Um, well, if that's your only complaint . . Wings can actually be useful for a ship that does both atmosphere and space flight. Like the shuttle. It has wings. And it's a space ship . . . of sorts.

Let's see . . . Lasers. Yeah, we've already had lasers debunked as a weapon in space. Unless there's some breakthrough later on. But, that said, it wouldn't be visible as there's no atmosphere to reflect it back to us. It would be traveling at the speed of light.

Explosions would be limited to the amount of oxygen in the ship being destroyed. They wouldn't create sonic waves or sound, or cause the nearby camera to rattle.

Ships wouldn't fly in arcs. That's atmosphere. In space, a ship can turn 180° and still be going the same direction. Babylon 5 is a good example of newtonian physics in action while in space.

Humans wouldn't be flying small ships. It'd kill us. Literally. Unless we have inertial dampeners like in Star Trek, making those turns and twists would destroy our bodies. Just ask a pilot.

Lastly, anyone advanced enough to do FTL and navigate massive star clusters with pinpoint precision who DOESN'T have a targeting system that can predict a ships movements and then fire a at speed of light weapon and destroy it, well, failed somewhere.

Not to mention, we'd use missiles that would self-destruct. Fire a physical projectile at near speed of light velocities and it not hit it target? Well, you may have just fired a bullet that would take out your space base in 1,000 years. It's be fruitless, require tons of energy and end up killing yourself with your own bullet.

But I'm glad we focused on wings. The only thing that has a real legitimate use in space travel.

Looks bad. Really I thought it was a fan made EVE trailer. Also it kind of breaks a rule of good design, SPACE ships have no need for wings. Unless you have your engines mounted on them or they are carrying massive weapons, it just makes you a bigger target and there is no atmosphere in space.

This seems like an inefficient way of landing considering how much it costs to take shit into space. I guess if you're going to the moon or an asteroid where there is no atmosphere it's the only way, but not for rockets putting things in earth orbit or space station resupply.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There's already a restaurant on the moon. Decent food but no atmosphere.


The Moon Wok?

There's already a restaurant on the moon. Decent food but no atmosphere.

This is gonna be long but please bare with me.

The pressure below the surface of any body of liquid is equal to the density of the liquid multiplied by the depth below the surface, multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity. The result is a quantity in pascals, or newtons per meter squared. To this number we add the pressure due to the atmosphere, 101325 pascals; the sum of the two is the pressure experienced by the koi.

The column of water is suspended by virtue of the vacuum that exists at the top of the column, ie. There is no atmospheric pressure pushing down on the column and hence you can 'support' up to 101325 pascals of water pressure within the column before water in the skyscraper would begin to displace water within the pond (this is how simple barometers work). Remember that the pond is under 101325 pascals of pressure, and that as long the pressure within the column is the same as outside there will be no net flow of water. For instance, the maximum possible height of the column would be 10.3 meters (101325/[9.8*1000]).

What all this means is that the water within the column is at a LOWER pressure (and getting increasingly lower towards the top) than the water within the rest of the pond; in a 10.3 meter column the pressure at the top would be 101325 pascals less than at the surface of the pond. So, if a fish looking for food or perhaps increased warmth were to come across the column and swim inside it they would find themselves at a lower pressure than they are designed for. Their air bladders would swell in the decreased pressure, this would in turn lower the density of the fish consequently increasing they're buoyancy forcing them higher into even lower pressure water, eventually trapping them at the top. As more fish find the tower, more fish are forced to the top where they begin to compete for the rapidly dwindling oxygen supply. Furthermore, freshly oxygenated water would not reach the top of the tower as the water flow would be severely limited through such a constriction. In the third clip you can see what MAY be the fish gasping for air.

In conclusion it seems likely that our German friend has succeeded in creating a fascinating death trap for his fish, and I'd bet that he got up the next morning to find that he had killed thousands of dollars worth of koi. This would also explain why we/I have never seen this design before. Of course, I am assuming that the fish lack the necessary muscle power to get themselves out of this situation, which they may well have, but the number of fish so close to one another seems odd to me. I would of thought that if they could easily get out of the column then they would, if simply to find a less crowded location.
Tl;dr IT'S A TRAP

EDIT: I guess I lost that bet as it would seem that the fish do have the necessary oomph to escape. Though I wish no ill will towards our fishy friends I would still be morbidly curious to see the effects of a ten meter tower.

And that is when we found oil on the moon, and the first lunar base was founded. I never asked myself did I mind if I worked making people down on the blue ball rich beyond comparison while I hacked out my life on a rock with no atmosphere. For I lived in a world where gravity wasn't so much a law, but a suggestion, a world unfiltered through the soup of my former pearls ozone layer. I was closer to the truth of were we came from, which I knew was way out there in the black somewhere; and I was closer than ever to touching it.

It rang for hours? With no atmosphere to carry the sound? Impressive!

RE: firing bullet up vs down. They will only have the same energy and therefore speed upon impact if there is no atmosphere to slow it down. Since the bullet fired up travels through much more atmosphere than the bullet fired down, its interaction with the air removes some of it's energy as heat, and it must have less energy upon impact. This is why things have terminal velocity. There's a point where they can't go any faster through the air due to gravity alone.

Don't really understand why this is so counter intuitive to some people, it makes perfect sense to me.

Although, if you fire the bullet with enough force then it may never reach the ground. Assuming you don't live on a infinite plane with no atmosphere and consistent gravity ofc.

Conditions on The Moon are much different than conditions on Mars. It's much closer, allowing instant communication, it has no atmosphere, so no weather and storms and it's about half the size of Mars.

Since the rovers there won't be on scientific missions, but only on surface-carving patrols, the rovers would be much lighter and less power-hungry, and could be a lot cheaper than a Mars rover, allowing the sending of several robots simultaneously to draw different parts of the image.

Since the moon has no real atmosphere, sunlight would be much brighter in daylight hours, allowing for quicker solar panel recharging.

I'm against it, by the way. I don't really want to look at the moon and see a McDonalds logo.

And still all those flaws made it awesome. You always were shitting your pants because dieing was a real bad thing in that game.
At level 1 I remember guiding my friend through toxxulia forest because his monitor sucked and he couldnt see shit.
And those trains were simply awesome. I had so many screenshots of killer trains.

A few months ago I played it again and its not the same anymore. Sure, the gameplay is still the same, mostly, but all the new stuff somehow took away the old feeling. I wish they would make a server where each expansion will unlock after 6 months or so so that it will take ages until all are unlocked. I would start all over again.

Anyway I doubt such an awesome game will be done again in the future. Since WoW was so successful being completely dumbed down(you dont lose anything when you die, no atmosphere, no trains, no nothing), its highly unlikely that a developer will go back to the roots and make it more complex and harder again.

The camera was oriented such that the left side of its field of view nearly included the track's vanishing point on the horizon. Thus (in a flat world, with no atmosphere, and an infinite resolution camera), you could be going 1 million miles per hour and you'd still be in the second shot.

If speed cameras always have this relative orientation with the roadway, your only hope would be to get far enough away by the second flash such that your license plate is unreadable (if that would even foil the system). It's hopeless to try and get out of frame entirely.

*beg. We all know that flags are not able to wave on the moon because there's no atmosphere!!!!1!

The 3 major arguments are..
1)No stars in the footage
2)Flag waving with no atmosphere
3)No blast crater under the lander.

Lets analyze that closely.
1)No stars in the footage because of the contrasting brightness of the moons surface and the short exposure time of the film camera.

2)The flag does move, but only after it was placed, and any material in micro gravity will hold its momentum for a long period especially with no atmospheric drag.

3)No blast crater under the lander is the most stupid thing i've ever heard. Ok at first, your mind goes hey wow there is a powerful rocket on the bottom of the lander. What you have to realise is the lander comes in very slowly, doing most of its deceleration before touchdown, which it ends up doing at about 1 foot per second.