven the models right.
every single line of evidence, and we're talking about hundreds of different data sets, that scientists have thought to look at all say the same thing: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED AND IT IS GETTING WARMER.
It's like instead of listening to Einstein about relativity, or Hawking about black holes, you've chosen to go with Bob the janitor. Well I got news for you, Good Will Hunting was just a movie.
1) it's not unproven, it's proven by every dataset taken so far. Western antartica is decreased by warming, the west is increased, because of the shifted wather patterns of moisture over the continent. 2) No. Sea Ice does NOT come from freezong seawater. Sea ice comes from calving ice sheets, which is fresh water. if sea ice came from seawater the seas would form and experience similar dynamics as freezing lakes and rivers, with kernals of ice growing frm contact with the surrounding seas. That fact you could even state this shows how stupid you are. 3) You are apparently unaware that antarctica is the driest "desert" on the planet. No, it doesn't snow down there. precipitation is nearly nonexistant. The ice sheet is not in a constantly stay of replenishment; in fact, that's WHY the western sheet is disappearing and showing a dramatic decrease in mass. the ice sheets are ANCIENT. again: you are stupid and completely ignorant of basic facts concerning Antarctica. 4) it does not remain to be seen. You apparently missed the big press release a month ago, or so, about the western sheet losing mass at and even faster rate than expected. and again: it is NOT gaining land ice, it is gaining SEA ICE, which DOES NOT indicate cooling. it indicates the opposite, because of the source of sea ice.
i think you're confusing ground water with surface water. and even then you're not understanding the mechanics at play.
ground water comes from wells. its not filtered by soil, it's filtered by rock, because that's what it's "flowing" through, and is essentially several millenia old because that's how long it takes to "flow".
surface water is where most people water comes from. it's also not filtered by soil, because it's not going through the soil. its creeks and streams and rivers.
sewage isnt put into the ground. it's discharged into creeks, streams, and rivers. but its not raw sewage.
you know how the water is usually treated* before going to your tap? well, sewage is treated again before being released back into the river. it's filtered, flocced, settled, skimmed, and chlorinated, such that it's nearly identical to the body of water it came from and is going back into.
*usually, especially if you're downstream from another town/city; though some mountain cities and the like that get it straight fromt eh mountain don't treat theirs
same way they always have. first by force. then by tradition. otherwise known as "possession is 9/10's of the law".
the only reason we haven't (yet) seen it in Antarctica and the treaty there has yet been observed and maintained, is there hasnt yet been a big push to produce or obtain resources down there (it's bloody cold, and the resources are under a very thick layer of ice). just wait til they decide it's time to get the oil or other BigMoneyItem out of the gruond down there, and then see how long that treaty lasts.
the problem is thats not exactly what happened. this child was not continually observed and studied. the mother is apparently not only been bad (and im not passing judgement in saying that) about maintaining the treatment, but also about maintaining any contact or followup with the doctors who did the treatment.
its like walking in and out of a movie every few minutes for minutes at a time, and trying to figure out what happened while you wre out.
And saying "scientists" question it is an illegitimate statement. No one cares what a neurobiologist thinks of climate, and no one cares what a climatoligy thinks of nuerobiology. A non-expert is still a non-expert, even if he happens to be a scientist in some other field.
here's your options: --total freedom eventually leading to extinction --some very mild controls that will improve health, boost the economy, create jobs, and possibly prevent extinction as well.
You presently have the freedom to be ignorant and stupid. But that doesn't mean you should be or that it is desireable. And I could build a decent case that that freedom (to be stupid) should be stricken because of hte burden you then place on everyone else.
you do realize that humans didnt evolve to breathe CO2 at those levels, right? that when humans evolved CO2 levels were lower than today, let alone during the dinosaurs time? not to mention the fact that most plants alive today ALSO did not evolve to exist in such high CO2 levels? That such CO2 levels will cause dramatically higher temperatures and vastly different climatology, which will more than offset (ie: Kill the plants) any gains from higher CO2 levels? You also realize that CO2 is not "plant food" ? Plants use far more than just CO2? And plants are in general carbon nuetral, using and storing carbon while alive (in the form of growth), which then gets released back into the biosphere when they die?
Basic CO2 concentration guidelines:
The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized: normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm acceptable levels: below 600 ppm complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppm ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm general drowsiness: 1000 - 2500 ppm adverse health effects expected: 2500 - 5000 ppm maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 ppm
higher reliability, lower (or at least different) mechanical complexity. there are also various operational issues with the V22.
for one thing, its big. both in size and weight it is MUCH bigger and heavier than the CH46's it's replacing. The result is on board ship they can only carry 6 of them per embarked squadron, as opposed to the normal 8 of the 46's.
It's much more mechanically complex (engines rotate, the wing and rotors fold for storage), leading to additional maintenance time required.
due to the 2-abreast layout of the rotors, as ooposed to the tandem setup of the 46, it also takes up a LOT more room on the flightdeck, requiring additional clearance distance and reducing the number allowed on deck. it also means that while one rotor is over the deck and in "ground effect" the other is not. instead its hanging over the side and out of ground effect. this causes an unequal amount of lift and makes shipboard takeoff and landing much more difficult on the pilot, especially since the engines/rotors are crosslinked (each engine essentially drives both rotors) so you can't really decouple it in order to balance out the lift until sufficiently high enough above the deck
retreating blade stall is less of any issue on compound helicopters if they include a wing. the wing can push that barrier back further, and even offload the rotor entirely of lift responsibility. even the stub wings on the Cobra and Apache provide a measurable amount of offload. not a whole lot, but some.
The nice thing about dual-prop compound helicopter is instead of using a tail rotor to coutneract torque, one of the propellers basically takes its place, providing the same counter force (one will provide more power than the other), at least until sufficient forward speed is achieved for the vertical stabilizer (if present) to be able to take over under sufficient trim (though this will increase induced drag). the down side of course is retreating blade stall, though is you have dual props, you probably have stubwings, or even a full wing, which as said, can offload the rotor. the downside of this design of course, is increased mechanical complexity (gearboxes and drive shafts to run the the rotation out the stubwings to the propellors and turn it 90deg, and of course the gearboxes on each side can't be identical either; one will essentially be a 270deg gear box)
so going coaxial then solves THAT problem, and allows the dual props to both run at the same speed/rpm, which will either simplify engineering, or reduce pilot workload/requirements, depending on how the design approaches the problem.
the simpler design is coaxial + 1 prop. reduced mechanical complexity in that there's only one drive shaft to the single prop, which if located in the rear is a known design method because thats how "normal" helos do it anyway, yet even then its reduced complexity as theres no gear boxes required to turn the rotation 90degree, and no 45deg gearbox to run a short drive shaft up a vertical stabilizer (as in the Cobra/Huey).
but of course, coaxial rotors bring their own added mechanical complexities as well.
fact of the matter is, these are NOT relieving stresses that would prevent a larger quake. the stresses that cause big quakes are typically much deeper in the crust than the quakes triggered by fracking, and deeper than the fracking itself occurs at. in fact, these only serve to make a big quake more likely by removing the tectonic structures that have so far been holding the deeper forces in place.
Slashdot Mirror
lasers are pretty easy to deflect with reflective surfaces. or you could just vent a cloud of gas or vapor that will attenuate the beam (obviously you'd have only so many uses of this tactic, but essentially "chaff" for lasers). plus even though lasers are coherent, they still diffuse some over extreme distances, which amplifies the power requirement in order to actually concentrate enough energy to do damage. plus the laser source would ideallyneed to be space-borne itself, simply because having to go through the atmosphere will also sap a lot of its power, in which case the advantage goes to whoever's weapon is already up there.
as far as dodging, it wouldn't take much. it would be limited, true. but once a missle or kinetic weapon missed you, it would have a helluva time trying to re-orient; it'd likely be completely unable to unless it had a ton of extra fuel. now on the other hand, a slower speed interceptor or missile, could better handle a dodging target. but then, that gives the target more time to use its countermeasures, such as its own laser or missile to take out the incoming threat.
I think the new part here was being able to reach targets in geostationary orbits. We've long had the ability to take out the orbits closer to earth, but geostationary is typically 22,000+ miles out. I'm not sure if our weapons yet have the capability to reach those satellites.
addendum: http://www.iflscience.com/envi...
There isn't enough "renewable" to go around
B.S.
More solar energy lands on the planet in one hour than the entire world uses in a year.
As such the amount we actually need to capture and store is miniscule.
A solar array 158 miles square could power the ENTIRE WORLD.
We're talking 0.03% of the area of north africa.
Obviously it's more practical to spread the array out, to save on transmission cable...
and you REALLY need a smart grid for it to work most practically (our patchwork system is a mess)...
But even so, it's possible we could turn just one county in Arizona into a massive solar array, the US would be energy independent for all time.
We could spread arrays around the globe to provide continuous power at all times...or we could just make every home and building energy independent.
Point is the future of planetbound humanity is solar.
And that STILL leaves room for wind (a solar derivitive), tidal, etc. We could eliminate most hydropower, restoring river ecosystems.
Someday fusion may be practical...but it isn't yet (and no, the lack of funding doesn't help), and won't be for some time.
But solar is here. Today. Now.
We could do it, NOW
Point is, the notion that there isn't enough to go around, is pure stupidity.
Here.
Have a cookie.
what works for you may not work for others, as others may have reasons or other issues that preclude what works for you.
shortly, you cannot speak to everyones situation and to do so is extreme arrogance.
thus, this potential treatment is a huge boon to those people.
of all the plot devices and changes that have occured in the history of comic books, those paragons of serious literature, THIS is the one that people finally get upset over?
it's comic books. we've seen our heroes go through hell (literally in some cases) only to die when convenient. in fact we've seen HUNDREDS of heroes and villains die only to be resurected, replaced, cloned, imperonsated, have someone else adopt the mantle, etc. we've seen magic be manifested in science fiction based stories, or vice versa. we've seen absolutely ridiculous origin stories. weve seen gender swapping before, we've seen various orientations before. we've seen she-hulk created because "hey, wouldnt a female hulk who sleeps around be cool?". there's both a superwoman and supergirl. How many "Robins" are we up to now?
Come on. there are so many things we could talk about in terms of comic book story plotting, and character deveolopement, or anything else related to comic books that could be described as lazy, or pandering, or gratuious, or any other negative viewpoint that we frequently heare from non-comic book fans... ...BUT THIS IS THE ONE that you finally say is too far?
It's comic books.
Get over it and just enjoy the show.
this is the new tactic: don't like something? bar any funding frm being used for it.
They don't like global warming, so they passed a bill barring hte military from doing its job and making plans to study and deal with emerging security threats as a result of it...yes, Republicans directly harming national security over global warming, because of their corporate masters.
They don't like global warming, so they also passed a bill barring the Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Energy from doing its job and studying and pursuing projects designed to mitigate or deal with the effects of global warming, such as rising sea levels and changing weather patterns....yes, Republicans directly harming state and local economic activity, waterfront developement, reservoir planning, crop irrigation, etc, over global warming because of their corporate masters
there's many others.
And now we can add this to the list: They don't like net neutrality, they're passing a bill to block the FCC from doing it's job and fostering economic growth and development of the internet by maintaining a level playing field on open internet, in order to favor current already established interests....so yes, Republicans hurting economic growth and competition because of their corporate masters.
no, they arent the same thing, and "progressivism" is not an ideology, but an attribute, a direction of society, not a school of thought or system of government. "i dont see where progrssivism succeeded" ... because you've seen it so long you dont even see it any more.
reigning in the power of the king and granting the citizenry basic rights (Magna Carta): progressive
creating a nation under ideals of liberty: progressive
ending slavery: progressive
expanding the right to vote to women: progressive
reigning in corporate excesses, busting trusts, regulating banks: progressive
expanding the vote to minorities: progressive
creatign social safety net: progressive
creating rules to protect the water we drink and air we breathe: progressive
expanding equal rights to LGBT community? progressive
So where is progressivism working? Everywhere it's ever been done, currently that's most of Europe, and to a degree, in the US on some issues).
conservatism is by definition the holding back of society to maintain the status quo, and progressivism the opposite.
As such, both are constantly shifting political forces, and not political philosophies you can nail to a wall for all time.
further food for thought: both socialism(and its kin) and social democracy were created in responce to the excesses of rampant uncontrolled capitalism ("the gilded age"). the difference being social seeks to end it entirely by taking over control of it, while social democracy simply tries to reign in those excesses through regulation, polishing its sharp edges while still channeling its better qualities towards the service of society.
much like the famous quote concerning democracy, capitalism is a rotten system that is ultimately self-destructive....yet still better than the alternatives. so if you can control those excesses, and steer it away from its self-destructive tendencies, you can make it serve society, instead of letting it force society to serve capitalism.
russia as we came to know was about as "communist" as Texas.
the closest russia ever came to being truly communist was under Lenin.
Skip trying to create competition entirely.
make internet a local utility with heavy regulations.
stop making laws (created by telcos) that bar cities from instituing their own connectivity.
and finally force the telcos to use the funds they recieved as part of the tax breaks for past decade or two to expand and improve service....you know, like they were supposed to with those funds, instead of just pocketing it, increasing their profits with money supplied by taxpayers.
no, the science is EXTREMELY clear.
and you are an idiot, who repeatedly quotes non-experts and non-scientists or scientists who are not subject matter experts.
reality DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE MODELS. the fact is that reality has continually proven the models right.
every single line of evidence, and we're talking about hundreds of different data sets, that scientists have thought to look at all say the same thing: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED AND IT IS GETTING WARMER.
It's like instead of listening to Einstein about relativity, or Hawking about black holes, you've chosen to go with Bob the janitor.
Well I got news for you, Good Will Hunting was just a movie.
1) it's not unproven, it's proven by every dataset taken so far. Western antartica is decreased by warming, the west is increased, because of the shifted wather patterns of moisture over the continent.
2) No. Sea Ice does NOT come from freezong seawater. Sea ice comes from calving ice sheets, which is fresh water. if sea ice came from seawater the seas would form and experience similar dynamics as freezing lakes and rivers, with kernals of ice growing frm contact with the surrounding seas. That fact you could even state this shows how stupid you are.
3) You are apparently unaware that antarctica is the driest "desert" on the planet. No, it doesn't snow down there. precipitation is nearly nonexistant. The ice sheet is not in a constantly stay of replenishment; in fact, that's WHY the western sheet is disappearing and showing a dramatic decrease in mass. the ice sheets are ANCIENT. again: you are stupid and completely ignorant of basic facts concerning Antarctica.
4) it does not remain to be seen. You apparently missed the big press release a month ago, or so, about the western sheet losing mass at and even faster rate than expected. and again: it is NOT gaining land ice, it is gaining SEA ICE, which DOES NOT indicate cooling. it indicates the opposite, because of the source of sea ice.
Idiot, educate thyself, with actual science, from actual scientists: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
everything you said has been debunked by actual facts.
No, it is NOT true that temperatures have been essentially flat.
The sea ice is only a "rebound" because its being compared to the previous year which was THE LOWEST SEA ICE EVER RECORDED.
Thank you for the public service of displaying your ignorance, now go away.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
i think you're confusing ground water with surface water. and even then you're not understanding the mechanics at play.
ground water comes from wells. its not filtered by soil, it's filtered by rock, because that's what it's "flowing" through, and is essentially several millenia old because that's how long it takes to "flow".
surface water is where most people water comes from. it's also not filtered by soil, because it's not going through the soil. its creeks and streams and rivers.
sewage isnt put into the ground.
it's discharged into creeks, streams, and rivers. but its not raw sewage.
you know how the water is usually treated* before going to your tap?
well, sewage is treated again before being released back into the river.
it's filtered, flocced, settled, skimmed, and chlorinated, such that it's nearly identical to the body of water it came from and is going back into.
*usually, especially if you're downstream from another town/city; though some mountain cities and the like that get it straight fromt eh mountain don't treat theirs
I was going to go with the Aliens reference, but 5th Element works too.
Derek Smart and Battlecruiser 3000AD.
Now there's a fellow that brings back memories.
same way they always have.
first by force.
then by tradition.
otherwise known as "possession is 9/10's of the law".
the only reason we haven't (yet) seen it in Antarctica and the treaty there has yet been observed and maintained, is there hasnt yet been a big push to produce or obtain resources down there (it's bloody cold, and the resources are under a very thick layer of ice). just wait til they decide it's time to get the oil or other BigMoneyItem out of the gruond down there, and then see how long that treaty lasts.
the problem is thats not exactly what happened.
this child was not continually observed and studied.
the mother is apparently not only been bad (and im not passing judgement in saying that) about maintaining the treatment, but also about maintaining any contact or followup with the doctors who did the treatment.
its like walking in and out of a movie every few minutes for minutes at a time, and trying to figure out what happened while you wre out.
No. They havent.
And saying "scientists" question it is an illegitimate statement. No one cares what a neurobiologist thinks of climate, and no one cares what a climatoligy thinks of nuerobiology. A non-expert is still a non-expert, even if he happens to be a scientist in some other field.
No. It doesn't.
here's your options:
--total freedom eventually leading to extinction
--some very mild controls that will improve health, boost the economy, create jobs, and possibly prevent extinction as well.
You presently have the freedom to be ignorant and stupid.
But that doesn't mean you should be or that it is desireable.
And I could build a decent case that that freedom (to be stupid) should be stricken because of hte burden you then place on everyone else.
you do realize that humans didnt evolve to breathe CO2 at those levels, right? that when humans evolved CO2 levels were lower than today, let alone during the dinosaurs time? not to mention the fact that most plants alive today ALSO did not evolve to exist in such high CO2 levels? That such CO2 levels will cause dramatically higher temperatures and vastly different climatology, which will more than offset (ie: Kill the plants) any gains from higher CO2 levels? You also realize that CO2 is not "plant food" ? Plants use far more than just CO2? And plants are in general carbon nuetral, using and storing carbon while alive (in the form of growth), which then gets released back into the biosphere when they die?
Basic CO2 concentration guidelines:
The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized:
normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm
acceptable levels: below 600 ppm
complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppm
ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm
general drowsiness: 1000 - 2500 ppm
adverse health effects expected: 2500 - 5000 ppm
maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 ppm
higher reliability, lower (or at least different) mechanical complexity.
there are also various operational issues with the V22.
for one thing, its big. both in size and weight it is MUCH bigger and heavier than the CH46's it's replacing. The result is on board ship they can only carry 6 of them per embarked squadron, as opposed to the normal 8 of the 46's.
It's much more mechanically complex (engines rotate, the wing and rotors fold for storage), leading to additional maintenance time required.
due to the 2-abreast layout of the rotors, as ooposed to the tandem setup of the 46, it also takes up a LOT more room on the flightdeck, requiring additional clearance distance and reducing the number allowed on deck. it also means that while one rotor is over the deck and in "ground effect" the other is not. instead its hanging over the side and out of ground effect. this causes an unequal amount of lift and makes shipboard takeoff and landing much more difficult on the pilot, especially since the engines/rotors are crosslinked (each engine essentially drives both rotors) so you can't really decouple it in order to balance out the lift until sufficiently high enough above the deck
thre's more, but its break time for me.
retreating blade stall is less of any issue on compound helicopters if they include a wing. the wing can push that barrier back further, and even offload the rotor entirely of lift responsibility. even the stub wings on the Cobra and Apache provide a measurable amount of offload. not a whole lot, but some.
The nice thing about dual-prop compound helicopter is instead of using a tail rotor to coutneract torque, one of the propellers basically takes its place, providing the same counter force (one will provide more power than the other), at least until sufficient forward speed is achieved for the vertical stabilizer (if present) to be able to take over under sufficient trim (though this will increase induced drag). the down side of course is retreating blade stall, though is you have dual props, you probably have stubwings, or even a full wing, which as said, can offload the rotor. the downside of this design of course, is increased mechanical complexity (gearboxes and drive shafts to run the the rotation out the stubwings to the propellors and turn it 90deg, and of course the gearboxes on each side can't be identical either; one will essentially be a 270deg gear box)
so going coaxial then solves THAT problem, and allows the dual props to both run at the same speed/rpm, which will either simplify engineering, or reduce pilot workload/requirements, depending on how the design approaches the problem.
the simpler design is coaxial + 1 prop. reduced mechanical complexity in that there's only one drive shaft to the single prop, which if located in the rear is a known design method because thats how "normal" helos do it anyway, yet even then its reduced complexity as theres no gear boxes required to turn the rotation 90degree, and no 45deg gearbox to run a short drive shaft up a vertical stabilizer (as in the Cobra/Huey).
but of course, coaxial rotors bring their own added mechanical complexities as well.
fact of the matter is, these are NOT relieving stresses that would prevent a larger quake. the stresses that cause big quakes are typically much deeper in the crust than the quakes triggered by fracking, and deeper than the fracking itself occurs at. in fact, these only serve to make a big quake more likely by removing the tectonic structures that have so far been holding the deeper forces in place.
source: i study this crap for a living.