Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT December 1-5, 2014 (2845-2849)
Natswash:
--- Quote from: Indicible on 03 Dec 2014, 22:22 ---If Hanners is on her Juicy's case, her revenge will be... interesting. It should give a new meaning to the name "cleaner".
--- End quote ---
Like turning on a shower knob marked "Old Faithful"
osaka:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 03 Dec 2014, 23:18 ---Meanwhile, I think that it's cute how dependent Hanners is on her ability to just 'drop in' on Marten and Faye. It's pretty clear that, on a certain level, she already sees them as being part of the same household with different mailing addresses.
--- End quote ---
That brought up problems in the past, and it would probably be no different in the future.
I must say, at some point I've had Hanners' idea on my mind as well. Living alone in an apartment gets awfully boring sometimes, and it's not cool when you start talking to your umbrella.
But back to topic, while you might see it as an overreaction, I think it's completely ok. One should take care of their goddamn laundry themselves. No excuse for that.
snubnose:
--- Quote from: katsmeat on 03 Dec 2014, 17:45 --- I once did a back-of the envelope calculation for orbital bombardment
--- End quote ---
The other poster didnt claim that the kinetic energy ACTUALLY would be that high.
Also, yes, except for really massive objects, all objects falling from space onto earth are slowed down very substantly by the atmosphere and wont hit with more than terminal velocity. Which, however, for a tungsten rod that is massive and aerodynamic could still be quite some speed.
BenRG:
Based on this strip, I'm not expecting a change of location for Hannelore. She's worse with change than Marten! I'd go so far as to say that it could cause a breakdown!
ZoeB:
--- Quote from: Indicible on 03 Dec 2014, 22:22 ---@katsmeat
Yep, that was a Me 109.
--- End quote ---
Bf 109, please. A G model from the looks of it, G-10 perhaps?
As for dropped rocks/tungsten rods - it takes energy to de-orbit. If you're in a Molniya orbit, only a bit to make the eccentricity a little higher so the perigee intersects the Earth's surface, but you can't get more energy out than you put in. If you're in a circular orbit, "dropping" means it just stays where it is, in orbit. Accelerate, it goes higher, decelerate, it goes lower.
Molniya orbit
If at apogee (the high part) just a tiny deceleration is enough to increase eccentricity so you get lithobraking. However you enter the atmosphere at a shallow angle, and may burn up or even skip, depending on aerodynamics.
Anyway, as has been pointed out, you can't get a 10 megaton bang out without expending a >10 megaton amount of energy to put it up there. Not quite true, you can play games with orbits, sucking energy off the Earth or Lunar rotation, slowing them down by a smidgen, and increasing your energy a lot... but that takes fancy footwork, probably going to Venus and back a few times, and many years. The kind of thing you only do on long range interplanetary missions.
When it comes to space weaponry, the go-to site is Project Rho's Atomic Rockets.
Rick Robinson's First Law of Space Combat
An object impacting at 3 km/sec delivers kinetic energy equal to its mass in TNT.
3km/sec is the velocity of an object falling for 300 secs in a constant 1g field in a vacuum (just about). 90000 metres, just on the edge of space. But to double the velocity - so get a yield of 4kg of TNT per kg of mass - you'd need 600 secs of falling - 360,000 metres. Low Earth Orbit. And so on.
Taking things to extremes, 454 kt is the yield of 1 gram at 99.9% c. So a 1kg mass at 99.9C gives 454 Mt.
Sources:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunexotic.php
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version