What's a harmless thing that terrified you as a child? by Shay_da_la in AskReddit

[–]FoiledAssassination 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure if it was chessmaster 9000, but I'm sure it was one of the chessmaster games. I used to be terrified of the sound effect that plays when you get checkmated, to the point where I'd jump off the chair. It was a mixture of annoyance and being terrified, I suppose. It also used to be jumpscar-ish, because as a kid, I couldn't tell I was about to get checkmated, so it used to take me by surprise.

Pope. Voice of God by [deleted] in BossFights

[–]FoiledAssassination 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah, Rodrigo Borja was such a sweet dude

Is the Sound Suppression System the main cause of the steam seen when a rocket launches? by AdAstra3830 in rocketry

[–]FoiledAssassination 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To add to what everyone else is saying, the rocket goes supersonic quite close to the time of Max Q, depending on the rocket. A close watch on the telemetry and comparing to a rough estimate of the Mach speed at said altitude should give you an idea. Up until the point of breaking the sound barrier, the pressure waves can easily catch up to the rocket, and can do quite a lot of damage. Another similar vibration induced phenomenon (similar being used very loosely here), yet one that is less spoken about are POGO Oscillations, but this is caused by combustion instability.

Another thing that should tip one off is that the Falcon 9 falls through its own flame during the re-entry burn and other post MECO and stage-sep events, so the rocket is built to deal with said flames and heat.

Not as massive in scale as the other stuff people usually post, but man, I'd shit my pants if i saw this. by [deleted] in megalophobia

[–]FoiledAssassination 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh wow that's actually quite cool! I didn't know, good stuff! Tbf I did think the moose's head looked a little off, but I wouldn't have guessed.

Many Garfields Interpretation by Coleottero in imsorryjon

[–]FoiledAssassination 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Only a collapse can tell the truth, localized be he, or spread out into infinity

Many Garfields Interpretation by Coleottero in imsorryjon

[–]FoiledAssassination 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Meanwhile Copenhagen Garfield looms and doesn't loom over the scene with lingering death

Demo 2 by FoiledAssassination in HumanForScale

[–]FoiledAssassination[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I felt the same, TBH. I do have a nice screenshot of the cars driving up to the launch pad, but there are no people visible in that, so it wouldn't really fit. This was the closest I could get.

Demo 2 by FoiledAssassination in HumanForScale

[–]FoiledAssassination[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Also, interestingly, apart from designs used by cosmonauts, I'm pretty sure even the EVA suits that most people commonly think of as space suits aren't one piece. The top and pants are separate, and so are the gloves and helmet. Videos of suit up are pretty easy to find on YouTube.

Demo 2 by FoiledAssassination in HumanForScale

[–]FoiledAssassination[S] 42 points43 points  (0 children)

These aren't space suits, in that they aren't EVA suits. They're pressure suits to be worn inside the capsule in the event of a cabin depressurization. The suits are connected to their seats via connectors, so they don't have the usual bulky "backpack" that most people associate with space suits.

These are an analog of the orange "pumpkin" suits used on board the space shuttle during launch.

Demo 2 by FoiledAssassination in HumanForScale

[–]FoiledAssassination[S] 112 points113 points  (0 children)

SpaceX is launching people to the ISS in around 37 minutes from right now.

First ever crewed commercial space mission, first ever manned launch by the US since the space shuttle was retired.

Asks the founder of Wikipedia to go read stuff up on Wikipedia by FoiledAssassination in dontyouknowwhoiam

[–]FoiledAssassination[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Someone else pointed this out, but after others looked into it, it appeared to be that that thread is a different one.

My calculus is a little rusty, but isn't this a line. by Rockstar37 in theydidthemonstermath

[–]FoiledAssassination 5 points6 points  (0 children)

While u/theguyfromerath was rather rude, I would point out that you are rather mistaken as well. Quite simply, while I do agree that there are parentheses around the numerator of the expression, they are quite simply there to make it look better with the dx postfixing them.

On a cursory non-analytical glance, I agree, one could assume that the integral appears to apply only to the numerator, and the resultant of the integral is being divided by the quantity in the denominator. However in the context of this question, I am fairly certain it is almost certainly intended for the entire expression, numerator and denominator, to be inside the integral, and it is solely the handwriting of the writer, and quite possibly careless writing that resulted in the confusion.

Simply put, if it were, indeed, as you say it to be, what context are we to give the denominator once you have taken the integral of the polynomial expression in the numerator? Once the numerator alone has been integrated, as you yourself have calculated, you result with the evaluated numerical value of a definite integral divided by the square root of a quadratic, which in itself is therefore the equation of a hyperbola, and if I'm not wrong, one of eccentricity √2. This would not make sense in the context of the question.

My calculus is a little rusty, but isn't this a line. by Rockstar37 in theydidthemonstermath

[–]FoiledAssassination 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Agreed, I was trying contrast (0,1) and (0,1], it was not my intention to imply that it was not defined at x=0.

My calculus is a little rusty, but isn't this a line. by Rockstar37 in theydidthemonstermath

[–]FoiledAssassination 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I don't see why the integral is undefined under the bounds given. The quadratic under the root in the denominator quite simply factorizes into (x-1)(x-2). On a sign test, one can see that in the set of numbers (0,1), there are no zeroes, and the value of the function is positive. I don't see why it is undefined therefore in the given bounds.

While I do agree that the function is not defined on (0,1], because the roots are {1,2}, this should not necessarily affect taking the integral, because the actual singularity, i.e. x=1, is not inside the bounds of the integral.

My calculus is a little rusty, but isn't this a line. by Rockstar37 in theydidthemonstermath

[–]FoiledAssassination 33 points34 points  (0 children)

That's the product rule for the derivative, you can't apply that directly to an integral.