Live data from Hacker News

M 3.9 Experimental Explosion – 147 Km ENE of Ponce Inlet, Florida

earthquake.usgs.gov

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: M 3.9 Experimental Explosion – 147 Km ENE of Ponce Inlet, Florida

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The structure is engineered to survive a multitude of conventional threats intact. It is testing properties of the design rather than specific weapons per se. Also, these tests are intended to be non-destructive which impacts their design. Exercises where the US military uses decommissioned aircraft carriers and other large ships as targets are illustrative. They are basically unsinkable. You can hit them with torped…

Falklands war shows otherwise.

> Falklands war shows otherwise.

Well, actually, the Argentinians had no trouble delivering high explosives to UK vessels, but they did have a great deal of trouble getting those explosives to sink those vessels ... mostly because their bomb fuzes were incorrectly set or inappropriate for the delivery profile.

But on a more serious note, none of the ships sunk by air attack in the Falklands were large military vessels. The largest vessel sunk was the Atlantic Conveyor, and that was (1) a civilian cargo ship built to civilian levels of durability, and (2) it was carrying a large quantity of ammunition essentially unprotected (unlike how a large warship would carry it). Even then, the missile strike and fire did not sink the ship immediately. For the largest military vessels sunk by air attack, the two Type 42s Sheffield and Coventry were relatively small destroyers (less than half the displacement of either their USN contemporaries the Spruance/Kidd or a modern Arleigh Burke) and again there the Exocet strike and resulting fire did not sink Sheffield immediately either. The smaller Type 21 frigates lost, Antelope and Ardent, were never really meant to survive meaningful damage and yet both remained afloat overnight before sinking. For comparison, the roughly contemporary USN frigates, the Perry-class (larger in displacement than the Type 42s), survived both Exocet (Stark) and mine (Samuel B. Roberts) strikes.

(The General Belgrano was a larger military vessel lost to submarine attack with, but considering that it was a treaty-limited 44-year-old light cruiser operating unprepared for submarine attack, it is hard to draw too many conclusions about modern ship durability from its loss - and her sisters in the Brooklyn class generally survived quite a punishment in WWII.)

Re: M 3.9 Experimental Explosion – 147 Km ENE of Ponce Inlet, Florida

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Falklands war shows otherwise.

How so? The ships sunk in the Falklands War were all less than half the displacement of a typical US Navy destroyer. The sole exception is the Belgrano, which was built in the 1930s! The ship being tested here is ~25x the size of the largest British ship that was sunk. Generally speaking, there is a super-linear relationship between ship size and the amount of explosive required to sink it. There is mountains of empi…

I mean, we've all seen Battleship (2012), right? ;)

Re: M 3.9 Experimental Explosion – 147 Km ENE of Ponce Inlet, Florida

#24
post #18
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your point that that makes this better?

Well it's kinda whataboutism, but I made a similar comment on a video about an environmental crime (a copper mine had dumped an entire lake's worth of toxic sludge into a valley). The author of the mini documentary said something about how deeply disturbed he was and how he really thought humans were better than this. I thought that was kind of funny since, yeah the sludge lake is nasty as hell (and if the dam holdin…

The issue associated with whataboutism is that it is a deflection strategy. It aims to steer the focus away from the issue at hand. Commonly regarded as intentional manipulation or lack of adherence to social conversation norms.

Re: M 3.9 Experimental Explosion – 147 Km ENE of Ponce Inlet, Florida

#25
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is almost certainly what it was. Wiki even has a photo of the USS Gerald Ford undergoing blast tests off of Ponce Inlet, and mentions that it registered as a M3.9 quake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford#Operational... If I had to guess, this is probably the USS John F. Kennedy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CVN-79)

I dont understand the purpose of using 40,000 lbs of TNT (0.2 kilotons) that registers as M3.9 quake - what kind of explosive payload is it simulating? the only thing that comes to mind, is the smallest yield settings of a modern tactical nuke B61-12

0.018 kilotons. Order of magnitude smaller at minimum.

Re: M 3.9 Experimental Explosion – 147 Km ENE of Ponce Inlet, Florida

#26
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is almost certainly what it was. Wiki even has a photo of the USS Gerald Ford undergoing blast tests off of Ponce Inlet, and mentions that it registered as a M3.9 quake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford#Operational... If I had to guess, this is probably the USS John F. Kennedy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CVN-79)

I dont understand the purpose of using 40,000 lbs of TNT (0.2 kilotons) that registers as M3.9 quake - what kind of explosive payload is it simulating? the only thing that comes to mind, is the smallest yield settings of a modern tactical nuke B61-12

[dead]

Re: M 3.9 Experimental Explosion – 147 Km ENE of Ponce Inlet, Florida

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The structure is engineered to survive a multitude of conventional threats intact. It is testing properties of the design rather than specific weapons per se. Also, these tests are intended to be non-destructive which impacts their design. Exercises where the US military uses decommissioned aircraft carriers and other large ships as targets are illustrative. They are basically unsinkable. You can hit them with torped…

Falklands war shows otherwise.

Burning aluminum.

Re: M 3.9 Experimental Explosion – 147 Km ENE of Ponce Inlet, Florida

#28

Apparently the US Navy does these semi-regularly to test the durability of warships

These are the full-ship shock trials, where they set off progressively closer charges to certify the hull and combat systems survive a near-miss. The tight scheduling and monitoring is largely driven by the marine-mammal mitigation requirements.

Re: M 3.9 Experimental Explosion – 147 Km ENE of Ponce Inlet, Florida

#29
post #18
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your point that that makes this better?

Well it's kinda whataboutism, but I made a similar comment on a video about an environmental crime (a copper mine had dumped an entire lake's worth of toxic sludge into a valley). The author of the mini documentary said something about how deeply disturbed he was and how he really thought humans were better than this. I thought that was kind of funny since, yeah the sludge lake is nasty as hell (and if the dam holdin…

You got it right: around ~70 billion land animals in 2013, 1-2.7 trillion fishes [0] and 25 trillion shrimps [1]

But can you compare: - a fish that lived 1 year wild then died by pressure or asphyxia in a net during 15 minutes - a chicken that lived 40 days in a cage

Instead of raw count, the Welfare Footprint Institute [2] propose a framework:

> quantify animal welfare by systematically measuring animals’ affective experiences—specifically, the intensity and duration of their negative (painful) and positive (pleasurable) states […]

0 https://considerveganism.com/counter/

1 https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/shrimp-the-anima...

2 https://welfarefootprint.org/analytical-approach/

Re: M 3.9 Experimental Explosion – 147 Km ENE of Ponce Inlet, Florida

#30
post #24
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's kinda whataboutism, but I made a similar comment on a video about an environmental crime (a copper mine had dumped an entire lake's worth of toxic sludge into a valley). The author of the mini documentary said something about how deeply disturbed he was and how he really thought humans were better than this. I thought that was kind of funny since, yeah the sludge lake is nasty as hell (and if the dam holdin…

The issue associated with whataboutism is that it is a deflection strategy. It aims to steer the focus away from the issue at hand. Commonly regarded as intentional manipulation or lack of adherence to social conversation norms.

Isn’t that a good thing sometimes, assuming focus is a limited resource? Shouldn’t problems be addressed in order of importance? Is it whataboutism if I tell someone to stop polishing a wrecked car?
Post reply on HN