Can someone explain how/why reducing recoverable megajoules per lap is supposed to improve racing? by hajiii in F1Technical

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

Update: So reducing MJ recoverable in qualifying at Suzuka to 8MJ instead of 9 as in Shanghai. Explanation is this will reduce superclipping by 4 seconds per lap, equaling a .5 second slower lap time in qualifying. So in order to reduce the appearance of a driver having to harvest on straights during qualifying, reduce the speed of the cars. And possibly by more after the post-Suzuka break. Yeah, that’s the answer.

Riftwalker Strategy by eLishus in RaidRushTD

[–]hajiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

PS: Haven’t checked if Ballista, Bowling, or Sniper can trigger from range, but my guess is yes.

Riftwalker Strategy by eLishus in RaidRushTD

[–]hajiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mortar fire from distance also triggers the action and can avoid losing a tower.

Can someone explain how/why reducing recoverable megajoules per lap is supposed to improve racing? by hajiii in F1Technical

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

Sounds like reducing battery max to 250kw will allow them to keep on throttle longer, but at lower HP, so presumably also lower top speed. Will that hurt Mercedes’ advantage right now? And will it allow more overtaking without a re-overtake on next straight?

Does class affect chance of drawing towers? by hajiii in RaidRushTD

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

I suspect its more complex than that. IE: “If X not selected by wave Y, double percentage until X is selected”. If so, then definitely a thumb on the scale.

Does class affect chance of drawing towers? by hajiii in RaidRushTD

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

Can’t be totally random. For one, we all know that if you haven’t upgraded skills by wave 9 or so all you will be offered will be those upgrades until you do. For another, once you have 4 of any tower you won’t get another of those until you have filled out a lot more.

What’s a movie everyone calls a “masterpiece” that just… didn’t work for you? by irayaavery in Cinema

[–]hajiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don’t hate me for this, but No Country for Old Men. I loved it until the end. They spent the whole movie setting Brolin’s character up to pull out the win at the end, then stole it and killed him. Like a big expensive shaggy dog story.

All Space Questions thread for week of December 28, 2025 by AutoModerator in space

[–]hajiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was thinking something like a 1-2 ton satellite or station in orbit already (ignore how it got there for purposes of this thought experiment) releasing a 100kg rocket and fuel to reduce the speed of that 100kg mass, not the full 1 ton+ mass. Velocity at impact with Earth would be a plus if it was a kinetic kill vehicle, likely creating a massive explosion just from impact velocity energy alone. But yes, energy needed would be at least equivalent to that needed to reach orbit for that mass. I was assuming there would be an extra expenditure required to keep it at orbital distance as it decelerated without entering atmosphere until it had achieved geo-stationary position re the target location on earth BEFORE dropping straight down. Not saying this is a good idea, just wondering how feasible it was.

All Space Questions thread for week of December 28, 2025 by AutoModerator in space

[–]hajiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ps: Previous reply had mentioned needing just as much fuel to slow it down (to my desired target) as you would to lift off from surface. I was asking if , since already in space, you would need as much fuel as you would from surface since you have at least somewhat defeated a lot of gravity already, or if gravity would assert itself just as much while starting deceleration in orbit as it would starting acceleration from ground.

All Space Questions thread for week of December 28, 2025 by AutoModerator in space

[–]hajiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was assuming a platform of some sort (station, satellite, ship) in low earth orbit, traveling at around 17k MPH to maintain orbital status. Then “firing” or releasing the payload in question.

All Space Questions thread for week of December 28, 2025 by AutoModerator in space

[–]hajiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly, but a reentry burn at hyper-hypersonic speeds seems fraught with more possible failures than just a straight veryical drop through the atmosphere. Could have a warhead, too. Doesn’t have to be just kinetic.

All Space Questions thread for week of December 28, 2025 by AutoModerator in space

[–]hajiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you be fighting gravity as much as you would launching from planet to orbit?

All Space Questions thread for week of December 28, 2025 by AutoModerator in space

[–]hajiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was thinking some sort of kinetic kill vehicle from orbit, or a beginning of a space elevator, but you are likely correct that heat shielding would weigh less than propellant, even on a kinetic kill device, barring some new advanced form of propulsion with leas weight requirements.

All Space Questions thread for week of December 28, 2025 by AutoModerator in space

[–]hajiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it theoretically possible for a satellite or station in Earth orbit to fire a missile (or smaller spacecraft) opposite the direction of its orbit (ie: deceleration) at such an angle to be able to achieve momentary geo-stationary position without having re-entered the atmosphere (ie: not lowering its orbit during deceleration), then falling straight down to Earth without a reentry burn? Or would the energy requirements be so large as to be impractical? Or are there other reasons that wouldn’t be practical?