I pulled a number out of thin air. It had to be a bad one, eh?
But about dust, if you had the mass equivalent of a moderate asteroid in dust, I'm not sure it all would burn up in the atmosphere. And if it did, how much heat would that transfer to the earth ( as a system ). I don't know that the difference would be appreciable by us.
"after all blowing up an projectile doesn't significantly change it's trajectory"
Or it's mass/kinetic energy. That is what bothers me about some of the "Asteroid about to hit Earth" movies. 10^32 grams of rock or 10^32 grams of dust, probably not going to make a large difference in the damage below.
In my previous post, I believe I clarified that I did mean command of LEO militarily, and I wrote it because it seemed to me that some confused the leadership of the Soviet Union with flower in their hair peaceniks who would never hurt a fly. Given that mindset, I didn't see it as a tautology.
"plant the Hammer and Sickle flag on the surface that will enslave the world in Communism"
Command of space ( not necessarily the moon, but earth orbit for certain ) would be a huge strategic and tactical advantage. If the Soviet Union had managed LEO or the moon, do you think they would have not used it?
Finland, 1939 Poland, 1939 China, 1941, 1945 Support for NKorea, 1950 Hungary, 1956 Support for NVietnam, 1961 Czechoslovakia, 1968 Afghanistan, 1979 One can argue Crimea, 2014, but that isnt "Soviet Union".
"But those developments were still the result of commercial companies"
At least with respect to WWII, commercial companies produced the aircraft, but it was military and government leaders seeing a possible need for more advanced aircraft that lead to the advancements. With the possible exception of the B-17, industry was asked for the advancements, mainly to meet what the Germans ( and English ) were doing ( what the Japanese had managed came as a sharp surprise )
This will never happen: "Your patent has been rejected, we ( the patent review company ) already have a patent on that." "PS: we will have our eye on you..."
You are absolutely right. It is not OK to fire rockets and dig tunnels. It is also not OK to blockade, to build settlements in disputed areas in order to attempt to assert ownership ( argue for it, build only when it is yours ). I'm not saying one is equivalent to another, but look at the full picture. The above activities are seen as aggressive by the other side. While I am on my soapbox, I think that a nation built on terrorist actions ought to be a bit less ready to pull out the terrorist label. I think a country that had to fight for nationhood should be more understanding of the desire for nationhood.
I have a Samsung Stratosphere because I like the keyboard. I cant run certain apps fully ( Lync and Evernote ) as it is a limited phone and the darn thing is slow ( and gets slower ). And lately, it just turns itself off. No warning, just off. And I am the second level support person where I work.
You have a good point, no aircraft can excel at every mission. And I agree with the premise that they really need to make 2 or three aircraft out of this one. ( funny, the FB-11 is a great example of aircraft in trouble, but it did give up the air combat role and became an OK attack aircraft ( with the F-14 rising from that process to become the fighter ) ).
I think they need to use the F-22 as fighter and let the F-35 be strike/attack. And keep the A-10. Or develop a similar aircraft. ( maybe a V-22 variant ). What they really should have considered was creating a naval air superiority aircraft that the Navy and Air force could share ( Navalizing Air force aircraft does not see to work well, but the F-4 seemed to work out OK, coming the other way ) Made the F-35 a strike aircraft, either with VTOL, or if not, developing a VTOL aircraft for the marines ( V-22 isnt fast enough ).
No. I have just seen all the turmoil on other planes as they are developed. The V-22 is a example. I am also, as a software developer, really used to hearing "nothing works!", "it's terrible" as an app is developed. It may well be that the F-35 isn't a suitable plane. I just think we are gong to need something like it in the not too distant future.
I hear what you are saying, but I dont think that Libya is a good example. Libya looks a lot like Vietnam, and I think things will/have progressed from there in a fight with a "real" adversary ( China, Russia, et al ). ( and now I know why I pulled in Wild Weasels, they would go in before the strike to kill the fixed air defense ( ground to air stuff ) ).
The F-35 is an attack aircraft. It will be dropping bombs. So, going in with all the aircraft you need to fulfill that mission, plus jammers means that you have given the enemy a heads up that you are coming. Yo u might knock back the ground to air stuff, but if they have fighters, those will be launched. You want to avoid that if possible.
And Iraq was not a great example of what a fight with a real contender will be like. They had all kinds of ground to air, but no effective air to air ( numbers, training, moral ). We wont be in that fight against a real adversary ( praying we wont, but... )
You don't plan around what happened in the past. You learn lessons from it ( hopefully ).
In designing any new aircraft, you have to look at what it's adversaries might be. And plan around that, the numbers likely to be deployed, logistical factors.
Factor in what has happened in the Ukraine, and how that could have gone. If the Russians had decided to occupy, what would they have used, and what would the Ukrainians have wanted to oppose that ? ( modern aircraft, in part, strike for the Russians, air defense/air superiority for the Ukrainians )
There is conflict in Syria. My recollection is that Assad has been using aircraft on his people, and that is part of what keep him from being overthrown.
What did the Iraqis want from us when ISIS/ISIL/ started taking territory. Aircraft. For us to use our aircraft to assist them in driving them out.
China is being increasingly belligerent ( I'm sure they see it as taking their place in the sun, but where have we heard that before ), especially in the South China Seas with Japan, the Philippians, and Vietnam ( at least ) ( recent news includes the articles about the oil rigs China has placed near Vietnam, and the Naval issue that have proceeded. They are attempting to jump start their military ( and commercial ) aircraft industry.
Conflict appears to be getting smaller. Yes. But the threat of conflict is still there. And the capability on the part of other nations is still there.
Imagine America destroys all it's aircraft, naval vessels and disbands the army after destroying all it's weapons. What happens next? I would predict that our borders with Canada and Mexico would change, at minimum. I'm not sure if Russian or China have the logistical capability to move in such a scenario, but then, America's moves in Afghanistan surprised the snot out of me. ( not the absolute power, but the ability to project it so far away.
We cant disarm, as appealing as that sounds. We cant even stop looking at what comes next, as that becomes disarming, in effect, after a period of time.
Disclosure, I am fairly liberal, Christian, opposed to war, use too many parenthesis and commas.
Slashdot Mirror
"And the government, who are ostensibly supposed to protect us from the kind of abuses you're talking about, was a party to it."
In what way is the government party to this?
I pulled a number out of thin air. It had to be a bad one, eh?
But about dust, if you had the mass equivalent of a moderate asteroid in dust, I'm not sure it all would burn up in the atmosphere.
And if it did, how much heat would that transfer to the earth ( as a system ). I don't know that the difference would be appreciable by us.
"after all blowing up an projectile doesn't significantly change it's trajectory"
Or it's mass/kinetic energy.
That is what bothers me about some of the "Asteroid about to hit Earth" movies.
10^32 grams of rock or 10^32 grams of dust, probably not going to make a large difference in the damage below.
I would think it obvious I did not mean that.
In my previous post, I believe I clarified that I did mean command of LEO militarily, and I wrote it because it seemed to me that some confused the leadership of the Soviet Union with flower in their hair peaceniks who would never hurt a fly. Given that mindset, I didn't see it as a tautology.
Is it that confusing? Command of LEO. Enough to militarily deny other access to LEO.
Meant to moderate insightful, fat fingered it, so I am just removing that moderation.
"plant the Hammer and Sickle flag on the surface that will enslave the world in Communism"
Command of space ( not necessarily the moon, but earth orbit for certain ) would be a huge strategic and tactical advantage.
If the Soviet Union had managed LEO or the moon, do you think they would have not used it?
Finland, 1939
Poland, 1939
China, 1941, 1945
Support for NKorea, 1950
Hungary, 1956
Support for NVietnam, 1961
Czechoslovakia, 1968
Afghanistan, 1979
One can argue Crimea, 2014, but that isnt "Soviet Union".
"But those developments were still the result of commercial companies"
At least with respect to WWII, commercial companies produced the aircraft, but it was military and government leaders seeing a possible need for more advanced aircraft that lead to the advancements. With the possible exception of the B-17, industry was asked for the advancements, mainly to meet what the Germans ( and English ) were doing ( what the Japanese had managed came as a sharp surprise )
Privatize? Really?
This will never happen:
"Your patent has been rejected, we ( the patent review company ) already have a patent on that."
"PS: we will have our eye on you..."
If I were a serial killer I would not want others to know about it.
They would put me in prison or kill me, an undesirable outcome.
You clearly either know or suspect.
You are part of "others".
You are capable or telling others.
I should silence you.
Killing you would be a very effective way to silence you.
If I were a serial killer I would be capable of causing your death
I am not a serial killer, or you would be dead.
QED.
The "old white haired ghost in the sky" never told anyone to destroy the earth and everything in it.
Ezekiel 34:19
Psalm 24:1
Removing incorrect moderation
Menachem Begin, an Israeli Prime Minister, was a known terrorist. He was responsible for 91 deaths in the King David Hotel event alone.
You are absolutely right. It is not OK to fire rockets and dig tunnels.
It is also not OK to blockade, to build settlements in disputed areas in order to attempt to assert ownership ( argue for it, build only when it is yours ).
I'm not saying one is equivalent to another, but look at the full picture. The above activities are seen as aggressive by the other side.
While I am on my soapbox, I think that a nation built on terrorist actions ought to be a bit less ready to pull out the terrorist label.
I think a country that had to fight for nationhood should be more understanding of the desire for nationhood.
I think you have indirectly made the point that corporations should have no input ( speech or money ) into politics.
Thank you!
I have a Samsung Stratosphere because I like the keyboard. I cant run certain apps fully ( Lync and Evernote ) as it is a limited phone and the darn thing is slow ( and gets slower ).
And lately, it just turns itself off. No warning, just off. And I am the second level support person where I work.
I had no idea about these.
My understanding is that they are supposed to know enough about what they are looking for to say what it is.
Is it how evidence works in every case?
and the persons or things to be seized.
from what I have read, they do not specify the person or things to be seized except "everything".
In my mind, "No Check".
Replying to remove moderation error.
I think you are exactly right.
You have a good point, no aircraft can excel at every mission.
And I agree with the premise that they really need to make 2 or three aircraft out of this one.
( funny, the FB-11 is a great example of aircraft in trouble, but it did give up the air combat role and became an OK attack aircraft ( with the F-14 rising from that process to become the fighter ) ).
I think they need to use the F-22 as fighter and let the F-35 be strike/attack. And keep the A-10. Or develop a similar aircraft. ( maybe a V-22 variant ).
What they really should have considered was creating a naval air superiority aircraft that the Navy and Air force could share ( Navalizing Air force aircraft does not see to work well, but the F-4 seemed to work out OK, coming the other way ) Made the F-35 a strike aircraft, either with VTOL, or if not, developing a VTOL aircraft for the marines ( V-22 isnt fast enough ).
Fox "Doesn't matter if it's true" "news"?
No. I have just seen all the turmoil on other planes as they are developed. The V-22 is a example.
I am also, as a software developer, really used to hearing "nothing works!", "it's terrible" as an app is developed.
It may well be that the F-35 isn't a suitable plane. I just think we are gong to need something like it in the not too distant future.
I hear what you are saying, but I dont think that Libya is a good example.
Libya looks a lot like Vietnam, and I think things will/have progressed from there in a fight with a "real" adversary ( China, Russia, et al ).
( and now I know why I pulled in Wild Weasels, they would go in before the strike to kill the fixed air defense ( ground to air stuff ) ).
The F-35 is an attack aircraft. It will be dropping bombs. So, going in with all the aircraft you need to fulfill that mission, plus jammers means that you have given the enemy a heads up that you are coming.
Yo u might knock back the ground to air stuff, but if they have fighters, those will be launched. You want to avoid that if possible.
And Iraq was not a great example of what a fight with a real contender will be like. They had all kinds of ground to air, but no effective air to air ( numbers, training, moral ). We wont be in that fight against a real adversary ( praying we wont, but... )
You don't plan around what happened in the past. You learn lessons from it ( hopefully ).
In designing any new aircraft, you have to look at what it's adversaries might be.
And plan around that, the numbers likely to be deployed, logistical factors.
Factor in what has happened in the Ukraine, and how that could have gone.
If the Russians had decided to occupy, what would they have used, and what would the Ukrainians have wanted to oppose that ?
( modern aircraft, in part, strike for the Russians, air defense/air superiority for the Ukrainians )
There is conflict in Syria. My recollection is that Assad has been using aircraft on his people, and that is part of what keep him from being overthrown.
What did the Iraqis want from us when ISIS/ISIL/ started taking territory.
Aircraft. For us to use our aircraft to assist them in driving them out.
China is being increasingly belligerent ( I'm sure they see it as taking their place in the sun, but where have we heard that before ), especially in the South China Seas with Japan, the Philippians, and Vietnam ( at least )
( recent news includes the articles about the oil rigs China has placed near Vietnam, and the Naval issue that have proceeded.
They are attempting to jump start their military ( and commercial ) aircraft industry.
Conflict appears to be getting smaller. Yes. But the threat of conflict is still there. And the capability on the part of other nations is still there.
Imagine America destroys all it's aircraft, naval vessels and disbands the army after destroying all it's weapons.
What happens next?
I would predict that our borders with Canada and Mexico would change, at minimum.
I'm not sure if Russian or China have the logistical capability to move in such a scenario, but then, America's moves in Afghanistan surprised the snot out of me. ( not the absolute power, but the ability to project it so far away.
We cant disarm, as appealing as that sounds. We cant even stop looking at what comes next, as that becomes disarming, in effect, after a period of time.
Disclosure, I am fairly liberal, Christian, opposed to war, use too many parenthesis and commas.
I have not heard from the marketing department much. :-)
I do follow news about the aircraft and have formed my own opinion.