getting stuff into orbit would be a whole lot easier if you aim a array of lasers at a heat exchanger on the launch vehicle, and use it to heat up hydrogen for thrust. it would make easily reusable single stage launch vehicles feasible.
uh, what? im pretty sure astronauts not getting killed is a primary engineering objective of manned spaceflight. a better safety record sounds like a pretty good engineering based argument to me. a emotional argument might be something like "oh the shuttle is shaped like a plane, and planes are highly reusable, so the shuttle will be highly reusable and not incredibly expensive at all mr congressman". you know, for example.
thats a stupid idea. the sheer drag as it plows through the atmosphere repeatedly means itll last only a few orbits, if that. even if the speed was low, the drag would still be large enough to bring it down quickly. and anything you sling into orbit is gonna pull the entire thing down, so your gonna need the same, probably more, thrust to bring it back to that 500km orbit than youd spend just blasting a rocket with that payload on the same trajectory.
dont do that man. dont use tenuous environmental concerns to bolster your argument. its done too often in the name of other causes, and it just smacks of grasping, when you already had some quite valid points.
"almost always has a negative energy balance" ?. id say thats always, but if you know of someone whos managed to break the laws of thermodynamics, please let us know.
every fucking time, someone comes along and tries to map the world of billion dollar finance to their fucking credit card. even bohner was talking about "cutting up the governments credit cards". so fucking idiots like you pretend they have a single fucking clue whats going on, vote those tea party mouth breathers in, they act on the will of their base, and we get shit like this.
Re:Joe Sixpack isn't even using his 1080p right
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 0
hey everyone, elrous0 says we shouldnt bother upping the resolution on screens because theres people out there who dont know how to hook them up properly. and damn those cool people and their superbowl parties, with all their... television watching... with friends... damn them all! people buy televisions for profound and serious reasons. you know, entirely apart from the higher resolution, thinness, lightness, longer life, larger screen size, less power consumption, less expensive, flatness, etc. etc.
Re:3D - and Resolution Maxed-Out?
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 0
no, the first two dont lose 1/2 resolution, if the resolution of that video is 3840x1080.
Re:Joe Sixpack isn't even using his 1080p right
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
to all the people complaining about 3d, quit whining, you can still go see the 2d version of everything, and the majority of us, i think its fair to say, quite enjoy 3d and I think that when properly done, it adds to the experience. if the 3d in a movie is done badly, thats not 3ds fault, thats the dumbass directors fault. widespread adoption of 3d is a new thing, and itll take some time for the directors to settle down and learn to use 3d in a intelligent manner.
the thing that bugs me about that sort of thing is you havent properly implemented perspective. if you have the locations of both eyes, the location of the screen, and the location of the object behind the screen, you should be tracing a line from the vectors of the object to your eye location through the screen, and intersecting it with the plane of the screen to get your polygon coordinates, in a version of proper 'fisheye' perspective. as it is, your just using the traditional system used in games that just traces a line at 90 degrees to the screen, so you still get some distortion, especially at extreme angles
at about a billion per launch, its fucking insulting to the american taxpayer that the shuttle isnt stuffed to the hilt with satellites and supplies every damn time it lifts off. 12tonnes? thats fucking ridiculous. fucking waste of money.
i think its some sort of squared relation. i believe launching from the equator gives you about a 1000mph speed boost, and small amounts of added speed lead to large reductions in propellant mass.
for the prices spacex are charging per tonne to orbit, id hardly call them 'gold-diggers'. more like 'holy shit boeing and lockmart have beeing pumping the government for fat cost-plus government contracts for launch services for decades and spacex is a breath of fucking fresh air to DOD and nasa'
theres more than a handful of games. nvidia lists about 400-500 games that work well with its 3dvision system. you dont need to specially write games for 3d. for the most part. its different for movies.
Slashdot Mirror
getting stuff into orbit would be a whole lot easier if you aim a array of lasers at a heat exchanger on the launch vehicle, and use it to heat up hydrogen for thrust. it would make easily reusable single stage launch vehicles feasible.
who the fuck has ever wanted to bend and stretch their display. how about making it affordable.
uh, what? im pretty sure astronauts not getting killed is a primary engineering objective of manned spaceflight. a better safety record sounds like a pretty good engineering based argument to me. a emotional argument might be something like "oh the shuttle is shaped like a plane, and planes are highly reusable, so the shuttle will be highly reusable and not incredibly expensive at all mr congressman". you know, for example.
the shuttle was a bad design. it needed to die a merciful death. as did the frankenshuttle derived constellation program.
so first person shooters will literally be the death of me...
yeah, elon musk is what billionaire ceos should be damnit.
thats a stupid idea. the sheer drag as it plows through the atmosphere repeatedly means itll last only a few orbits, if that. even if the speed was low, the drag would still be large enough to bring it down quickly. and anything you sling into orbit is gonna pull the entire thing down, so your gonna need the same, probably more, thrust to bring it back to that 500km orbit than youd spend just blasting a rocket with that payload on the same trajectory.
its the *australian* high court. duh. fuckin americans. its not always about you.
dont do that man. dont use tenuous environmental concerns to bolster your argument. its done too often in the name of other causes, and it just smacks of grasping, when you already had some quite valid points.
yes. because apple products use lots of electricity and are difficult to transport because of their heaviness. cough.
apple profits because people like user friendliness in their mobile phones.
"almost always has a negative energy balance" ?. id say thats always, but if you know of someone whos managed to break the laws of thermodynamics, please let us know.
In space, no one can hear you bluescreen.
i swear if any of you say "money dosent grow on trees" im gonna fucking lose it.
every fucking time, someone comes along and tries to map the world of billion dollar finance to their fucking credit card. even bohner was talking about "cutting up the governments credit cards". so fucking idiots like you pretend they have a single fucking clue whats going on, vote those tea party mouth breathers in, they act on the will of their base, and we get shit like this.
hey everyone, elrous0 says we shouldnt bother upping the resolution on screens because theres people out there who dont know how to hook them up properly. and damn those cool people and their superbowl parties, with all their... television watching... with friends... damn them all! people buy televisions for profound and serious reasons. you know, entirely apart from the higher resolution, thinness, lightness, longer life, larger screen size, less power consumption, less expensive, flatness, etc. etc.
no, the first two dont lose 1/2 resolution, if the resolution of that video is 3840x1080.
and the prices came down to sane levels
to all the people complaining about 3d, quit whining, you can still go see the 2d version of everything, and the majority of us, i think its fair to say, quite enjoy 3d and I think that when properly done, it adds to the experience. if the 3d in a movie is done badly, thats not 3ds fault, thats the dumbass directors fault. widespread adoption of 3d is a new thing, and itll take some time for the directors to settle down and learn to use 3d in a intelligent manner.
the thing that bugs me about that sort of thing is you havent properly implemented perspective. if you have the locations of both eyes, the location of the screen, and the location of the object behind the screen, you should be tracing a line from the vectors of the object to your eye location through the screen, and intersecting it with the plane of the screen to get your polygon coordinates, in a version of proper 'fisheye' perspective. as it is, your just using the traditional system used in games that just traces a line at 90 degrees to the screen, so you still get some distortion, especially at extreme angles
at about a billion per launch, its fucking insulting to the american taxpayer that the shuttle isnt stuffed to the hilt with satellites and supplies every damn time it lifts off. 12tonnes? thats fucking ridiculous. fucking waste of money.
i think its some sort of squared relation. i believe launching from the equator gives you about a 1000mph speed boost, and small amounts of added speed lead to large reductions in propellant mass.
for the prices spacex are charging per tonne to orbit, id hardly call them 'gold-diggers'. more like 'holy shit boeing and lockmart have beeing pumping the government for fat cost-plus government contracts for launch services for decades and spacex is a breath of fucking fresh air to DOD and nasa'
jfk = apollo, saturn V. nixon = shuttle. i think ill go with the democrats on this one.
theres more than a handful of games. nvidia lists about 400-500 games that work well with its 3dvision system. you dont need to specially write games for 3d. for the most part. its different for movies.