the
yet.
down
ground
useless
is
Insufficiently balanced input. Select more for sources that disagree with your nominal thoughts. I read Al Jazeera some for example.
=20
=20
Not all the good stuff has been published. And no, i only get occasional oblique references to some interesting stuff. Plus there is a LOT of sour grapes in the kvetching. Clear enough yet?
ISS.
experiments
other
also
=20
=20
=20
due
didn't
constraints.
two
away
make a
Not that you ever did or (most likely) ever will see. The paper trail has been intentionally obfuscated to protect the guilty. But i did (once) get to overhear to my dad talking with some of the people who were on the scene (they could not they say much while physically at the workplace, this was elsewhere). Very unpretty.
=20
Planet engines pulsate in sidereal time If you listen close you can hear the whine
-- Bruce Cockburn
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
No. Why don't you do your own research and get back to me? In any case, that doesn't change the fact that you're AlwaysWrong again.
Weak attempt to move the goal posts noted.
Likely followed by a section 8 shortly there after.
Very few does not equal zero, does it?
Since you were the one who was (Always)Wrong, that was a bit of a PKB.
Escape velocity from a loose collection of mass a km in diameter is going to be very low. You're the math whiz, so figure it out. Gravity is a pretty weak force. The gravitational atraction between two bowling balls almost in contact is very difficult to measure. You could literally disassemble some aggregate asteroids by hand, tossing rocks away at more than escape velocity.
And what are you going to do about rotation? Most of these things are spinning.
There are lots of problems associated with attaching a rocket to an asteroid. A serious one is the requirement to match velocities first. A nuke just needs to fly past and get within a few hundred meters for a few microseconds.
John
e
m the
of
tept
Duct tape Lots and lots of duct tape.
Spare the duct tape and spoil the job.
Sidereal force is what makes grumpy astronomers get out of bed at all hours.
-- John Larkin
is
I think you have the distance wrong. A few km may be more like it. You only need to apply enough to the material to boil off some on the one side. In space there is nothing much to take the energy away besides boiling off material.
But you're starting with roughly a million times more energy if you use a nuke. You can afford a lot of inefficiency and still come out way, way ahead.
And you don't have to waste time and fuel matching the velocity of the target, which could well result in your intersecting its path months sooner.
John
That doesn't follow.
Air resistance doesn't have a velocity threshold.
Hold it in place?
No. Air is just like a brick wall at those velocities. That is why flesh can be literally ripped apart by blast shock waves.
This is so even with conventional explosives.
Besides, with a nuke, the pressure front is going to be the same level atmosphere or not
Then it's even easier.
John
Nice to know that your stupid mentality about the military comes from having watched MASH.
You're an idiot.
You are the ditzy little bitch that claims that they were proliferant.
Post examples of them, liar.
Then you're an idiot.
ce
ma
s.
he
ult, and
why
lReally? Vacuum compresses?
Sure. Just put some in a bag and squeeze it.
John
A mass of one billionth (the grain of sand)that of the suspended object (the four foot ball) it is hitting is not going to see ANY difference between being hit while suspended in a vacuum or suspension in sea level air.
The grain of sand is going to provide the same force in both cases, and the ball is going to react the same in both cases.
Most of them are more solid in nature than you think.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required