* Posts by Tempest8008

110 posts • joined 30 Aug 2010


Vulture 2 trigger triggers serious head-scratching


There was a comment earlier that requires reiteration.

Two balloons, one above the other.

The top balloon is for primary lift and is inflated to the appropriate degree. A pressure sensor in that balloon is set to detect a rapid DROP in pressure and when detected to trigger the launch.

The bottom balloon is filled to only 75% of the amount the top balloon is filled to. It should NOT burst at the same time as the main balloon, but should provide enough lift to stabilize the platform during launch.

So, the top balloon bursts, triggering the launch of LOHAN.

The platform is kept stable and in the appropriate attitude by the second balloon.

The launch platform will continue to rise until the second balloon bursts.

The advantages of this system:

1. A simple, physical switch to effect the launch of LOHAN.

2. No need to measure altitude. The launch will occur at the maximum altitude a single balloon system would have achieved.

3. Actual altitude of launch can be inferred from the on-board cameras after the payload is retrieved.


1. Two balloons. SPB wasn't really hot on two balloons.

2. Twice the labour required to hold down the balloons during launch, e.g twice the beer.

3. How will a balloon filled to less than its maximum behave? Will it still continue to rise and burst?

LOHAN starts to feel the barometric pressure


We have two scenarios.

1. The launch occurs at a predetermined altitude.

2. The launch occurs at balloon burst.

I know the SPB does not want to rely on a launch-at-balloon-burst scenario. Too much chance of an unstable launch platform.

But what happens if there is only the altitude sensor, but the balloon bursts before the pre-set altitude is reached?

I'm thinking two switches might be in order, or at least some logic in the altitude sensing system that will put some willy up LOHAN if a rapid accelerating descent is sensed.

If two switches, then have one inside the balloon that is a pressure sensor, and when a rapid drop in pressure is sensed it will attempt to fire the rocket; the other sensor would be the altitude sensor with the pre-set ready to fire when the desired height is reached.

Some effort to effect a launch if the pre-set altitude is NOT reached should be investigated.



This thing is CGI'd up the wazoo.

Cute, but like a boob job FAKE FAKE FAKE.

LOHAN ideas..


I'm still concerned about the single launch shaft.

During ascent if the wind buffeting is heavy enough it could cause the wings to smash into the teflon-coated girders and cause some significant damage.

Any thought of extending the teflon strips down until they are just standing off the wing surface? That should minimize the chance of wing damage due to buffeting. You wouldn't want them constantly touching the wing due to the chance of freezing, but a small ( 0.5") gap should give the chance for the wings to move still, freeing them up from any potential stickiness, but reducing the overall roll movement so as to prevent damage.

<b>SPACE</b> the final frontier


The main problem I think a lot of people would have is the whole "steering a ruddy huge rock into orbit".

Who's steering?

Who has control?

How is it being aimed?

And, of course, the lawyers will ask:

Can you be 100% sure that no software failure, no hardware failure, or no other, unknown failure will cause your asteroid to lose control and smash into the Earth, killing (potentially) billions?

The answer to which has to be "No. Nothing like that can be guaranteed 100%."

Which is the reason we're never going to get decent sized nuclear reactors into orbit. Because there's a CHANCE that the rocket could fail, and the resultant crash could spread nuclear fuel over the face of the planet.

Fear, more than anything, is working to keep humans Earthbound.

So, what IS the worst film ever made?


My vote for Worst Movie: Highlander II

Followed closely by Wing Commander.

Followed even more closely by Congo.

There are probably other, worse films, but these three always make the top of my list because of what A FUCKING DISAPPOINTMENT they were.

Highlander II: Let's just ignore EVERYTHING from the first (really good) movie and make them aliens! WooHoo!

Wing Commander: Let's take a storied, well-thought out game and, again, ignore everything that made it good and replace it with concentrated crap. Nononono, MORE concentrated than that!

Congo: What's that rolling freely down the stairs? Let me pick it up. ZOMG, suddenly my ENTIRE ARM is covered in gore and blood, and I look at it, and it's an EYE. (okay, scream now) ARRRGH!

LOHAN to straddle meaty titanium rod


Handling characteristics

The sintered design is going to include the rod guides?

Or they are going to be add-ons to the sintered body?

They just smack to me of "little bits that can break off".

It seems to me that if you're dead set on the single rod, that a hole piercing the long axis of LOHAN (that the rod would fit through) would be more secure and not require specially added guides. It just means you'd have to jigger around with the payload, as the launch tube would be going right through where all the fun stuff will want to sit.

Now, if the design of LOHAN is still somewhat open, why not let her take TWO shafts!

Include ellipsoid holes through the wing structure that shafts penetrate, but sit relatively loosely in.

Would prevent the craft torquing during the ascent phase, hold her steady during launch, not run the risk of freezing (as any motion of the aircraft would "rattle" the shafts in their mounts) and give the opportunity for more puns.

LOHAN fondles substantial concrete buttocks

Thumb Up


Limiter Of Potentially (Probably?) Explosive Zone

What should a sci-fi spaceship REALLY look like?


Space 1999 anyone?

The Eagle spacecraft seemed to me to be both functional and practical. I liked the exposed superstructure that allowed multiple add-on modules to be quickly bolted on. There was a central cargo hold, manoeuvring thrusters at each cardinal point and several different marques for different missions.

In case you're looking for a pic:


VW to eliminate worst road hazard: drivers

Thumb Down

Shared cars? Ewwww

So what about the drunken bastard who had the car before me and spewed all over the interior? Or even just the smelly bugger with BO that would strangle a horse?

What about wanting a secure place for your golf clubs or the stuff in your glove compartment? Your CD collection (okay, fine, your MP3 player)?

What kind of wait time can you expect before a car comes available? Right now if I want my car I go out and get in MY car and drive off. Hell, that's why I don't ride the bus! I'm not going to wait around 10m or more in a Canadian winter waiting for my car to show up.

And then there's one matter that I do not think is going to go away.


How can I be responsible for an accident if I was not driving? Are you going to suggest the CAR MANUFACTURER is going to take responsibility? Not bloody likely.

There is only one circumstance I could see this working.

In a large urban core and the replacement of the taxi. You already deal with vomit, BO, no security for your belongings and as a true fleet the company that owns them would probably be willing to buy insurance for them as long as they didn't have to pay drivers.

CALL CENTRE TAXI DRIVERS!! A streaming video link from a remote site to the cab in question, so you still have a person to talk to, ask where the nearest bar is, recommend a hooker and all that good stuff. And the best thing is, if it's outsourced no one will be able to tell the difference!


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019