Wrong, it's a new zombie strain, carried by rodents and cats from Japan; I suspect it is entirely distinct from the zombie strain seen in Florida, originating in Cuba.
Depends on what you are trying to do -- you are often limited by your downlink capabilities, so downloading large quantities of data is expensive. Sometimes you are also limited by on-board data storage or throughput. Pre-processing data on orbit and downloading the results can dramatically increase the capabilities of the spacecraft, if the data processing is a known problem and you are able to throw the MIPS at it.
I've been saying it for a while now.. rocket science is easy. It, and the associated orbital mechanics, are governed by a relatively small handful of equations, and most problems have been solved already. Rocket engineering, on the other hand, is still a very tricky and complicated business.
Consider the readership demographic: either you already know what AMOLED is (it is fairly well known in mobile tech circles), or you are sufficiently cognizant to look it up yourself.
Depends on your area, obviously, but there are definitely third party Internet providers out there. I'm on Teksavvy myself; never looked back after switching away from Rogers.
Addendum: the problem with doing two cubes in inverted Molniya orbits is that nobody goes there, which means you are going to have to secure your own dedicated launch, which is very expensive. The benefit of chaining a number of nanosats in standard LEO sun-synchronous polar orbits is that everyone goes there, which means hitching a (cheap) ride as a secondary payload is much more feasible.
Lol. Try Antarctic Broadband -- nanosattellite cube (20cm x 20cm x 20cm) with Ka-band bent-pipe transponder capable of connecting mobile ground stations in the Antarctic circle to permanent stations off-continent. Launch a demonstrator for a few million, show that you can achieve the link, then follow on with duplicate-build cubes as benefits become realized.
If you want to put more eggs into fewer baskets, with a lower long-term cost, you can do two cubes in inverted Molniya orbits with long loiters over the southern pole; same Ka-band payload can be used, but you'll probably want larger cubes to match the end-of-life power.
This is my understanding as well, and appears to be precisely the complaint that LightSquared is making. Based on this, it is my opinion that the FCC is at fault here -- they should never have granted LightSquared the license for these frequencies in the first place if they did not intend to honour said license.
So what? It's been said a thousand times that this type of driving is not the norm; that's seven hours of driving, which is not something people do everyday. If you do, then this car is not for you (also, you might want to invest in an airplane; it would save you a great deal of time in your life). If it's something you do once or twice a year, then you could always fly, take a bus, or rent a regular car, if you really wanted to have an electric for the rest of the time (you've given no indication what your actual day-to-day driving is like).
For Ss and Gs, here's a few things my regular gasoline Chevy Malibu can't do: tow a ski boat, carry a load of firewood, seat 10 people, climb mountains offroad, fly through the air (in a controlled manner, anyway), plow the streets in winter, or dive to the bottom of the ocean (and resurface, anyway). If I wanted to do any of those things, I would choose the right tool for that particular job. Note that there is no one vehicle that can do all these things.
True; all arguments I've been making to date have been against people bashing the concept of the gullwings in general, but you have a perfectly valid point -- and one that does seem a bit silly to me. I would have stayed consistent and made both front and rear doors gullwings (or neither).
I've said this before, so here's the short version: gullwings need ~11" to fully open. Try opening your standard car door only 11" and squeezing out, noting that doors are generally at least 6" thick to begin with.
See reply below; gullwings need 11" to open. Try opening your car door 11" and squeezing out (even if you aren't really fat). Note that car doors are usually at least 6" thick to begin with, if not more.
Sorry, but the term SUV is not limited to "offroad/wilderness" situations; it is, in fact, a sporty-looking utility vehicle; I'd say this qualifies as sporty, and with more space than the Model S, is certainly more utilitarian.
Having said that, I agree with the other reply below; it is more of a crossover than strictly speaking an SUV; but there isn't much marketing distinction between the two in the existing market, anyway.
Gullwing doors generally require about 11" on either side of the car; try opening your standard car door 11" and squeeze out (noting that most car doors are about 6" thick to begin with).
Granted; I was only really thinking outside and in your home garage. I don't park underground all that often, but I can only think of a handful of garages in Toronto that I have visited that might pose a problem here.
Gull wing doors take less width than standard hinged doors, because the pivot point is near the centre-line of the vehicle. Yes, they need more height -- outdoors, this is a non-issue; in your garage, it might be. Better measure before you buy one.
With respect to sliding doors, they don't offer the same level of third-row access -- if you look at any imagery of the Model X, you will see that the rear doors are about twice the width of the amount of vehicle remaining behind it. You need something for your sliding door to slide on.
With the Model S you can; depending on how you drive, the 60 kWh pack would be tight, but the 85 kWh pack should handle you no problem (going on your second 250 mile requirement). Those same numbers aren't out for the Model X, but as I said, they are the same battery packs, and the total efficiency will be in the same ballpark.
Also, note that just because one particular non-extended-range electric vehicle does not meet your particular driving requirements does not mean it is a useless endeavour, or even that it will fail in market at all. There are plenty of other people out there that don't drive 300 miles a day (I for one wouldn't want to); the base Model S would do all the driving I need fine, except when I go home for the holidays. Even then, the 85 kWh battery pack would handle that no problem. If you're going on a really long trip, say, once a year, you could always just rent.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong, it's a new zombie strain, carried by rodents and cats from Japan; I suspect it is entirely distinct from the zombie strain seen in Florida, originating in Cuba.
Depends on what you are trying to do -- you are often limited by your downlink capabilities, so downloading large quantities of data is expensive. Sometimes you are also limited by on-board data storage or throughput. Pre-processing data on orbit and downloading the results can dramatically increase the capabilities of the spacecraft, if the data processing is a known problem and you are able to throw the MIPS at it.
Speak for yourself, thank you very much.
Congratulations, SpaceX; this is a turning point in our space age =)
I've been saying it for a while now.. rocket science is easy. It, and the associated orbital mechanics, are governed by a relatively small handful of equations, and most problems have been solved already. Rocket engineering, on the other hand, is still a very tricky and complicated business.
Consider the readership demographic: either you already know what AMOLED is (it is fairly well known in mobile tech circles), or you are sufficiently cognizant to look it up yourself.
Fair enough, but I'd hardly say that La Tuque's third-party Internet infrastructure is representative of Canada "as a whole".
Depends on your area, obviously, but there are definitely third party Internet providers out there. I'm on Teksavvy myself; never looked back after switching away from Rogers.
Try again; I get a 300 GiB/mo cap at 24vMbps/1^Mbps for ~$50/mo. Get a better service provider (read: get off the incumbents).
Addendum: the problem with doing two cubes in inverted Molniya orbits is that nobody goes there, which means you are going to have to secure your own dedicated launch, which is very expensive. The benefit of chaining a number of nanosats in standard LEO sun-synchronous polar orbits is that everyone goes there, which means hitching a (cheap) ride as a secondary payload is much more feasible.
Lol. Try Antarctic Broadband -- nanosattellite cube (20cm x 20cm x 20cm) with Ka-band bent-pipe transponder capable of connecting mobile ground stations in the Antarctic circle to permanent stations off-continent. Launch a demonstrator for a few million, show that you can achieve the link, then follow on with duplicate-build cubes as benefits become realized.
If you want to put more eggs into fewer baskets, with a lower long-term cost, you can do two cubes in inverted Molniya orbits with long loiters over the southern pole; same Ka-band payload can be used, but you'll probably want larger cubes to match the end-of-life power.
I got 2 letters for you about development that will tell you why he does that:
QA
Around here, we like to call that QA with a capital "eh?"
This is my understanding as well, and appears to be precisely the complaint that LightSquared is making. Based on this, it is my opinion that the FCC is at fault here -- they should never have granted LightSquared the license for these frequencies in the first place if they did not intend to honour said license.
Did you just self-comment yourself into irrelevancy in a single post? Impressive.
So what? It's been said a thousand times that this type of driving is not the norm; that's seven hours of driving, which is not something people do everyday. If you do, then this car is not for you (also, you might want to invest in an airplane; it would save you a great deal of time in your life). If it's something you do once or twice a year, then you could always fly, take a bus, or rent a regular car, if you really wanted to have an electric for the rest of the time (you've given no indication what your actual day-to-day driving is like).
For Ss and Gs, here's a few things my regular gasoline Chevy Malibu can't do: tow a ski boat, carry a load of firewood, seat 10 people, climb mountains offroad, fly through the air (in a controlled manner, anyway), plow the streets in winter, or dive to the bottom of the ocean (and resurface, anyway). If I wanted to do any of those things, I would choose the right tool for that particular job. Note that there is no one vehicle that can do all these things.
True; all arguments I've been making to date have been against people bashing the concept of the gullwings in general, but you have a perfectly valid point -- and one that does seem a bit silly to me. I would have stayed consistent and made both front and rear doors gullwings (or neither).
I've said this before, so here's the short version: gullwings need ~11" to fully open. Try opening your standard car door only 11" and squeezing out, noting that doors are generally at least 6" thick to begin with.
See reply below; gullwings need 11" to open. Try opening your car door 11" and squeezing out (even if you aren't really fat). Note that car doors are usually at least 6" thick to begin with, if not more.
Sorry, but the term SUV is not limited to "offroad/wilderness" situations; it is, in fact, a sporty-looking utility vehicle; I'd say this qualifies as sporty, and with more space than the Model S, is certainly more utilitarian.
Having said that, I agree with the other reply below; it is more of a crossover than strictly speaking an SUV; but there isn't much marketing distinction between the two in the existing market, anyway.
Correction: according to teslamotors.com, the range of the Model S on these batteries is actually 230 miles and 300 miles respectively.
While continuing to do novel things (like the all-wheel drive train of the Model-X using two electric motors).
I see them sort of as Xerox PARC, except dealing with the automotive industry instead of computers, and they actually produce things you can buy.
It's a step closer to hub-motors, which is where I believe the future of electric vehicle propulsion lies.
Gullwing doors generally require about 11" on either side of the car; try opening your standard car door 11" and squeeze out (noting that most car doors are about 6" thick to begin with).
Granted; I was only really thinking outside and in your home garage. I don't park underground all that often, but I can only think of a handful of garages in Toronto that I have visited that might pose a problem here.
Gull wing doors take less width than standard hinged doors, because the pivot point is near the centre-line of the vehicle. Yes, they need more height -- outdoors, this is a non-issue; in your garage, it might be. Better measure before you buy one.
With respect to sliding doors, they don't offer the same level of third-row access -- if you look at any imagery of the Model X, you will see that the rear doors are about twice the width of the amount of vehicle remaining behind it. You need something for your sliding door to slide on.
With the Model S you can; depending on how you drive, the 60 kWh pack would be tight, but the 85 kWh pack should handle you no problem (going on your second 250 mile requirement). Those same numbers aren't out for the Model X, but as I said, they are the same battery packs, and the total efficiency will be in the same ballpark.
Also, note that just because one particular non-extended-range electric vehicle does not meet your particular driving requirements does not mean it is a useless endeavour, or even that it will fail in market at all. There are plenty of other people out there that don't drive 300 miles a day (I for one wouldn't want to); the base Model S would do all the driving I need fine, except when I go home for the holidays. Even then, the 85 kWh battery pack would handle that no problem. If you're going on a really long trip, say, once a year, you could always just rent.