Relax wrote:MaxxQ wrote:There's a difference between "fold" and "wiggle". Not my fault you can't understand that.
All you gave were examples of wiggling, vibration, etc. Nothing you mentioned folded.
And what precisely do you think RADAR antennas have done since its inception? Hrmm? Good grief....
Give ya a hint about basic engineering(applied physics). Calibrating for the small stuff is VASTLY more difficult and complex than compensating for a LARGE external movement .... that happens once and then your sensor is locked in place where the calibration takes place.
And just what do you think NASA has been proposing and doing for a VERY long time with their folding space based mirrors? Hrmm? NASA is getting ready to launch said gigantic mirror assembly...
Obviously, there's some misunderstanding here. Let's go back over it and see where it is:
1. Discussion about fitting x-number of LACs in a carrier the size of a Nike
2. You do some math (which makes many assumptions), and decide that yes, one can fit x-number in y-volume.
3. Short mention of possible folding grav sensor array.
4. I say the grav sensor arrays don't fold. Not that they CAN'T fold, but that they DON'T fold.
5. You ask why.
6. I never responded to that. Someone else did, and mentioned examples.
7. You followed with some other stuff, but the main point that I have issues with is that you stated, as an absolute, "every other sensor known to mankind can fold".
8. To which I responded with examples of sensors that CAN'T fold, thereby nullifying your "every other sensor..." shtick.
9. To which you responded with examples of wiggling, tremors, trucks driving by, but not ONE SINGLE MENTION of a sensor that actually folds. At this point, you're still replying to the person that replied to your "why" up there at #5, even though you're addressing it to me.
10. I respond by pointing out that you only mentioned movement when my request was to show me video of specific sensors FOLDING, which is different from needing to be stabilized and calibrated against outside influences.
So, what do I see in all this? I see that I NEVER said that these sensors (whether the real life ones I specified, or fictional in the Honorverse) CAN'T fold, but that they DON'T fold. I'm perfectly well aware that SOME sensors CAN fold - jesus christ, I spent seven years in the Air Force! I'm also aware of the James Webb telescope, and solar panels and dishes on satellites and planetary probes. But that wasn't MY point, which you have conveniently overlooked.
MY point was the assertion "every other sensor known to mankind can fold" is wrong, and I named several sensors that prove that point. Your problem is that you are equating folding and wiggling, which are two completely different things, except maybe in extreme examples such as that in my next paragraph.
As for my experience with engineering, I may not have the edumacation that you allegedly have, but I've picked up a few things over the years. Wanna have a discussion on how traffic, winds funneled through a canyon, and ENGINEERS that should have known better brought down the Tacoma Narrows Bridge?
Maybe talk about how I was changing a flat on an overpass that moved an inch or so up and down every time a loaded semi drove by? I know why it does that, and why it's SUPPOSED to do that. I may not have the technical vocabulary for it, but I can (and HAVE DONE SO) explain it so a child can understand it.
How about active and passive means to prevent or minimize damage in buildings during earthquakes? Weights that move near the top of a building to help cancel out movement, sliding foundations on concave surfaces, Kevlar/carbon fiber and epoxy on older buildings, and probably a few that I haven't read about, but can follow well enough without needing a translator.
Let's talk about a high-power model rocket I made that weighed ten pounds with the motor installed that reached 1000 feet* at a speed of around 200 MPH peak (onboard altimeter and accelerometer), that was made of paper and balsa, had landing legs/fins that not only flexed on landing, but were also removeable in less than 10 minutes (half of that removing the screws that held the baseplate on) for transport and storage, and could be reflown again after 30 minutes of prep. I have pics of the build and the first flight, and it wasn't a kit. Totally scratch-designed and built.
I can even tell you how the digger arms on the Viking 1 and 2 Mars landers extended. Hint: It wasn't pistons. Think retractable metal tape measures.
In short, I'm not as stupid as you think I am, but YOU seem to have a reading comprehension issue. Either that, or you get so wedded to an idea you have that you ignore or gloss over anything that appears to disagree with it (if you actually go back and reread everything from the past couple days, you'll notice I never disagreed with you about anything, except your absolutist statement, "every other sensor known to mankind can fold". And if this gets me a warning or temp ban from Duckk, then fine. I don't really care.
Oh, almost forgot: I DO have an example of folding grav sensors for an Honorverse ship. I just keep forgetting to render an image and then post it. Look at any top 3/4 view of the pinnace. See that hump towards the aft end? See those three lines, two short, one long on the hump? Those are stored grav sensor blades. They extend like a switchblade, hinged at the front end.
So, again I say: The grav arrays on LACs DON'T fold, but that's not the same as CAN'T fold, or can't be made to fold.
*It wasn't a typical long, thin rocket. It was a short, fat thing - about 3.5 feet tall and 16 inches in diameter. Had it been long and thin, it would have gone higher and faster, but drag coefficient and all that. Drag increases as the square of the velocity, and this puppy was draggy as hell.