Sturgeon

Does Blue Origin know its rocket looks like a penis?

MiK-X Black Manta hypermaneuverable multi-role fighter:

Manned Hucklebee variant:

Hucklebee Mk. 2, Aesthetically Improved Edition:

Here at Mikerbian i Kerbevich, our marketing strategists told us that we should find out a way to sell more units, so we did. Introducing the new Hucklebee pilotless multipurpose suicide plane missile. This missile can be flown into any object you would like to not exist anymore, and packs enough extra fuel in the nose to cause a sizeable explosion:

Customer demands for "any avionics at all oh please god" have led to the MiK-17 Huckleberry-Dog: High-G maneuvers are no problem for the Huckleberry-Dog and its integrated spine-airbrakes. SPECIFICATIONS Mass (empty): 4.533 t Mass fuelled): 5.683 t Unit cost: K21,703 Max speed (sea level): Mach 2.0 Max speed (altitude): Mach 2.5 Climb rate: 687 m/s Max altitude (engine flameout): 30 000 m Max altitude (apogee): 43 000 m

The tailed delta Assegai-25 appears to be more maneuverable than its predecessor:

I have been informed that my design is something called "expensive". I don't know what that word means, but as a result I developed the MiK-17 Huckleberry, and its novel VTPPR design (Vertical Launch, Powered Parachute Recovery), facilitated by the design's single turbo-ramjet engine: Unit cost is K11,977 SPECIFICATIONS Mass (empty): 4.141 t Mass fuelled): 4.891 t Unit cost: K11,977 Max speed (sea level): Mach 2.0 Max speed (altitude): Mach 2.5 (Mach 3.8 achievable, but beyond airframe thermal capability) Climb rate: 1,130 m/s Max altitude (engine flameout): 30 000 m Max altitude (apogee): 43 000 m

Performing a long-endurance polar flight, from RATO.

I was on my phone before, and I would like to elaborate on what I mean and some specific examples. I will be mostly talking about tanks designed after Barbarossa, i.e. the Panther and Tiger II. I am not a tank expert, but I do think I can make a few inferences on German tank design based on what I do know. These inferences highlight discrepancies in the tanks' designs that could be indicative of special circumstances, but most likely are just yet another tally mark on the long sheet of Nazi industrial incompetencies. The first thing I feel is worth addressing is the armor layout of both tanks. I'll address the armor plates themselves later; right now I want to tackle the basic armor framework, the shape and form of the tank's hull and turret themselves. Before we begin, I want to make the distinction between what I'll call "Western tank design" and "Eastern tank design". The Eastern tank, exemplified by Soviet, and later Chinese design practices, emphasizes low resource use, low silhouette, inexpense, simplicity, and a high firepower-to-weight ratio. The Western tank, exemplified by American, German and British designs, in contrast emphasizes crew comfort and reduced crew fatigue, ease of daily maintenance tasks, good gun handling and sights, good mobility, and crew safety. This is not to say that Eastern or Western tank designs totally ignore everything that isn't on their respective list, nor that there aren't Eastern or Western tanks that each achieved exceptional characteristics in some area that is on the other's list, but in general these are the trends both types follow. I have set this up, because the Panther and Tiger II are both Western tank designs, and I don't think they can by adequately evaluated by only comparing them to Soviet designs. The Panther and Tiger II follow different design ethe than Soviet tanks, and so for the purposes of this post, I am not further comparing them to Soviet designs except to make very specific points. Whew, OK. So what does the combat experience of World War II say about the needs of the tank's layout, for the Western school? This can be answered with one example, the M48 Patton: The M48 is the ultimate immediate post-war Western tank design. It incorporates every lesson learned about armored warfare during that conflict, and its elliptical hull design (illustrated below via an M103 hull casting - this is very similar to an M48's hull, except it is longer) closely approaches the theoretical ideal hull shape for maximum protection from common threats with minimum weight. It is unfair to compare the Panther against the M48 in a practical sense; after all, the M48 was designed seven years after the Panther, with a whole body of analysis and material behind it that the Panther's designers were not afforded. It is useful, however, to compare the Panther to the M48 using the M48 as a theoretical ideal. In other words, the closer the a World War II design comes to the M48's hull and turret shape, the better it is. How does the Panther compare here? It's not terrible, but there are some curiosities. First, the sponsons. This feature is not unusual for tank designs of the period, but the Panther's are particularly large, with each sponson being about 22% the width of the tank, a figure greater even than the very wide-turreted Sherman tank. These add a considerable amount of mass to the tank, and Nazi-era German designers should have been able to determine that such large sponsons were unnecessarily increasing the weight of the tank. Granted, these sponsons support sides that are inwardly sloped at a generous 30 degrees, but what weapons does this additional slope help deter, that a somewhat thicker flat side could not also protect from? The only thing that comes to mind is Soviet anti-tank rifles, but even those would be thwarted by a 50mm plate at normal distances. Gun - neither 75 L/70 nor 88 L/71 were appropriate guns for the fighting in WWII Armor - the armor of neither tank played to their industrial strengths Armor layout - the armor layout of both tanks reflects only a crude understanding of both common threats and efficient design size and weight - both tanks did not accommodate German industrial requirements, i.e., they used shitloads of resources complexity - both tanks feature bizarre design practices that run counter to efficient mass production batch production - the germans never mastered the production line for AFV production, much to their detriment BORED NOW, TO BE CONTINUED

Two things immediately leap to mind as strong possibilities: One, their metallurgy was crap. Two, the Germans lacked any sort of analytical approach to both requirements creation and product design. The Germans routinely introduce materiel that is neither appropriately capable nor reflective of a deep understanding of the problems facing them. Their tank designs are excellent examples if this, especially the Panther. Do either the Panther or the Tiger II play to German manufacturing strengths, for example? We can only conclude that they do not, and I would especially highlight the armor plates used that were substantially thicker than their industry could successfully heat treat and mass produce. Simply, their requirements exist in some extra dimension, totally removed from the reality facing them.

Super-intercontinental. It can get to the next continent from the KSC on about a tenth of the internal fuel.

You're not seeing a dragon in it?

Last updated 4:46 AM CST 4/30/2015

CMP rifles are US surplus. Get into the CMP and get one before they're all gone. Avoid H&R manufactured ones, to get the highest quality rifle.

Recently, a scansoriopterygid dinosaur was discovered in China that had membranous bat-like wings. No, really. Yes, it really does look like a dragon (well, wyvern, maybe). Yes, the diversity of life is this awesome. Yes, this has proven that literally random chance will every time create something more interesting and amazing than the creators of Jurassic Park sequels can come up with. Meet Yi Qi: The only proper reaction:

Very sharp looking paint scheme. Are the old camo patterns not as good, or something? Because they look rad. More here and here.

Holy shitballs people, it's just a font.

Ugh. Reality needs to stop rewarding me for being a heartless evil right-winger.

This kind of stuff is what makes me always come back to InRange TV. The sort of shooting they do is sort of like marksman's HEMA, and I think it's hugely important to start the historical reconstruction as soon as possible. Two big thumbs up to them. (Oh, and trigger warning: Wehrabooery)

KF-105 Assegai: SPECIFICATIONS Mass (empty): 9.020 t Mass fuelled): 19.120 t Mass (empty, rocket assisted): 48.270 t Mass (fuelled, rocket assisted): 59.470 t Mass (maximum takeoff weight): 70+ tonnes w/ rocket assist Unit cost: 38,839 w/o rocket assist Max speed (sea level): Mach 2.05 Max speed (altitude): Mach 2.70 Climb rate: 422 m/s Max altitude (engine flameout): 30 000 m Max altitude (apogee): 43 000 m Max range: global The KF-105 Assegai is a STOL/RATO-assist multirole interceptor/reconnaissance/strike aircraft. It achieves true multirole capability through a combination of thick, high ratio delta wings, six automatic/manual airbrakes, and rocket assisted takeoff. The Assegai utilizes twin turbo-ramjet engines to achieve the high speeds necessary for strategic bombing and reconnaissance missions, while maintaining good short-field performance and a high mission rate. The Assegai's space-age stability augmentation improves the handling characteristics of the aircraft beyond what is possible through aerodynamic means alone, and allows it to perform advanced maneuvers like Pugachev's Cobra, as well as to flip 180 degrees and thrust against the direction of motion, quickly changing direction to meet tactical needs. The Assegai is also capable of using its external hardpoints as strategic heavy-lift assets, giving it true multi-role capability beyond what other airframes are capable of. Engine Start: Takeoff-to-zoom-climb-intercept: Booster separation. The boosters separate before burnout, to ensure the safety of the aircraft. The Assegai in a dive, reaching maximum speed. The airspeed of the Assegai is limited only by its structural integrity. The Assegai performing an unpowered Pugachev's Cobra maneuver at very high altitude. Cobra maneuvers are possible at all airspeeds and altitudes. The Assegai performing a short takeoff procedure: The Assegai performing a heavy-lift takeoff. Weight at takeoff is 79 tonnes. Required landing distance, full fuel load: Performing a strike mission with two 6.5 tonne multipurpose missile bodies. Low-altitude Pugachev's Cobra with 13t external ordnance. Note how the patented Flexi-Frame™ construction prevents structural damage during extreme maneuvers. The aircraft performed three such manuevers that flight, and landed safely. Taking off with two air-to-surface and two air-to-satellite missiles: With the Assegai, you can rain destruction upon your enemies, no matter how distant or peaceful they may be: Choose the Assegai, the only multirole fighter made in all nine pronvinces.

Virdea, you could use more conventional fins for 40mm grenades, I think. You might need something compatible with "long" 40mm rounds to accommodate the control surfaces, however. Recoillesses are fine and dandy, but heavy. We have a lot of good explosive projectors organic to the platoon; I think we want better organic explosive projectors in the squad, hence my suggestion for the GL.

If you think about it, the people most likely to hate gay men are other gay men.

This is something you'd normally see in a half-baked film plot:

I should think the best application of this would be to something that fired high explosive rounds. So maybe a cross between Tracking Point (sight), EXACTO (ammunition) and an M32 chassis.