• Auxiliary Pics
    11,457 replies, posted
[QUOTE=oakman26;44325370]If this is hazardous to aircraft then how come planes don't hit the Himalaya mountains every hour?[/QUOTE] Because low flying aircraft don't operate around the Himalayas, and it's not like the Himalayas don't have a big history of claiming aircraft. "The Hump" Claimed over 500 transport aircraft during WWII.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44325426]Because low flying aircraft don't operate around the Himalayas, and it's not like the Himalayas don't have a big history of claiming aircraft. "The Hump" Claimed over 500 transport aircraft during WWII.[/QUOTE] I think the building would still be small enough to go around for any plane that does go that low.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44325426]Because low flying aircraft don't operate around the Himalayas, and it's not like the Himalayas don't have a big history of claiming aircraft. "The Hump" Claimed over 500 transport aircraft during WWII.[/QUOTE] And we don't live in WWII anymore. Trust me, the day a structure like that is built. Aircraft hazards are the least of your problems.
[QUOTE=booster;44325458]And we don't live in WWII anymore. [/QUOTE] And it's not like aircraft don't hit stationary objects anymore just because it's 2014. Pilot error+bad weather is a hell of a combination that still kills pilots.
[QUOTE=Griffster26;44322821][t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Map_of_the_Atlantrop_Projekt_en.png[/t][/QUOTE] This is a terrible idea. Reminds me of those plans to connect the UK to Europe with a land bridge. Can't find the image though. Think it's been posted here a few times.
[QUOTE=booster;44319415] [img]http://zeqps2k4t563atbs730zvzq12aw.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/4312.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] that's not the cave they used in a series of unfortunate events is it?
[quote]The tower would use the atmospheric pressure difference between the bottom and the top of the tower to create electricity throughout the tower.[/quote] I'm pretty sure that's not how physics works. The air inside the tower would be still subject to gravity (which causes the difference in pressure in the first place). No useful work can possibly be extracted from it. Maybe they were expecting to make some kind of weird heat engine (since the tower is so wide and gets so many sun rays) but the way it's worded it's just not going to work.
[QUOTE=OvB;44325512]This is a terrible idea. Reminds me of those plans to connect the UK to Europe with a land bridge. Can't find the image though. Think it's been posted here a few times.[/QUOTE] [t]upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Chiloe_Island.png[/t] Guess what they are going to do. Hint: Waste of money Damn T tags not working
[url]http://www.robophot.com/portraits/[/url] 600 megapixel portraits. Check out those follicles!
[QUOTE=kirby2112;44325857][url]http://www.robophot.com/portraits/[/url] 600 megapixel portraits. Check out those follicles![/QUOTE] When you zoom in and it hasn't loaded yet, say 'enchance' for the most realistic csi experience.
[QUOTE=kirby2112;44325857][url]http://www.robophot.com/portraits/[/url] 600 megapixel portraits. Check out those follicles![/QUOTE] This is some seriously cool ass shit. Makes you think about how people look pretty from a distance, but they still have blemishes and other stuff like anyone else.
[QUOTE=Nikita;44325776]I'm pretty sure that's not how physics works. The air inside the tower would be still subject to gravity (which causes the difference in pressure in the first place). No useful work can possibly be extracted from it. Maybe they were expecting to make some kind of weird heat engine (since the tower is so wide and gets so many sun rays) but the way it's worded it's just not going to work.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect[/url] ?
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44325196]that thing would be a huge hazard for aircraft.[/QUOTE] Not really. Aircraft rarely hit buildings except when they're already crashing and the building happened to be between them and the ground (or when crashed deliberately). Buildings are big, and visible, and stationary. That building would be even more so. Hazards to planes are usually small and hard to see - power lines, for instance, or radio towers. Even then, they're a hazard mainly to small aircraft - the big ones stay well away from them. You may argue that perhaps the absurd height would make it more of a risk. But 11,000ft is only high for a building - 35,000ft is a fairly standard cruising altitude for a civilian jetliner, and even a Cessna 172 can fly over the top of that tower with 2000ft to spare. And as a hopefully-static object, it would quickly be added to maps just as other buildings and mountains are.
[QUOTE=kirby2112;44325857][url]http://www.robophot.com/portraits/[/url] 600 megapixel portraits. Check out those follicles![/QUOTE] That's neat, you can actually see the reflections of the studio lights used for photography if you zoom in close enough on the eyes. [t]http://i.imgur.com/JJ4g4Fq.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;44325979][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect[/url] ?[/QUOTE] Oh, nevermind then. That might just work.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;44326047]Not really. Aircraft rarely hit buildings except when they're already crashing and the building happened to be between them and the ground (or when crashed deliberately). Buildings are big, and visible, and stationary. That building would be even more so. Hazards to planes are usually small and hard to see - power lines, for instance, or radio towers. Even then, they're a hazard mainly to small aircraft - the big ones stay well away from them. You may argue that perhaps the absurd height would make it more of a risk. But 11,000ft is only high for a building - 35,000ft is a fairly standard cruising altitude for a civilian jetliner, and even a Cessna 172 can fly over the top of that tower with 2000ft to spare. And as a hopefully-static object, it would quickly be added to maps just as other buildings and mountains are.[/QUOTE] A building that size would have so much re-enforced concrete in it that a 747 would barely put a scratch in it
[img]https://31.media.tumblr.com/75200b4237b97a5789e9b3e5cb8b5375/tumblr_n2us75sMMH1qzpxq3o1_1280.jpg[/img] [img]https://24.media.tumblr.com/999505008078b23bc646a391c20de5f0/tumblr_n2us75sMMH1qzpxq3o2_1280.jpg[/img] [img]https://31.media.tumblr.com/44050730cd96a8f346f43844f855acf4/tumblr_n2us75sMMH1qzpxq3o3_1280.jpg[/img] After Turkey started using DNS redirects to block Twitter.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;44326047]Not really. Aircraft rarely hit buildings except when they're already crashing and the building happened to be between them and the ground (or when crashed deliberately). Buildings are big, and visible, and stationary. That building would be even more so. Hazards to planes are usually small and hard to see - power lines, for instance, or radio towers. Even then, they're a hazard mainly to small aircraft - the big ones stay well away from them. You may argue that perhaps the absurd height would make it more of a risk. But 11,000ft is only high for a building - 35,000ft is a fairly standard cruising altitude for a civilian jetliner, and even a Cessna 172 can fly over the top of that tower with 2000ft to spare. And as a hopefully-static object, it would quickly be added to maps just as other buildings and mountains are.[/QUOTE] Sudden hazardous weather and pilot error. Thats what causes most crashes when an aircraft hits a stationary object. Thats what killed the Yankee's pitcher and his instructor in 2006, and thats what caused this: [img]http://www.nwfdailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.69167.1356295922!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_445/christmas-eve-plane-crash.jpg[/img] At the airport where I did my pilot training, the runway facing Southward has a pair of Condos in front of it. They're typically low enough to where your typical Cesna or turboprop won't have to worry about passing over them on takeoff or landing but they still pass within a few hundred feet. But a small single prop crashed into one of them one time during heavy fog. The larger the object, the more likely an aircraft could hit it during bad weather
Here's an idea; if you build an ungodly huge tower somewhere, simply restrict airspace around it. If we build a space elevator we'd surely do the same for that.
[QUOTE=RobbL;44324331]Old... silliness? [IMG]http://www.tdrinc.com/images/photos/large/Towers04a1.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Maybe not in our life times, but we'll have nothing but huge towers like this in large cities because there's plenty of vertical space to be used, and only so much space on the ground
[QUOTE=oakman26;44326895]you are stupid ww2 aviation=/= now aviation holy dumb[/QUOTE] They crashed for the same reasons though????? Bad weather and pilot error.
[img]http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/japan031214/s_j16_30608066.jpg[/img] [quote]A movie studio workman rigs up one of the scale model warships used in filming a battle scene in a Japanese documentary that tells the story of the last day of the battleship Yamato, on June 8, 1953. (AP Photo/Yuichi Ishizaki) # [/quote] [img]http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/japan031214/s_j17_30608048.jpg[/img] [quote]A scene from "Battleship Yamato" is filmed in the studio pool of Japan's Shin-Toho Motion Picture Company on June 8, 1953. The background of sky and water ends at left and right, a camera crew in the foreground. (AP Photo/Yuichi Ishizaki) # [/quote] [img]http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/japan031214/s_j18_30608039.jpg[/img] [quote]Japan's movie makers filming on the last day of the documentary about the Battleship Yamato. Studio men load shells into the guns of a model of the Yamato as they get it ready for the big scene on June 8, 1953. (AP Photo/Yuichi Ishizaki) # [/quote]
[QUOTE=TheTalon;44326945]Maybe not in our life times, but we'll have nothing but huge towers like this in large cities because there's plenty of vertical space to be used, and only so much space on the ground[/QUOTE] That's one area where I believe that Warhammer 40k would be a reasonable future because most habitable planets have been covered in Hives, massive, towering city-scapes, some reaching into the atmosphere and some even being able to have ships dock at them.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;44326945]Maybe not in our life times, but we'll have nothing but huge towers like this in large cities because there's plenty of vertical space to be used, and only so much space on the ground[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.leegly.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/951.jpg[/IMG]
...What is that supposed to be.
[IMG]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8kicu4s4U1rqyk40o1_500.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]After a 20-minute flight over the city of New York, Stephen Wiltshire, diagnosed with autism, draws the whole town with only his memory.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=racerfan;44327881][IMG]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8kicu4s4U1rqyk40o1_500.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I thought it was Eddie Murphy at first :v:
[QUOTE=Scorpionsting;44328135]I thought it was Eddie Murphy at first :v:[/QUOTE] jackiechan.txt
[QUOTE=racerfan;44327881][IMG]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8kicu4s4U1rqyk40o1_500.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Oh man I wish my brain worked like this sometimes.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44325472]And it's not like aircraft don't hit stationary objects anymore just because it's 2014. Pilot error+bad weather is a hell of a combination that still kills pilots.[/QUOTE] You do realize that's why no fly zones exist right?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.