beerandt

8 ms·

61.
by beerandt 2y ago
Not knowing your altimeter is connected to your transponder, and that you provide the altitude along with your squawk to the atc screens is a pretty glaring wtf.
62.
by beerandt 2y ago
Yea they don't really define stampede, let alone the subsidence/ threshold to break-off. That's not a simple rule. Is it traffic, weight, vibrations? An absolute threshold for decrease, or just a rate drop? Which made me thin
63.
by beerandt 2y ago
Yet you probably loved cash for clunkers.
64.
by beerandt 2y ago
Dozens. #1 most obvious atm is autostop. Starter gives you enough juice to enter the intersection, but engine sputters and you get tboned. Same for not providing enough acceleration/ hp. Also 1 pedal driving. Electric cars that outweig
65.
by beerandt 2y ago
If you regulate 'normal' cars into things people don't want to buy, don't be surprised if they want suvs or trucks instead.
66.
by beerandt 2y ago
Or don't try to regulate 'class 1' into something people don't want to buy. And FYI those trucks are bigger because you need more volume and moment-arm when building them out of lighter aluminum instead of heavier steel-
67.
by beerandt 2y ago
Decades of focusing on safety are being unwound because of ~decade plus (so far) focus on efficiency and environmental regulation. You can't maximize both.
68.
by beerandt 2y ago
It's a pretty good example with the difference being energy to retrieve vs energy to refine. Even with/if there's a 'flood the market' eventuality, you'd have approx multiple generations for the market to grow
69.
by beerandt 2y ago
I'm opposite- it's actually one of my 'judge-a-place' items- I'll get one as a general proxy for the quality of the place. It's good if done well, easy to screw up, but enough flexibility to make it unique if y
70.
by beerandt 2y ago
Dead reckoning isn't really the right term- there are broadcast and published ephemera (ephemeris-es) for the satellites of various qualities. (Both predicted and observed and then even levels of correction days or weeks later, for hig
71.
by beerandt 2y ago
Yes but measuring diffs in either the pseudocode itself or the underlying carrier wave is basically measuring relative velocities wrt each sat and the observer. It's all summing dx/dt + dy/dt + dz/dt, for i paths between
72.
by beerandt 2y ago
Yes I was speaking to the historically overblown concern of fuel and oxidizer tank corrosion, which yes, does not even apply to minuteman or solid fuels. Should have prefaced that response with a big IFF/WHEN old liquid rockets.
73.
by beerandt 2y ago
How do you think the 'instantaneous time-of-flight' computation is done? There's a lot of math that phrase is hiding. It's not a magic black box. It just often seems that way.
74.
by beerandt 2y ago
It was organized primarily via wargame scenarios, such that one target group comprised targets for a given scenario. Simplified launch orders via the football, etc. One group scenario might have been silo coordinates for an offensive first-
75.
by beerandt 2y ago
How different is it than a standard 811 utility-locate call? Actual change in procedure? Or just extra cheek-clinching?
76.
by beerandt 2y ago
Thanks- edited/added. Multiple search engines still pointed to the stale link. When there's as much secrecy by obscurity as I've seen re: the topic, my tinfoil hat always assumes the worst.
77.
by beerandt 2y ago
There are separated chemicals, the hypergolic means no ignition source required. Which to his point would be even more scary, but just isn't the actual real world risk with the way the things were designed. Plus hypergolics are usually
78.
by beerandt 2y ago
I said it downthread, but GPS is even more absurd. And we take it for granted. But it's based on the same idea, only getting position as a derivative of velocity. (And some borderline-magic statistics applied.) And that's before t
79.
by beerandt 2y ago
Even as someone who's actually done the math that video is trying to explain(in an actual class covering missile geodesy), it's still so absurd. But honestly only about half as crazy as GPS would sound if you tried to put it in si
80.
by beerandt 2y ago
The tangent on manipulating Titanium in order to prepare it for the beam was more interesting to me, and IMHO sounds like a much more practical and potentially useful bit of knowledge coming from this. Titanium is a pita to work with. But a
81.
by beerandt 2y ago
You can go do the rabbit hole of risk scenarios, but you still end up with a list that will look something like (made-up) 100 days of supplies will get me through 80% of the list, and 250 days will get me through 95% of it. If you want to g
82.
by beerandt 2y ago
These make for great entertaining/ filtering threads though. Obvious who knows probability and who's a PE, plus various levels of self-awareness. Otherwise intelligent ppl taking terms at face value that are actually terms-of-art
83.
by beerandt 2y ago
It's plenty, because 30yrs is usually the rule of thumb for enough, and extreme events are more likely to be recorded even in the absence of/before there were regular record intervals. There are well established probability distri
84.
by beerandt 2y ago
It's not 'adjusting how you call the storm'. It's the engineer defining his design criteria (the 'design-storm'), based-on and benchmarked-to local historical data, including recurrent intervals. The wall doesn
85.
by beerandt 2y ago
Historical data only. Rule of thumb is usually 30 yrs minimum of records/data from usgs/ nws or similar weather stations. But it's often less. Then it's just a probability eqn, and there are various rules for making adju
86.
by beerandt 2y ago
It is based on only historical data, by definition. It cannot be 'outdated and unreliable' (due to future expectations), because that's not how it's defined. And it's not how engineering design processes work. (Goog
87.
by beerandt 2y ago
You're on the right track, but your framing is still off wrt how the engineering design process works. Assuming that designing for a 500-yr storm has anything to do with 'predicting what a 'future 500-yr storm' (or 25-yr
88.
by beerandt 2y ago
You are misunderstanding the engineering language in a term-of-art way. 1 in 500 year storm is a one-year probability of 1/500, based on now. There is no implied or expected future change that needs to be considered. That's alread
89.
by beerandt 2y ago
I've designed similar structures locally. Earthen, steel, and RC. There isn't a single reason for RC, but the biggest reason is that our local soil sucks and good soil to make 'well-engineered' earth structures is a limi
90.
by beerandt 2y ago
>Then there's the case of "we think we finally hit bedrock...but what if it's just a big boulder?" Doesn't matter. There's two types of pile support: noncohesive and cohesive. Which can be thought of as end

More ›