Umm except it wasn't jsut boxes.. What was the fucking foundation made out of??

Anyways, I'd jump into boxes. Probably hurt less then jumping into water. It is simple physics you morons, deceleration over the distance. The boxes are just there to softly slow you down over 16 feet or something and then the final cushion is some foam padding. The only danger here is missing the pile which is REALLY fucking hard to do unless you jump way out. Just do some cliff diving and you'll have your targetting down to like 2 ft circle from a height of 30 feet.

If your vehicle unexpectedly accelerates - systematically open the door and jump - you can then continue to slowly decelerate while in the rolling position

>> ^nock:
Ummmm... I feel bad for the guy, but part of that newspaper article mentions "bilateral retinal hemorrhages" which is virtually pathognomonic for child abuse AKA shaken baby syndrome. This type of injury would be highly unusual for accidental trauma and my guess is that a pediatrician specializing in non-accidental trauma or a coroner testified as much during his trial. Retinal hemorrhage occurs with multiple rapid acceleration/deceleration events, not a single fall.


You have a linky?

Ummmm... I feel bad for the guy, but part of that newspaper article mentions "bilateral retinal hemorrhages" which is virtually pathognomonic for child abuse AKA shaken baby syndrome. This type of injury would be highly unusual for accidental trauma and my guess is that a pediatrician specializing in non-accidental trauma or a coroner testified as much during his trial. Retinal hemorrhage occurs with multiple rapid acceleration/deceleration events, not a single fall.

>> ^westy:
surly the faster you go the more you have to decelerate so say u got to mars in 30 days as aposed to 1 year you would have to spend ages going around its gravity feailds before u lost enough speed to safely enter the atmosphere. ethor that or you are going to have to waste a tun of fuel to brake.


Its quotes like this that show who has and who hasn't played a game from the Elite series.

go to
http://www.videosift.com/account
into "filters" and untick "Disable rapid comment listings".
In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
AAARAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!! LOAD MORE COMMENTS!?!??! WTF! DO NOT WANT!!!!!!!


I thought that I had read to the bottom of the thread and nobody had mentioned decelerating after the half-way point. Whose TERRIBLE idea was this "Load more comments"????? AARRRGH!


:ANGER:

AAARAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!! LOAD MORE COMMENTS!?!??! WTF! DO NOT WANT!!!!!!!


I thought that I had read to the bottom of the thread and nobody had mentioned decelerating after the half-way point. Whose TERRIBLE idea was this "Load more comments"????? AARRRGH!


:ANGER:

edit: well crap.. I guess a bunch more people already told you this stuff so Still angry.

It is SO awesome to me that this news report comes out a week after I read John Varley's Red Thunder, so I know a few of these figures....

>> ^westy:
surly the faster you go the more you have to decelerate so say u got to mars in 30 days as aposed to 1 year you would have to spend ages going around its gravity feailds before u lost enough speed to safely enter the atmosphere. ethor that or you are going to have to waste a tun of fuel to brake.

So in the novel the idea was that we don't use up all our fuel any more. He suggests that if you accelerate towards mars at 9.8m/s^2 then you will get half way there in only 4 days. If you accelerate at 1g for say four days and you end up travelling at around 3 million meters PER SECOND or 12 million km/h. That's fast enough to have relativistic effects. No wonder it only takes 4 days to get half way to Mars. At that point we will have travelled 58 million kilometres.

Now simply turn around, and fire your rocket in the other direction for the second half of the trip and decelerate at 9.8m/s^2 for four days. In 8 days you can travel 116 million kilometres. Wolfram Alpha says Mars is only 105 million kilometres away. Whut whut!

8 days to Mars! That's MAD! This video says 39 days. ALSO MAD! Very exciting stuff.

For any rocket with constant acceleration, the fastest way to get somwhere is to accelerate for half the journey, turn around, and then decelerate for the second half.

>> ^westy:
surly the faster you go the more you have to decelerate

Yes, but instead of moving lots of mass slowly, plasma rockets move very little mass very,very fast. The effect being that you can accelerate to the half way point, pull a 180, and decel the rest of the way, and set yourself cleanly into orbit, at a small fraction of the fuel mass than it takes to get the shuttle into orbit.

That's all without taking into account that reducing the mass per newton means you have to send less mass to begin with, which makes the fuel use even more efficient.

Forget cold fusion, hot fusion will take us to the stars.

>> ^westy:
surly the faster you go the more you have to decelerate so say u got to mars in 30 days as aposed to 1 year you would have to spend ages going around its gravity feailds before u lost enough speed to safely enter the atmosphere. ethor that or you are going to have to waste a tun of fuel to brake.


Yeah, too bad we don't have thousands of people and billions of dollars to figure out problems like that.

Might as well give up everyone! The naked guy with head-phones says its a dumb idea!

surly the faster you go the more you have to decelerate so say u got to mars in 30 days as aposed to 1 year you would have to spend ages going around its gravity feailds before u lost enough speed to safely enter the atmosphere. ethor that or you are going to have to waste a tun of fuel to brake.

Interesting tidbit:
Dr. Stapp's research on the decelerator had profound implications for both civilian and military aviation. For instance, the backward-facing seat concept, which was known previously, was given great impetus by the officer's crash research program, which proved beyond a doubt that this position was the safest for aircraft passengers and required little harness support, and that a human can withstand much greater deceleration than in the forward position.[7][Need quotation on talk to verify] As a result, many Military Air Transport Service (MATS) aircraft in USAF were equipped or retrofitted with this type of seat. Commercial airlines were made aware of these findings, but still use mostly forward-facing seats. The British Royal Air Force also installed it on many of their military transport aircraft.

Something like this has actually been ridden by a human, though it "only" went 1000km/h and decelerated at over 40G.
http://videosift.com/video/Human-G-force-testing-on-a-1000km-h-rocket-sled

>> ^cheesemoo:
That's probably neglecting friction. With air/rail friction, you wouldn't quite make it to the other side.

You could counter this by creating a vacuum in the tunnel and levitating the craft on magnetic rails. But it is still just an interesting mathematical idea. It could never be done unless some hyper advanced technology comes along. No drill can withstand the temperatures and pressures down there, let alone a tunnel.

A better idea is to make an above ground (or slightly below ground) vacuum tunnel with maglev trains. In this scenario the craft could keep accelerating until it reaches the midpoint where is will have to start decelerating. Depending on the G forces the occupants find acceptable, you could go faster than the 42 minute scenario. It would also be very energy efficient because there are only slight losses to air friction (a perfect vacuum is impossible) and maintaining the vacuum. Most of the energy expended in accelerating can be recovered in the deceleration phase.