›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

GeekNights 20110525 - Hajime no Ippo

MrPeriodMrPeriod
edited May 2011 in GeekNights

Tonight on GeekNights, we review the Hajime no Ippo (Fighting Sprit) anime (directed by Satoshi Nishimura, who you may remember for directing Trigun)! But first, Takashi Miike is supposedly directing the Phoenix Wright movie, The Big Apple Comic Con had some lackluster press, lost a minor guest due to alleged child pornography charges, and saw the expanding Earth swallow up some of Neal Adams original work.

Download MP3

Comments

  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    Guess I gotta finally watch this anime..
  • MattMatt
    Something I actually know about! (I work for the Navy).

    Rym, I know I messaged you on Twitter about it a little bit, but if you want to know more, the ship you posted a twitpic of yesterday was the LHD7, USS Iwo Jima, a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship. They're basically mini-carriers used by Marines that can support helicopters and harrier jets, while also dropping out amphibious landing craft from the aft door. From the angle you saw it, it does look just about as massive as a supercarrier. It's at least 80% as long. The carriers are just a little taller, yet almost 3x as wide, so they cover a hell of a lot more real estate.
  • ChurbaChurba
    edited May 2011
    For visual comparison, a Wasp-Cass ship -
    image

    And the USS Nimitz, a supercarrier, but what most people think of when they think "Aircraft carrier"
    image

    And finally, the USS Nimitz tied up next to the HMS Ark Royal, a ship of comparable size to the Wasp-Class ships, though it is 8 meters shorter, and 67 feet wider.
    image
    Post edited by Churba on
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    Does the super carrier still need thoes wire catchy things to catch a landing jet and slow it down or is it big enough?
  • AprecheApreche
    Does the super carrier still need thoes wire catchy things to catch a landing jet and slow it down or is it big enough?
    From what I have seen they all use wire catchy things.
  • theknoxinatortheknoxinator
    Does the super carrier still need thoes wire catchy things to catch a landing jet and slow it down or is it big enough?
    It still needs them cause the landing section is only where the runway is, which is not the full length of the ship. That extra space is used for storage or as a second launcher.
  • Zack PatateZack Patate
    Does the super carrier still need thoes wire catchy things to catch a landing jet and slow it down or is it big enough?
    That wire brake and start means they don't need to have such a long landing strip, which means they can pack more jets on the thing. So why wouldn't they use the same system on a super carrier?
  • ChurbaChurba
    edited May 2011
    Does the super carrier still need thoes wire catchy things to catch a landing jet and slow it down or is it big enough?
    Supercarriers tend to have Catapualt assisted launch and Arrested Recovery - the short version of which is "Yes, they do." All the US supercarriers are set up as such - Though, some other carriers do not use it, for example, the HMS Illustrious, which uses the STOVL system - Basically, only usable for aircraft with the ability to land vertically, and it looks like a short runway with a ski-jump looking bit at one end.
    That wire brake and start means they don't need to have such a long landing strip, which means they can pack more jets on the thing. So why wouldn't they use the same system on a super carrier?
    Nope! Most planes trying to land on such a short runway without an arrestor are going off the end of the carrier, either back into the sky, or straight in the drink. Note the lack of "Stopping on the carrier" there. That's where the Wire comes in.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • MattMatt
    Does the super carrier still need thoes wire catchy things to catch a landing jet and slow it down or is it big enough?
    From what I have seen they all use wire catchy things.
    The wire catchy things are called arresting gear cables, and yes they are still used to this day. The size of a carrier deck is still ridiculously small compared to a real runway. They actually stretch four of them across so that the pilot has better odds of hooking onto one of them. When they hit with all of that force, it's hydraulics slowing it down, but that is all switching to electromagnetic motor resistance on the new Ford-class carriers.
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    edited May 2011
    Magnets, how do they work?
    Post edited by KapitänTim on
  • MattMatt
    If you want to see something frightening, stand on a carrier deck when one of those arresting gear cables snaps. It does happen even though they are retired and refurbished before their expected lifetime is over (such numbers are always just averages). When it goes snap, if you are standing too close, a direct hit would slice you in half.
  • MattMatt
    Magnets, how do the work?
    I don't know. Ask the people who make them
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    I don't think they would cut you in half... Mythbusters proved that with bridge cables. It would fuck you up royally. But no bisection.
  • ChurbaChurba
    edited May 2011
    you are standing too close, a direct hit would slice you in half.
    Ironically, that video clip comes from the episode of Mythbusters where they disproved that a cable snapping could cut someone in half.
    //Shit, Ninja'ed by Tim. But that cable would undoubtedly fuck you up and probably kill you.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • MattMatt
    I don't think they would cut you in half... Mythbusters proved that with bridge cables. It would fuck you up royally. But no bisection.
    That Mythbusters test used 5/8" cable at 30,000 pounds of tension. Double that up and you've got bisection.
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    edited May 2011
    Pics or it didn't happen.
    lol troll.
    Post edited by KapitänTim on
  • MattMatt
    Pics or it didn't happen.
    lol troll.
    Well played!
  • ChurbaChurba
    That Mythbusters test used 5/8" cable at 30,000 pounds of tension. Double that up and you've got bisection.
    I doubt it. There's been accidents - I've been told - where this occurred, and there was no bisection. Arms, legs, so on, ripped off by the force of it, but no bisections of any reliable record.
  • Zack PatateZack Patate
    Nope!
    Most planes trying to land on such a short runway without an arrestor are going off the end of the carrier, either back into the sky, or straight in the drink. Note the lack of "Stopping on the carrier" there. That's where the Wire comes in.
    These two quotes make no sense in context. One disagrees, the other agrees with me. Surely you realize that you'd need a lot longer a ship if you weren't using an arrestor. It's not beyond our capabilities to make such a ship, but it's just stupid when a cable performs just as well and provides more space for jets if you increase the surface area of the ship.
  • ChurbaChurba
    edited May 2011
    Nine, You said
    That wire brake and start means they don't need to have such a long landing strip, which means they can pack more jets on the thing.
    which seems to be saying "They have the system so they don't need such a long landing strip, which in turn means they can pack more jets on the carrier" - which is ludicrously illogical, because if you didn't have the arrestor, as you said, you'd need a bigger ship, which would in turn, fit many more planes than having a smaller ship, with a shorter runway and an arrestor.
    Also, The amount of deck space isn't really a huge thing to how many aircraft they can pack on - because the aircraft ain't stored there, and you'd really only need to have a few aircraft on deck at any one time. You'd barely, barely, be able to fit most of a supercarriers aircraft on the top deck - they generally carry 64 aircraft, with capacity for up to 90(which you'd defintely not fit on the deck) And that's if you fucking crammed them in touching, saving as much space as you could, with no ability to take off or land. In reality, you need to have - as best as I can tell - The front clear for launch, the rear clear for landing, and you have some parking areas to the sides, which is increased if the lifts are up at the level of that deck.

    I figure, though, you actually mean something different - Since that's an entirely silly point to make, and I doubt you'd be that clueless.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Zack PatateZack Patate
    edited May 2011
    which seems to be saying "They have the system so they don't need such a long landing strip, which in turn means they can pack more jets on the carrier" - which is ludicrously illogical, because if you didn't have the arrestor, as you said, you'd need a bigger ship, which would in turn, fit many more planes than having a smaller ship, with a shorter runway and an arrestor.
    Also, The amount of deck space isn't really a huge thing to how many aircraft they can pack on - because the aircraft ain't stored there, and you'd really only need to have a few aircraft on deck at any one time. You'd barely, barely, be able to fit most of a supercarriers aircraft on the top deck - they generally carry 64 aircraft, with capacity for up to 90(which you'd defintely not fit on the deck) And that's if you fucking crammed them in touching, saving as much space as you could, with no ability to take off or land. In reality, you need to have - as best as I can tell - The front clear for launch, the rear clear for landing, and you have some parking areas to the sides, which is increased if the lifts are up at the level of that deck.
    Space efficiency was the point. Tim can figure that out himself I thought and then feel all cozy and warm for being smart. On-board end of discussion I guess.
    Post edited by Zack Patate on
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    I dress myself.
  • J.SharpJ.Sharp
    As a resident of Houston, Texas, I have to say that I believe we deserve a Space Shuttle more than New York. I'll concede that Florida and California deserve shuttles because of their involvement with the space program, and it just makes sense to have one in the Smithsonian. But New York? What does New York have to do with NASA's history?
  • RymRym
    edited May 2011
    But New York? What does New York have to do with NASA's history?
    Funding it. ^_~

    One of the main arguments for bringing one of them here was simply that it would allow the most people to see it.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • ChurbaChurba
    As a resident of Houston, Texas, I have to say that I believe we deserve a Space Shuttle more than New York. I'll concede that Florida and California deserve shuttles because of their involvement with the space program, and it just makes sense to have one in the Smithsonian. But New York? What does New York have to do with NASA's history?
    Meanwhile, we play a crucial role in the Space program down here, and what do we get? Fuck all, mate. Let 'em have it, it'll save whinging if they don't get one.
  • jlawson70jlawson70
    To answer the complaint Scott had about the boxers taking damage, here is a clip of Japanese pro wrestling to give you an idea...
Sign In or Register to comment.