OSHA IV: NO SAFETY - SMOKING FIRST - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > OSHA IV: NO SAFETY - SMOKING FIRST

«‹›2569 »

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

C.M. Kruger posted:

or the time Lockheed tried to make a Arsenal Gear in the 1960s.

I'm pretty sure I've shot this thing down in Ace Combat.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 00:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:00

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

The biggest issue with nuclear jet engines was the weight of the shielding required to keep the crew cancer free. There's a couple prototypes on display somewhere and they're not any bigger than normal jet engines.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 00:16

priznat: Jul 7, 2009; Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

Moo the cow posted:

Somebody who knows this poo poo, please do the maths on the length of runaway required to allow that thing to take off, fully laden with fuel supplies.

It�s not even so much the length but the width!! :quagmire:

# ? Oct 1, 2020 00:17

Mozi: Apr 4, 2004; Forms change so fast
Time is moving past
Memory is smoke
Gonna get wider when I die; Nap Ghost

Azathoth posted:

The biggest issue with nuclear jet engines was the weight of the shielding required to keep the crew cancer free. There's a couple prototypes on display somewhere and they're not any bigger than normal jet engines.

so you're saying the smart thing to do is use AI to fly our nuclear jets

# ? Oct 1, 2020 00:21

MRC48B: Apr 2, 2012

Azathoth posted:

The biggest issue with nuclear jet engines was the weight of the shielding required to keep the crew cancer free. There's a couple prototypes on display somewhere and they're not any bigger than normal jet engines.

the ANP testbeds are actually quite large.

They are in Idaho, at the national lab there.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 00:22

Log082: Nov 8, 2008

The various attempts at building a suitable reactor for a jet turbine are a wild story just by themselves. I don't have my books to go into all the detail, but the short version is that stripping a nuclear reactor down to bare essentials, removing unnecessary things like "shielding" and 'liquid coolant," doesn't really work.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 00:33

Cojawfee: May 31, 2006; I think the US is dumb for not using Celsius

I guess it doesn't matter if you put troop seating right next to the reactor since they'll probably die pretty quickly in whatever kind of war needs that plane.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 00:55

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

MRC48B posted:

the ANP testbeds are actually quite large.

They are in Idaho, at the national lab there.

I swear I had seen some more compact ones, but some googling has come up empty. Thanks for setting me straight.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 01:14

Kibayasu: Mar 28, 2010

Cythereal posted:

I'm pretty sure I've shot this thing down in Ace Combat.

It�s called the Arsenal Bird, easy mistake to make. https://youtu.be/e5xP48qwno0 0:52

# ? Oct 1, 2020 01:15

Coxswain Balls: Jun 4, 2001

https://youtu.be/ThGcKwwFlaQ

# ? Oct 1, 2020 01:30

shame on an IGA: Apr 8, 2005

Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:

Turn your farmland into a Superfund site with this one easy trick!

Much less concerned about fuel spillage than the risk of a Skydrol leak, that poo poo is the goddamn devil

# ? Oct 1, 2020 01:33

Manzoon: Oct 12, 2005; ALPHASTRIKE!!!

Cojawfee posted:

I guess it doesn't matter if you put troop seating right next to the reactor since they'll probably die pretty quickly in whatever kind of war needs that plane.

The idea was to have them loitering for long times in the air, ready to drop bombs when they got the call. Think an air equivalent of nuclear subs that are isolated for long periods of time. Of course they'd also be irradiating huge swaths of whatever country they're flying over.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 01:50

HelloIAmYourHeart: Dec 29, 2008; Fallen Rib

Ror posted:

I immediately scrolled to the modern day section and learned something I don't think I ever heard before.

quote:

The pilots chose their impact spots in order to minimize the debris field on the ground. A plane with no nose and no tail would likely fall straight out of the sky, its forward momentum halted, Penney said.

�The people on Flight 93 were heroes, but they were going to die no matter what," she said. "My concern was how do I minimize collateral damage on the ground."

As it turned out, Sasseville and Penney never intercepted Flight 93. The passengers of that doomed plane made sure they didn't have to.

Chilling.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44459345/ns/us_news-9_11_ten_years_later/t/kamikaze-f--pilots-planned-ram-flight/#.X3UqGe1OmjI

# ? Oct 1, 2020 02:02

madeintaipei: Jul 13, 2012

Kibayasu posted:

It’s called the Arsenal Bird, easy mistake to make. https://youtu.be/e5xP48qwno0 0:52

Ehhh, more like the Aigaion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkEwd0zOTts

# ? Oct 1, 2020 02:05

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Manzoon posted:

The idea was to have them loitering for long times in the air, ready to drop bombs when they got the call. Think an air equivalent of nuclear subs that are isolated for long periods of time. Of course they'd also be irradiating huge swaths of whatever country they're flying over.

That was Project Pluto which did use a direct exposed reactor, the other nuclear Jet Engines just exchanged heat and the coolant loop exchanged the heat rather than the reactor.

NERVA kinda works on the same principle as Pluto's nuclear ramjet but it heats a fuel rather than air, being in a vacuum and all

# ? Oct 1, 2020 03:12

BombermanX: Jan 13, 2011; I'm afraid of other people's opinions when they differ from my own. Please do not hurt my feelings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIlCxj3-LhU

# ? Oct 1, 2020 03:39

LifeSunDeath: Jan 4, 2007; still gay rights and smoke weed every day

Why not just keep em open all the time, let em breath?

# ? Oct 1, 2020 03:43

The Lone Badger: Sep 24, 2007

Moo the cow posted:

Somebody who knows this poo poo, please do the maths on the length of runaway required to allow that thing to take off, fully laden with fuel supplies.

If you never land then you never have to take off. Pickup cargo by fulton, drop it via parachute.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 03:47

Bad Munki: Nov 4, 2008; We're all mad here.

The Lone Badger posted:

If you never land then you never have to take off.

So just, like, build it in flight, then? Maybe live-birthed from another, bigger aircraft?

# ? Oct 1, 2020 03:53

Piss Meridian: Mar 25, 2020; by Pragmatica

Bad Munki posted:

So just, like, build it in flight, then? Maybe live-birthed from another, bigger aircraft?

External rocket boosters that detach after take off

# ? Oct 1, 2020 04:08

Memento: Aug 25, 2009; Bleak Gremlin

LifeSunDeath posted:

Why not just keep em open all the time, let em breath?

It's nice to have something around them when they blow up.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 04:14

-Zydeco-: Nov 12, 2007

Military OSHA

Cartoon Man posted:

https://i.imgur.com/61bNoAV.gifv

I hope those are blanks...

# ? Oct 1, 2020 04:42

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Azathoth posted:

The biggest issue with nuclear jet engines was the weight of the shielding required to keep the crew cancer free. There's a couple prototypes on display somewhere and they're not any bigger than normal jet engines.

That wasn't the biggest issue, that was doable on an aircraft the size of the B-36.

A bigger issue is that you can't cover the entire reactor with shielding, so while the crew is safe(ish), *nobody else is*. The ground crew sure isn't: upon landing, it would taxi over a big pit and lower the reactor into it, at which point the aircraft could be approached closely enough to hook up a tow line and pull it away.

CommieGIR posted:

That was Project Pluto which did use a direct exposed reactor, the other nuclear Jet Engines just exchanged heat and the coolant loop exchanged the heat rather than the reactor.

The P&W design was indirect, the but the system GE was developing for the B-36 program (the HTRE experiments) were direct-cycle. Basically a J47 turbojet with the reactor core standing in for the combustion stage of the engine: air came off the compressor stage, through the reactor core, back out to the engine and out the back. Engines would be started with regular fuel, then you'd start the reactor, and as more reactor heat was being sent through the engine you'd start closing the fuel valve until you were operating solely on the heat from the reactor.

An engine with enough thrust to get something like a B-36 off the ground was never developed, though; the program was canceled before they got to that point. All of that stuff was obsoleted by ICBMs which turned out to be not as difficult to develop as was expected when all the other crazy poo poo like Pluto was conceived.

Bonus fun: The primary shielding assembly for the HTRE-3 test stand was 24 metric tons of mercury.

More bonus fun: Technical report regarding an unrequested fission surplus on HTRE-3. Also goes into a bit of the reactor/engine design.

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4643464-summary-report-htre-nuclear-excursion

"Examination of the reactor indicates that all of the fuel cartridges experienced melting in the middle stages. The amount of heat required to produce such melting is consistent with the total energy release of 770 megawatt-seconds as measured by an indium foil attached to the reactor."

Phanatic fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Oct 1, 2020

# ? Oct 1, 2020 04:43

Mr. Fall Down Terror: Jan 24, 2018; by Fluffdaddy

-Zydeco- posted:

Military OSHA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyFovGe-jSA

# ? Oct 1, 2020 05:59

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012; ERM... Actually I have stellar scores on the surveys, and every year students tell me that my classes are the best ones they’ve ever taken.

Moo the cow posted:

Somebody who knows this poo poo, please do the maths on the length of runaway required to allow that thing to take off, fully laden with fuel supplies.

I assume you'd have to use strap-on rocket boosters. And it would still only be able to take off from the dry lake at Edwards

# ? Oct 1, 2020 06:09

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

luxury handset posted:

oh no, combat aircraft have been deliberately flying into each other since they were invented

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_ramming

I know but I was talking about F-35's specifically and how to rid the skies of them. They may be able to dodge missile locks but try dodging a Hercules! :killdozer:

# ? Oct 1, 2020 07:20

Batterypowered7: Aug 8, 2009; The mist that chills you keeps me warm.

Nenonen posted:

I know but I was talking about F-35's specifically and how to rid the skies of them. They may be able to dodge missile locks but try dodging a Hercules!

Don't you just need a little bit of rain to rid the skies of the F-35? Do they still have that bug where they just stop delivering oxygen to the pilot?

# ? Oct 1, 2020 08:03

8one6: May 20, 2012; When in doubt, err on the side of Awesome!

Don't they have to repaint them after every mission?

# ? Oct 1, 2020 08:04

deoju: Jul 11, 2004; All the pieces matter.; Nap Ghost

We were posting about Adam Savage a little while ago... Another one of my favorite youtubers, Jimmy DiResta can be pretty OSHA too. This week he made knife with a weird quick-release holster thingy. There's a hole in the knife, and here he is milling a brass peg to fit it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yHPEY3HtVI&t=446s
:stare:

Edit: In case it isn't clear, he sticks a knife on a spining shaft to check the fit.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 08:48

WarpedNaba: Feb 8, 2012; Being social makes me swell!

I thought F-35s were a shitshow from draft to production line?

Then again, I'm basing it on that little tale where one disintegrates after flying through a cloud and the other loses a wing on a gentle banking turn.

"... far in the distance, a beaver roared."

# ? Oct 1, 2020 09:00

Octavion: Apr 5, 2009

Cythereal posted:

I'm pretty sure I've shot this thing down in Ace Combat.

The US was trying to make Ace Combat 7 in the 1970s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drnxZlS9gyw

# ? Oct 1, 2020 09:35

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

WarpedNaba posted:

I thought F-35s were a shitshow from draft to production line?

Then again, I'm basing it on that little tale where one disintegrates after flying through a cloud and the other loses a wing on a gentle banking turn.

"... far in the distance, a beaver roared."

Yeah but it's probably not much worse than any other fighter before it, especially once you consider the different roles it's supposed to fulfill. You could pick a random model and it's likely to have had tons of issues early on too.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 09:38

Vindolanda: Feb 13, 2012; It's just like him too, y'know?

WarpedNaba posted:

I thought F-35s were a shitshow from draft to production line?

Then again, I'm basing it on that little tale where one disintegrates after flying through a cloud and the other loses a wing on a gentle banking turn.

"... far in the distance, a beaver roared."

That�s what total war means. The entirety of US war industry, including the whole of the F-35 design and production team, is dedicated to the complete destruction of the F-35.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 09:41

aphid_licker: Jan 7, 2009

This guy doinks a shelf with his forklift and the entire warehouse collapses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CFTIOQCqTc

Did they gently caress up building or loading the shelves here or are warehouses basically accepted to be ticking timebombs?

# ? Oct 1, 2020 12:09

Moo the cow: Apr 30, 2020

aphid_licker posted:

This guy doinks a shelf with his forklift and the entire warehouse collapses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CFTIOQCqTc

Did they gently caress up building or loading the shelves here or are warehouses basically accepted to be ticking timebombs?

Overloading flimsy racking.

You should be able to hit one of them at a fair speed with a forklift and only bend the support column.
If you went full-on kamikaze, you could take down a single column, but that shouldn't pull down the rest in the same aisle.

If one aisle falling takes down the one next to it, then the whole place was a single sneeze away from collapsing, without the forklift.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 12:31

Memento: Aug 25, 2009; Bleak Gremlin

aphid_licker posted:

Did they gently caress up building or loading the shelves here or are warehouses basically accepted to be ticking timebombs?

Due to the former, it can be and generally is both.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 12:36

Thomamelas: Mar 11, 2009

WarpedNaba posted:

I thought F-35s were a shitshow from draft to production line?

Then again, I'm basing it on that little tale where one disintegrates after flying through a cloud and the other loses a wing on a gentle banking turn.

"... far in the distance, a beaver roared."

I'm not sure where you got those stories. There was some concern about potential sensor damage, and damage to the paint if an aircraft spent a long period being super sonic. It's more of an issue with the B and C variants. Those two have limits on how long you can be supersonic. The A doesn't. The program had a lot of issues, some of it comes from designing 3 airplanes to kinda be 1. It also got saddled with a new parts and logistics system that is it's own poo poo show. The A seems to be turning out okay. The B/C have issues but probably will get most of those worked out. So you get a good airplane out of a shitshow of design.

And some of the critics are...fuckwits. Like Pierre Sprey. Sprey tends to bill himself as the father of the F-16. What that means is he wrote the RFP that basically said "We want a fast fighter that's 90% engine." and sent that out for tender. He's still pissed off that his precious F-16 was ruined by adding radar. Because radar sets add weight. Now he's a record producer who also sells high end audiophile poo poo. So when he speaks, check for your wallet. Other critics have more reasonable complaints.

# ? Oct 1, 2020 13:05