Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Juno, Armored Tank Heading For Jupiter
coondoggie writes "When it comes to ensuring that its upcoming Juno spacecraft can survive its mission, NASA is surrounding the spacecraft's electronic innards with titanium to ward off mission-threatening radiation. Juno's so-called radiation vault weighs about 200 kilograms (500 pounds), has walls that measure about a square meter (nearly 9 square feet) in area, about 1 centimeter (a third of an inch) in thickness, and 18 kilograms (40 pounds) in mass. About the size of an SUV's trunk — encloses Juno's command and data handling box, power and data distribution unit and about 20 other electronic assemblies, according to NASA."
It's not fat, It's thick plated!
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
But if you hold it the wrong way it blocks the antenna
it is just screaming for a pewpewpew tag!
4 Square meters is not a square with 4m sides but with 2m sides so the parent is correct and you buddy are wrong
Close enough for government work.
aka
"Mars Polar Lander"
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
One square meter is about 10.8 square feet. They got everything right except for the "nearly" part (it should be "over"). Squaring the unit does square the number.
I learned many years ago that converting units for the metrically challenged does them no service. They need to learn to convert them themselves, so they can speak to the rest of the world in units we all understand.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Maybe it's 8.9 square feet (nearly 9 square feet), about 1 square meter (rounding up, and not overly concerned with accuracy)
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
What the heck are you talking about? A square foot, say, is a measure of area. Scale the linear dimensions and the value of the area goes up by the square of the linear dimensions. A square foot = 144 square inches. Same thing with european units, presumably.
Yea and 200kg is about 441lbs.. but as this is not in libraries-of-congress, the numbers are incomprehensible anyways.
---------
No matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.
So one square meter isn't a square with 1 meter sides?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
It's laziness and for most of the public and unwilling desire based on perceived lack of need to properly understand the metric system. In this case most Americans "know" that a meter is "a bit more than a yard" and since most won't care that much about the size of this thing, when someone says "three square meters", most will round it off to "about 9 square feet". Granted in this case the article should have said for the lazy "somewhat more than 9 square feet" or something like that. Sorry, the metric system never caught on over here except for large soda and water bottles, drugs, wine and distilled spirits.
In English, the unit m^2 is written (and said) "square meter(s)" and the unit ft^2 is written "square foot [feet]".
So, one square meter is 1 m^2, which is an area 1 m x 1 m = 3.28 ft x 3.28 ft = 10.8 ft^2, which is 10.8 square feet.
There's an acceptable, albeit annoying, construction in English (or at least American English) that's completely different: "3 feet square" refers to an area 3 ft. x 3 ft., which is 9 ft^2.
1 m^2
(1 m^2)(3.28 ft/m) = 3.28 m ft
(1 m^2)(3.28 ft/m)(3.28 ft/m) = 10.75 ft^2
Per the measurements given (18kg/(1m^2 * 1cm)) the vault's density is 1.8 grams per cubic centimeter. This is much less dense than aluminum (or steel or lead obviously) - anyone know what the vault is made from?
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Yes. Because 3 feet are in a yard. And as a tool we can get these things called Yard Sticks and then we can usually easily envision 3 of those back to back to grasp the general size.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I don't know what you mean by "take off the square from the unit" but I can assure you we're doing it the same way it's done in metric, and there's only one right way. Just as one square meter is 10,000 square centimeters rather than 100, one square meter is ~10.8 square feet rather than ~3.3
Maybe it'll help to draw it on graph paper.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
(How our what say it?)
I think the convention is that "feet square" vs "square feet" tell you whether or not the multiplication has been done yet. So it's 3.2 feet square or 10.24 square feet.
Just don't confuse metric with english units lest you miss Mars by a few 100,000 units of whatever
(oh, that's already been done: ref http://www.jamesoberg.com/mars/loss.html )
It's not a big deal like you all make it out to be. Conversion between number systems is rudimentary math.
1 square meter is the same as a square with sides measuring 1 meter. 10.8 square feet is the same as a square with sides measuring 10.8 feet. 1 meter != 10.8 feet. Think about it.
I understand the math. I was being sarcastic, actually. yeah, I know it doesn't communicate well over the internet. The point is that 1 square meter is considerbly more than 9 square feet. The actual article is poorly written. If the topic weren't so terribly interesting, I wouldn't have wasted my time. However, I would have linked directly to NASA's page instead of the hack that wrote the article.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Presumably the wall area was intended to be for a cube shape ? Ti has a density of about 4.5g/cc and if it weighs 200kg (in space !) and has a 1cm wall thickness then presumably it has a surface area of around 44,000cm^2 which would give a total wall area of around 48 square feet or around 8 square feet per wall (if it is a cube). But what I really need is a good idea of the physical size of the library of congress, so that I can expess it in its proper units of SUV trunks per library of congress football field.
Nullius in verba
No, each square foot is a 1'x1' area, which is the standard unit of measure. There would be nine in a 1 meter tile.
Three foot square would describe an square area measuring 3 feet on a side, but people don't like the math. Wherever possible, the "^2" is removed so people don't need to do the calculation. So, the "9 square feet" is how it's usually described -- already multiplied. The single square foot is the base unit of measure when doing area -- it would never be 5ft^2, but 25 square feet.
If you want real fun, look at how construction is done here in North America (including Canada even though we're officially metric). All measurements are based on imperial since the industry never changed. AFAIK, all of the building codes and standards are still using those measures. Metric is almost completely excluded since the trades don't use it.
As someone who grew up with in the transition to metric -- my height and weight is in feet/inches and pounds. My speed is in kilometers. My measuring tape handles both. Baking uses cups, but gasoline is bought in liters. Beer is in pints. It really is complicated. :-P
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
What has become of this world, when a consortium of Slashdotters can't convert 1 sq m to sq ft? No wonder I didn't drive to work today in the flying car I was promised 50 years ago.
I think you missed the point of his question. He's not asking why the summary did not use a more precise conversion than "nearly 9 square feet." Rather, he's asking why the summary equates 1 square meter to 9 square feet instead of equating 1 square meter to 3 square feet.
Give 'em hell! USA! USA!
Even better: Google does it for you.
My blog
See, you take the square root of your area to determine your side length.
Maybe you do, but I just use a tape measure. ;-)
right then. so pretty much close enough for a non-technical audience like /.
"about 200 kilograms (500 pounds), has walls that measure about a square meter (nearly 9 square feet) in area, about 1 centimeter (a third of an inch) in thickness, and 18 kilograms (40 pounds) in mass. About the size of an SUV's trunk "
I notice a few issues in this description, which also appears in the article. Some fact-checking might be in order.
How can a single thing be 200 kg, and also be 18 kg? You would think that a single thing would have only one mass.
Then, of course, a square meter is slightly more than 10 square feet.
How can a single square meter of material be made into all six sides of a box the size of a SUV trunk, without slicing it into thinner sheets. A square meter might make one side of such a box, but not all six. If all six sides of a cube total 1 square meter, each side would be about 40.8 cm square. Of course, the box doesn't have to be a cube, but the sum of the areas of the six sides still cannot exceed the total of the material.
Titanium has density of 4.5 g/cm^3. So a 100x100x1 cm piece of it would be 45 kg, not 18 kg.
Let's drop meter to feet conversions and go with 1 square yard to square feet.
There are 3 feet in a yard.
1 yard^2 * (3 feet/yard) * (3 feet/yard) = 9 feet^2
9 square units means you can fit nine 1 square units in the space (dependent on geometry you might have to modify the actual shapes of those pieces as a square unit doesn't necesary have equal length sides, or sides at all).
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
that number isnt nearly as far off as the conversions from kilograms to pounds. 200 kilos = 500 pounds, but 18 kilos = 40 pounds??? There is a very liberal use of significant digits and rounding going on here. Or maybe its that one of these units was called mass, but the other weight.
If this thing crashes on takeoff, someone's going to have to stop it.
Its 8.something square feet which converts to about 1 +/- 1 square meter.
The odd part is, in this day and age, I can't find anything but two or three pics and some super-fluffy PR trash. I searched google for awhile looking for info, couldn't find any.
Fifteen years ago, when I was on the internet, I was pleased to see I could download multi-hundred page "press kits" for shuttle launches, full of all kinds of detail, diagrams, writeups of each experiment and team, measurements, diagrams and blueprints. I wondered what the future would be like, and daydreamed of what amounts to reading nasa blogs, live webcams, tens or hundreds of times the detail. Read actual contracts and semi-internal status reports, since "publishing" on the net is approximately free. Public having read only mailing list access, sort of like modern twitter feeds? Very optimistic view of the future.
Fifteen years later, what do I get? An extra shiny website with no more "press kits", two or three snapshots, and a handful of cutesy fluffy bunny BS for high school glee club. Just about the right level to try and interest middle school girls into a career in technology. Nothing at all for educated, adult, space fanatics. WTF? Where did it all go wrong?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Asimov's ZZ-1, ZZ-2, and ZZ-3 now have a companion! Can we call it ZZ-4?
for those who havent seen it in action. if the math is correct we tend to affirm our intention to have visited the planet. should the math be flagrantly bogus, a press statement is quickly issued to confirm our original intent to send millions of dollars of exotic probe hardware hurtling into the surface of a far away world for science.
if you're a space alien, dont worry. eventually a probe will either land or explode violently on your homeworld. its the intergalactic equivalent of throwing rocks down a dark alley to make friends.
Good people go to bed earlier.
This whole story could use one.
Nullius in verba
[in American English] "3 feet square" refers to an area 3 ft. x 3 ft
I'm no expert in your language on that side of the big wet thing, but in Finglish the phrase would be "3 foot square", modulo hyphens. Which just further proves your point about the construction being annoying, I guess :-)
Do American really need all the Metric conversions explained? So sad...
So apparently there are 9 planets after all! MVEMJJSUN
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Ordinarily, we don't hear about shielding, certainly not about a titanium tank to shield those electrtonics. Crap, they should have welded some A-10 cockpit tubs together...
Is this because NASA is using some COTS electronics on this mission? In the 'old days', we saw hardened electronics being used. Or is it a unique mission requirement, beyond what the old probes did?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Sigh, I agree...
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Your rounding is incorrect. 1 ft = 0.305 m (exact), 1 m^2 = 1/(0.305)^2 ft^2 = 10.7497884... = 10.7 if you round it to the nearest 0.1.
Oh yeah, try this...
weighs about 200 kilograms (500 pounds) ... and 18 kilograms (40 pounds) in mass.
So does the vault weigh 40 or 500 lbs?
I hope the article is correct and it's just the summary or we're gonna have a problem getting Juno where it needs to go!
The mission site is here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/spacecraft/index.html Includes pictures and better information, including Monday's press release, (which happens to be the source of the ft^3 m^3 units in the linked article): http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/news/juno20100712.html
Shielding is titanium, as lead wouldn't survive liftoff "too soft to withstand the vibrations of launch" and other materials were "were too difficult to work with".
Cables between electronics are shielded in copper or stainless braid, and smaller electronics sections have their own shields.
But... My Shreddies are diamond shaped.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
SUV's don't have trunks!
What, expecting a metric system rant?
10.8 feet square is the same as a square with sides measuring 10.8 feet.
10.8 square feet is an area that can hold the equivalent of 10.8 squares whose sides are 1 foot.
Perhaps it is 0.9 meters or so on a side?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
If this tank probe thing crashes back to earth, it could reek havoc. What are you going to do then, send some sort of cyborg superman to attach it to a skycrane and detonate a nuclear bomb beside it to destroy it?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Your planetary body is so fat, that even its moons have moons.
The article links to some kind of 'ooh, look at me' article instead of NASA's own page on Juno.
Juno Armored Up to Go to Jupiter
Not exactly good maths there, so probably a PR piece from a 'journalist'.
9 foot^2 = 0.84 m^2. Could be correct, though I wouldn't use "nearly" for something that far off. And it's impossible to tell if the walls are really 9 foot^2 and they just made a very rough guestimate of the metric equivalent.
1/3 inch = 0.85 cm
Again, that could be right. It might be exactly 1/3rd inch and they guestimated that to about 1 cm. But it's still 15% off.
40 lbs = 18.14 kg
And then you hit something where the weight is actually correct. But since they've messed up that much on the other two, we now don't know if it's exactly 40 lbs or exactly 18 kg.
Hell, we don't even know if the NASA guys who wrote this are incompetent or not. Well, we know they're incompetent, we even know how much (about 15%).
However, the NASA page seemingly being written by an 8-year-old with a bad understanding of units, doesn't really justify linking to an article that is essentially a copy of NASA's page, and especially not when there is no attribution or links to the original article.
It's a misguided question that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the difference between linear units and area units.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
3.2 square feet is wrong in the same sense that a square kilometer doesn't contain one thousand square meters, but a million of them.
But a meter is indeed more than three feet, so it should be "over nine square feet" instead of "nearly".
Errors like this are the price they pay for non-metric units, I guess.
Your unit conversion is incorrect. 1 ft = 0.3048 m (exact).
That's also very common here.
Is that really how American's say it?
Americans say everything with at least two units of measure and fractions.
So 1 square metre is 10 sqare feet, 110 and 3/1024th square inches... give or take.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
A square meter is the area of a square with 1 meter long sides. A square foot is the area of a square with 1 foot long sides.
9 square feet, would be the area of 9 squares with 1 foot long sides. Which if it was a square would be 3x3 feet.
It isn't nearly 9 square feet, it's over 10 square feet - though they are probably converting the "about a square meter" part not the "square meter" part.
Not as much as non-Americans need English explained, apparently.
"About the size of an SUV's trunk..."
SUV's don't have trunks, they are generally hatchbacks with enclosed cargo areas.
We don't need conversions explained, its just the pedants jerking it to an imperfect approximation in a public-facing article. Starting in elementary school, you are taught both imperial and metric in the US, and 99% of rulers have two sides with both systems. However, most non-scientific things are still displayed in imperial and their sizes fit imperial units (construction materials, household items, baking). Ounces, cups, gallons, 1/4'', feet, yard, etc, are all seen daily by even the starving artist who failed algebra 1. The world isn't going to come to an end by not converting so who cares.
We know that 3 feet equals a yard, and a yard is slightly shorter than a meter, so that's where the summary base approximation came from. Its good enough to get a mental image of it, since a 1 sq m tile isn't that much bigger visually than a 1 sq yd tile.
I get it. The linked-to blog post (what is supposed to be TFA) is being supplied as an example of how to break every rule of English grammar, right? Likewise, the summary is an example of how to make a Slashdot summary by copying and pasting the first paragraph of TF"A".
Nobody told us there was going to be math.
Is it too late for me to drop this class and take Poly Sci instead?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Wow, the British are the weird ones, here! Lets do some exercises:
.25 meters (force applied perpendicularly to the surface), what is the pressure exerted on that area in N/m^2 ? .25^2) = 2547 .196 square meters, or 2547 N/m^2 .44 square meters... wait, I forgot to re-qsquare those counterintuitive units... .196 m*m, so that is 2547 N/m^2.
Exercise 1: What is the area of a triangle with a base of 3m and height of 5m?
Mathematically: (3 * 5) / 2 = 7.5
American: That's 7.5 meters squared
British: That's sqrt(7.5) square meters?????
Me: Are you really telling me that the British will take the square root of the answer JUST so they can call it "the length of one side of a square" squared meters???
Exercise 2: Pressure is the amount of force per area. One unit of pressure is the Pascal, which is 1 Newton per meter squared (N/m^2). If I apply 500 Newtons of force to a circular area with a radius of
Mathematically: (500 / (3.14 *
American: yes, that's 500 Newtons over
British: that's 500 Newtons over square_root9.196) =
Me: Ok, so I'm american, and I have no clue what the British do here. I'm giving the British the benefit of the doubt that they come up with the correct answer, but I don't see how their way of stating "square meters" is the right way. Correct me if I misinterpreted your post.
When something becomes "popular" it has to attempt to reach the "people"
Joe six pack and his daughter Buffy need stuff for the common salt-of-the-earth types... you know, morons.
What saddens me is that with all these gee-whiz computers and trillion of sites, we can't have simplistic Joe six pack summaries with Jimmy Neutron details for those who wish to click a bit further.
Meh. Guess I should just shut up and chew my paste.
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
if it weighs 200kg (in space !)
Mass is NOT affected by gravity, AT ALL.
Uh - Juno is scheduled to be launched in in 2011. August of 2011. More than a year from now.
How far in advance would you like all your press kits prepared? Should we have blueprints publicly available before we've even designed the device? Admittedly, Juno is quite a bit past the design stage right now -- but that exactly means that right now folks are busy building the thing, not making web-pages. That's stuff that we can think about when we've gotten the hardware under control.
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
It was a long, long time ago, but if I recall correctly Mars Polar Lander was a "Class C" project (meaning that QA requirements weren't very strict, and it didn't have to pass the much more stringent requirements like dual-fault tolerance, etc., that are enforced for class A and class B projects). The breadboard for the meteorology subsystem was a one hundred dollar 8031 CPU board purchased off the Internet from some company whose name I forget. The project couldn't even afford an In Circuit Emulator for the meteorology subsystem CPU. :-(
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
The summary is BS because it is a direct quote of the article that is also BS which has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the work done at NASA.
Just because some retarded journalist at networkworld doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground doesn't mean that people or institutions he's writing about are somehow to blame for his incompetence.
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
Yes but the imperial system is the IE6 of the measuring system world.
Presumably unless they're making it up as they go along, they could release all the blueprints right now. It's not like they have to keep it secret to prevent copies from the far east. Or do they?
As for preparing press kits now, well, "the press" aka /. is reporting on it now, so give us our kits.
And release early, and release often, seems to work in certain other intellectual pursuits.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
And carrying through on the math: 10.8 feet square would be 116.64 square feet. A square of 10.8 square feet would be about 3.29 feet square.
The math itself is easy but the exact conversion factors between Imperial units, Customary units and SI units isn't common knowledge.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
However, most non-scientific things are still displayed in imperial and their sizes fit imperial units (construction materials, household items, baking). Ounces, cups, gallons, 1/4'', feet, yard, etc, are all seen daily by even the starving artist who failed algebra 1.
I think you need to go look at a can of stewed tomatoes or a box of cake mix or a bottle of Coca Cola.
100% of all commercial goods sold in the US have both metric and "US customary system" measurements. No, it's not "Imperial". US fluid measurements are not the same as English/Imperial fluid measurements that use the same names, e.g. gallon, quart, pint.
Your rounding is incorrect. 1 ft = 0.305 m (exact), 1 m^2 = 1/(0.305)^2 ft^2 = 10.7497884... = 10.7 if you round it to the nearest 0.1.
0.305 has three significant digits, and as a rule of thumb you can't really get a result more accurate than this. 10.7 is as precise as 0.305 will afford you. With 0.3048 you'd get 10.76.
Wow, the British are the weird ones, here! Lets do some exercises:
Exercise 1: What is the area of a triangle with a base of 3m and height of 5m?
Mathematically: (3 * 5) / 2 = 7.5
American: That's 7.5 meters squared
Let me fix this for you:
That's 7.5 square meters.
British: That's sqrt(7.5) square meters?????
WTF? No, they'd say the same thing we'd say.
Just to be equally pedantic about it, most USians cannot directly imagine a meter. However, the common "yardstick" has had a meter measure printed on the reverse side of it for *years*. Most USians can picture that. Therefore they can form a "rough estimate" mental image of what the writer is trying to convey. Exactness wasn't the point.
C|N>K
So one square meter isn't a square with 1 meter sides?
It is, but two square meters is not a square with 2 meter sides. :)
I think the writer was trying to convey a square yard, which is about the same as a square meter.
Maybe.
No sig today...
TFS quite clearly uses kg as a unit of weight.
It later uses kg as mass and reads that the sides had a mass of 18kg each. Which at 1cm thick would make them about 4 square feet each side and if they add up to 200kg then presumably the whole thing has 11 sides.
I really think the whole article should be done over in more commonly used units such as slugs or parsecs.
Nullius in verba
On a related note, there's a bill in the Senate which will be voted on tomorrow (Thursday) morning which threatens to reduce the proposed funding for robotic missions (like the one described in the summary), commercial crew, and space technology in favor of building a government-designed heavy-lift rocket instead. The Planetary Society has an update describing the situation and is urging people who care about space exploration to call their Senators immediately:
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002584/
More background info on the bill: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/07/14/a-quick-review-of-the-senate-nasa-authorization-bill/
For the curious, Bill Nye the Science Guy (the new director of the Planetary Society) and Louis Friedman are hosting a webcast/discussion at 5pm ET today about the future direction of NASA:
http://planetary.org/about/press/releases/2010/0712_Where_Should_We_Go_in_Space_Tell_Bill.html
WTF? No, they'd say the same thing we'd say.
Yeah, that's what I thought, but look at the following sentence from the parent:
1 meter = 3.2808399 feet. Wouldn't that make it ~3.2 Square feet? Or do you guys take off the square from the unit somehow, and apply it to the numbe
It sounds like he thinks American's are weird for stating that a square measuring 3.2 feet by 3.2 as 10.7 feet squared (or square feet... it shouldn't matter what the ordering is here. I for one have never been confused by the ordering).
It sounds like he claims that we should call this "3.2 square feet". This in my mind is a square that has a length and width of sqrt(3.2).
Am I misinterpreting his statements? Dear god please tell me that EVERYONE calls a 3x3 space 9 square units (or 9 units squared).
Not as much as non-Americans need English explained, apparently.
Come back for tea and scones when you can spell 'colour'.
Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
If they release blueprints and specifications some bright individual will notice there is radiation shielding on the probe. The light goes on and they realize there migth be radiation associated with this probe, perhaps in a more stealthy way than was done with the disaster that was the Cassini probe launch.
Therefore, any public release of this information would likely lead to the launch being cancelled or delayed.
Why do you think they aren't releasing more detailed information about it yet?
So one square meter isn't a square with 1 meter sides?
It is, but two square meters is not a square with 2 meter sides. :)
He he... I'm suddenly reminded of having to teach my wife how fractions actually work. (They are just unresolved division solutions with useful properties...)
There are times in life when I wish I could just forget math and be a Joe Sixpack. Am I the only one who has to resist the temptation to teach cashiers how to optimize change giving to involve the least number of coins?
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Wouldn't it be easier just to travel at night?
200kg is approximate, and no, it does not include the mass of the contents. And, the actual dimensions aren't a regular cube of 1 meter size, nor are the walls a uniform thickness.
In most spacecraft design (including this one) the enclosure has ribs and cutouts to accommodate the hardware attached, as well as provide appropriate shielding AND for stiffness for vibration loads.
Close enough for government work.
aka
"Mars Polar Lander"
The problem with that project was not specifying *how* it would land.
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Am I the only one who has to resist the temptation to teach cashiers how to optimize change giving to involve the least number of coins?
Optimizing by least number of coins is a sub-optimal solution, at least in terms of comfort/convenience. You really want to minimize the total coin mass in your wallet, including the weight of the coins that were there before the transaction.
it's ABOUT a meter. I would suspect it's 3 feet to a side.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
the least number of coins is not the more efficient way to do things in what is essentially a line job.
You think those large companies haven't studied the efficient of cash transactions?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They should have called it "Mars Polar Somehow Lander (or Faller)"
You can't handle the truth.
"has walls that measure about a square meter "
so not a square meter, but /about/ a square meter. it could be 7.5 centimeters shy of a meter.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Are those African or European sides?
You can't handle the truth.
Your confusion is based on the assumption that "about" means "exactly". But yes, of course you square the conversion factor if your units are squared. Take a 1 meter by 1 meter square. Express it in feet, 3.28 feet by 3.28 feet. The area is NOT 3.28 square feet.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
the least number of coins is not the more efficient way to do things in what is essentially a line job.
You think those large companies haven't studied the efficient of cash transactions?
Yes, but a cashier who is smart enough to know and care usually gets promoted out of the position or goes back to school.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Jesus boys and girls! I had to go back reread the summary to remember what the topic was! Hint: it's not metric/english conversion.
:q! Oh crap, not again...
2.2 lbs x 200 kg = 440 lbs not 500. All is conversions are off, by a lot.
:q! Oh crap, not again...
Because when this accidentally crashes to earth, we're gonna need a bionic super-agent to defeat it.
BTW what you call english (Im assuming you mean the system) is called imperial system. :-P
This appears to be part of the ongoing fracas over manned vs. unmanned exploration. People somehow got it into their heads that there will only be money for one in these days of tightened belts, so they split into factions and started publicly fighting about it.
The problem I have with this is that when it goes to congress the unmanned-supporters will vote to kill the manned missions and the manned-supporters will vote to kill the manned missions, and the budget-demagoging Republicans will vote as a block against both. So nothing will pass.
In fighting over the leftover pieces like this, NASA supporters are going to lose the entire pie.
Even worse is when the cashier's total shows 10.65 and you give them 21.15 (and not 20) to make it easier on them and they just stare, give you back the 1.15 and then proceed to count off 9.35 in bills and coins to give you your change...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0