Your video, Ken Block 1967-2023 Onboard Highlights, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 334 Badge!

50 mile delivery radius (over flat terrain)
80mph max, 63mph cruise
4lb payload. I doubt there’s onboard cooling, but cool insulated boxes would be fine for maximum 45minute deliveries
Yes, weather is a factor…that’s why they’re setting up their own weather monitoring for higher resolution on local weather to fly around smaller systems and ground for big storms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipline_(drone_delivery)

That has to be a pre-determined flight path flown by the onboard computer. Flying that back at yourself manually could end up with dead person(s).

You're absolutely right, my comment should have targeted the live launch, sorry.
Still, that covers about 20 (shaky cam) seconds of the launch before they switch to an animation (!) of the launch.
Which brings me back to my original gripe: The Ariane 5 is an old vehicle which doesn't have onboard cameras. Private rocket launch companies have eclipsed it. And I think The European Space Agency is not keeping up.
As to cameras on the JWST itself, it looks like they didn't attach any for a reason: https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-no-cameras-reason
Didn't know that...

I believe the train engine is built to withstand a crash like this one, meaning it will not explode or come apart in large heavy pieces. Also it is a passenger train. To apply full braking could cause more injuries for the passengers onboard.

I also think any passengers in a stuck vehicle on the tracks will more times than not have plenty of time to abandon the vehicle before impact. An 8-car passenger train moving at 80 miles an hour needs about a mile to stop.

If an engineer sees that a bridge up ahead is out, he would probably apply full braking and deal with the injuries to passengers rather than risk deaths.

That's my uneducated reasoning and I'm sticking to it.

I'm onboard!

Hope you actually take that onboard.

I'm onboard as i've already voiced my concern with this account with the powers that be. *ban for self linking

If I'm a person onboard the ship, I'd be like: "Yes! Target practice, baby!"

Seriously, it's only (dubiously) effective at pitch dark, the ship got no patrols/guards doing the rounds or they're all deaf?

The Ford computer (named for Hannibal Ford, of Ford Instruments--which itself apparently became part of the Sperry Rand company)---was a marvel.

It was the gunnery computer until the 1970s aboard USN ships---when computers took over.
And apparently, remained the main battery computer (augmented by drone spotting?) onboard the battleships...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_Fire_Control_Computer

Thanks for this footage.

Your video, Onboard Bruna Tomaselli: Alex Baron crash in St Petersburg, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Pretty much. The cool thing is it's logic is all onboard. It has to learn and optimize the route by itself.

...from what I understand. I'm not a good source of info about it.

Cool. I'm onboard. I know to chuckle now. Thanks.

A big part of the Zero's reputation came from racking up kills in China against a lot of second-rate planes with poorly-trained pilots. After all, there was a reason that the Republic of China hired the American Volunteer Group to help out during the Second Sino-Japanese War – Chinese pilots had a hard time cutting it.

The Wildcat was deficient in many ways versus the Zero, but it still had superior firepower via ammo loadout. The Zero carried very few 20mm rounds, most of it's ammo was 7.7mm. There are records of Japanese pilots unloading all their 7.7mm ammo on a Wildcat and it was still flyable. On the flip side, the Wildcat had an ample supply of .50 cal.

Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa was able to score seven kills against Japanese planes in one day with a Wildcat.

Yes, the discovery of the Akutan Zero helped the United States beat this plane. But MilitaryFactory.com notes that the Hellcat's first flight was on June 26, 1942 – three weeks after the raid on Dutch Harbor that lead to the fateful crash-landing of the Mitsubishi A6M flown by Tadayoshi Koga.

Marine Captain Kenneth Walsh described how he knew to roll to the right at high speed to lose a Zero on his tail. Walsh would end World War II with 17 kills. The Zero also had trouble in dives, thanks to a bad carburetor.

We were behind in technology for many reasons, but once the Hellcat started replacing the Wildcat, the Japanese Air Superiority was over. Even if they had maintained a lead in technology, as Russia showed in WW2, quantity has a quality all of it's own. We were always going to be able to field more pilots and planes than Japan would be able to.

As far as Soviet rockets, once we were stunned by the launch of Sputnik, we kicked into high gear. You can say what you will of reliability, consistency, and dependability, but exactly how many manned Soviet missions landed on the moon and returned? Other than Buran, which was almost a copy of our Space Shuttle, how many shuttles did the USSR field?

The Soviets did build some things that were very sophisticated and were, for a while, better than what we could field. The Mig-31 is a great example. We briefly lagged behind but have a much superior air capability now. The only advantages the Mig and Sukhoi have is speed, they can fire all their missiles and flee. If they are engaged however, they will lose if pilots are equally skilled.

As @newtboy has said, I am sure that Russia and China are working on military advancements, but the technology simply doesn't exist to make a Hypersonic missile possible at this point.

China is fielding a man portable rifle that can inflict pain, not kill, and there is no hard evidence that it works.

There is no proof that the Chinese have figured out the technology for an operational rail gun on land, let alone the sea. We also have created successful railguns, the problem is POWERING them repeatedly, especially onboard a ship. If they figured out a power source that will pull it off, then it is possible, but there is no concrete proof other than a photo of a weapon attached to a ship. Our experts are guessing they might have it functional by 2025, might...

China has shown that long range QEEC is possible. It has been around but they created the first one capable of doing it from space. The problem is, they had to jury rig it. Photons, or light, can only go through about 100 kilometers of optic fiber before getting too dim to reliably carry data. As a result, the signal needs to be relayed by a node, which decrypts and re-encrypts the data before passing it on. This process makes the nodes susceptible to hacking. There are 32 of these nodes for the Beijing-Shanghai quantum link alone.

The main issue with warfare today is that it really doesn't matter unless the battle is between one of the big 3. Which means that ANY action could provoke Nuclear conflict. Is Russia going to hypersonic missile one of our carriers without Nukes become an option on the table as a retaliation? Is China going to railgun a ship and risk nuclear war?

Hell no, no more than we would expect to blow up some major Russian or Chinese piece of military hardware without severe escalation! Which means we can create all the technological terrors we like, because we WON'T use them unless they somehow provide us a defense against nuclear annihilation.

So just like China and Russia steal stuff from us to build military hardware to counter ours, if they create something that is significantly better, we will began trying to duplicate it. The only thing which would screw this system to hell is if one of us actually did begin developing a successful counter measure to nukes. If that happens, both of the other nations are quite likely to threaten IMMEDIATE thermonuclear war to prevent that country from developing enough of the counter measures to break the tie.