The only way this will be reusable is if the Falcon 9 from SpaceX that Stratolaunch intends to use is reusable, and that depends on if SpaceX can get their pad-launched Falcon 9 to be reusable. Again, it has nothing to do with comparing reusability between whatever Scaled Composites is doing and what SpaceX is doing. This is the point being made.
On another topic, this says the goal is to get 13,500 lb to low earth orbit. What happens if you want to launch twice this payload to low earth orbit? Building twice the plane (which is already going to be the biggest ever, by wingspan) won't be enough. These things don't scale like that. For getting heavy hardware and people into orbit, pad-based launches make a lot more sense, especially if SpaceX can drive down the cost as they seem prepared to do. For putting that small satellite into orbit, perhaps an air-launched rocket will be cheaper. This is already done, as NuSTAR was launched by a Pegasus recently.
The point is that SS2 has no chance of making orbit after a few modifications, while SS2 is the next iteration of SS1. SpaceX is putting things into orbit. Comparing anything that SpaceX is doing with anything scaled composites is doing as far as reusability is concerned is stupid, done only by those who don't understand the difference between orbit and just touching the edge of the atmosphere for a short time. The fact that Scaled Composites is reusing their plane with attached rocket engine really isn't relevant. Besides, even if they do put things into orbit, they will only be able to put very small things into orbit. The concept of dropping a rocket from a plane doesn't scale well. SpaceX is making things to go to space and stay there. Scaled Composites is making interesting airplanes, with one that can go to space briefly.
I totally agree with this. The typical fearmonger will lose a lot of momentum when surrounded by people who all got bored watching their phone-based radiation detectors spike by several orders of magnitude as they walk around day to day. The fearmonger survives on attention and ignorance of others, not on shoulder shrugs.
Bring on the phone-based radiation detectors. I'd like to have one, even though I would also get bored with it after a week. It would still be occasionally useful, just as the compass on my phone is occasionally useful. A great teaching tool for the kids too.
Did you know we have yet to use the F22 ANYWHERE? Why? too damned expensive to risk, and I'm betting the same will be said of the F35.
The more likely reason the F-22 hasn't seen combat use is that the United States hasn't been involved in a conflict that has required it. The B-2 is quite a bit more expensive and they have seen use, so this calls into question your reasoning. I'd trust the people in charge of planning missions on deciding the equipment used to execute the mission before I'd trust your hunches about their motivations.
The German WWII anology is silly. If the United States decides to attack all of Europe and Russia, I'd expect early successes as the Germans experienced, followed by a war of attrition that would eventually be hopeless (not counting nuclear, of course). This attrition would happen whether F-15s or F-22s are used. You think the Germans would have been more successful with inferior equipment? I don't. Their problem was that they attacked everybody, not their advanced equipment. They were fighting pretty much all of Europe, Russia, and the United States. That is a lost cause no matter what equipment is used.
Frustration with the cost overruns with the F-22 and F-35 are understandable. I agree it's a mess. I think everybody does. I don't know what to do about it, but the answer is certainly not stocking up on old designs. The F-15Es, F-16s, F-18Es, and Warthogs will still be in service for a long time after introduction of the newer planes. If a conflict arises where the capabilities of the F-22 and F-35 are needed, those planes will be there. Until then, I guess you can continue to post your comments about how the reason they haven't been used is that they are too expensive, even though that's not the reason at all.
I don't think that taking a page from Iran is an idea worth even the slightest bit of respect. You really think that the chance of the United States gaining air superiority during an Iranian conflict would be better using Iranian hardware? You think chances are hurt by having the F-22?
There are 1.3e9 km^3 of water in the world. That is 1.3e24 cm^3. It takes 4.184 J of energy to heat one cm^3 of water, so heating the oceans 1 C would take 5.6e24 J of energy. 5.6e24 / (1kg * (1e8 m/s))^2 is 6.2e7 kg. About 62 thousand tonnes mass equivalent. I'd say your math is way off.
No memo for you, because you got everything in your post wrong. Energy equivalence of a kg - 9e16 J. Annual world energy consumption in a year - 474e18. A factor of 5000 difference. So it's more like 2 hours. You see, this is math, and you might try it sometime. It's much better than your hokey religion.
Also, nobody said burning dead dinosaur releases 160 tonnes energy equivalent. I don't know how you came up with that. Perhaps a memo stapled to your forehead EVERY SINGLE time you make up something would help.
Let's just imagine the water in the earths oceans heats up 1C. Thats 1.33e9 km^3 of water, which is 1.33e24 cm^3. Raising it 1 C takes 5.6e24 J (4.184 J / cm^3). This is the mass equivalent of 6.2e7 kg of energy... which is 62,000 metric tonnes. Of course water expands when heated, and there would be PV work too, but still, the 160 tonnes figure is certainly not absurd.
Again, to reiterrate. Math jmorris, try it sometime. It works a lot better then your hokey religion.
Who mods this stuff interesting when the calculation is so many orders of magnitude off? Seriously, 22 kJ to raise the earth 1 C? It's bad enough someone (Curunir_wolf) actually wrote the comment in the first place.
No, it's like telling the Wright brothers that they shouldn't bother flying their first plane around the world, because by the time they do so, somebody else would have already done it with an improved plane that is faster, safer, and can fly longer distances. It's even worse because the time it would take the Wright brothers to fly their plane whatever distance it flew, move their setup, fly again, etc., is still small to the amount of time it would take for people to send a spacecraft to the nearest star with current technology. We just don't have the technology right now to send anything with mass to the nearest star, so it's a waste of resources to force it using insufficient technology. Doesn't mean people should not think about it, but public money should be spent on more useful space activities.
0.333... is rational, because it equals 1/3, a ratio of two integers. 0.999... is rational, because it equals 1, also a ratio of two integers. 1/7 is rational because it is a ratio of two integers, and it equals 0.142857142857142857142857...
If 0.99... and 1 are different numbers, what is the difference between them? If they are different numbers, what is a number that is between them. If they are different, there has to be an infinite number of numbers between them. Tell me one.
it can only attempt to do so with the irrational number you listed.
Please tell me what irrational number I listed. Every number in my post is a rational number.
And because of this people accept that when they see 0.333... that it most likely is 1/3 because
Most likely? I don't understand that. Are you saying the notation expresses a probability now?
use 0.999... to represent the number closest to 1 without being 1 very logically
Please tell me this number that is closest to 1 without being 1. I guarantee that whatever number you chose, I can find a number closer (all I have to do is take the average of the number you chose and 1). Thus, such a number does not exist. It is pointless to talk of something that does not exist!
Yes, it is an irrational number, but so what?
No, 1/3, 8/9, 9/9, 0.9..., 0.3... and so on are not irrational numbers. They are rational. Numbers like pi and sqrt(2) are irrational.
You don't understand what irrational numbers are, you're claiming you understand the notation when you don't. There is no cheat, and no hack, and the entire point of this entire thread/forum/story is to point this out. If this really doesn't make sense, I'm sorry. Otherwise, I've been trolled, so congratulations.
The ellipse after the decimal number (...) implies the completed infinite. It is a notation. The same way that 9/9 is a notation. Using this notation, 1/3 = 0.333... exactly. What these notations represent really are equal, and not an approximation that you claim. The problem a lot of people have with math is understanding the notation. Your post is wrong because you do not understand it. Until you understand the notation, it is understandable that you make the claim that you do. And in the set of real numbers, and even in the set of rational numbers, there is no number that is closest to 1 without being 1. Such a number does not exist. Point is, 0.99... = 1 in all instances, because that is how the notation is accepted by the math community. Don't like it? Make your own notation. I'm fine with it the way it is.
That's because bitches make no sense. If you put the most sophisticated encryption and hardest puzzles into a device that, if cracked, would open up and display a vagina, the geeks would have no problem with it, and the jocks would be the ones without booty. As it is, being able to manage endless contradictions is what makes morons so successful with bitches. Helps to be hot too (and able to figure out what "hot" is - see previous point). Actually, if I were smart, I would become a moron. I'm trying to make the transition.
I can also hear the interference if there are nearby speakers. With my t-mobile service, I can determine if my phone is checking in, about to receive a text message, or start ringing, based on the pattern of sound I hear over the speakers. Especially in my car, if I don't have the music up too much. Comes off my computer desktop speakers too.
As an engineering student, I got quite tired of the jokes and the attitudes that my peers had towards people who are "different" (i.e. not engineers). It goes both ways though, as always. It just feels so good to feel superior to others, and then to share that feeling.
It may have been economics too. The southerners considered their slaves investments, and the north just wanted to do away with it. Perhaps if the north had just paid for the slaves to free them (and provide a means to keep productivity high - like money for machinery), the south could have stomached the change a little better. The economy of the south was dependent on the slaves. A less extreme example is telling a country that they can't grow a certain substance, and then wondering why they resist with violence. It's nice to play the moral card, but it's more likely the economics. The north was forcing a massive change. A meaningful heath care bill in this country is too much change for people. Can you think of a change as dramatic as eliminating slavery to an economy dependent on slavery happening in the US today without some dramatic consequences - especially if the difference was highly correlated with geography? Learning that the Civil War was fought for slavery in grade school did make me feel good though - and righteous.
Haha... you've never dealt with ASCAP. If you have a television in your bar, they send people out, and you get a notice in the mail that because the TV has the potential to play protected music, then you are in violation and must provide royalties. They threaten to take you to court. Few people will call their bluff, and if they do, that doesn't mean that that ASCAP goes away, or that it is actually a bluff. The musician in a bar thing is not surprising at all. I understand that in most cases when you hear a story like this that there must be something more to it, but when ASCAP is involved, it really is that bad. Think about it... pretty much every restaurant/store you visit is paying these fees, even if they don't play music over their speakers. If they aren't, they have been harassed by ASCAP, and ASCAP has money for lots of lawyers.
I'm actually disappointed that more people didn't quickly point this out. A hint to anyone who makes more than one prediction and expects ALL of them (the entire family) to have 95% confidence: the errors have to be adjusted accordingly. Bonferroni correction is one example of a method for this. But if I make 100 predictions with 100 95% intervals calculated independently, then the expectation is that 5 of the intervals will not contain their respective true value.
Because short bursts of gunfire are effective - the performance of the plane is not affected much. It's easier to aim - no added complexity of a pilot trying to aim a gun behind his back. Rounds have much more kinetic energy when a plane is flying towards a target than away from it - and the effectiveness of the gun is related to kinetic energy (If the plane is going 400mph, the difference is 800mph). Are these reasons sufficient?
I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand your comment. I consume ethanol regularly, and in public, and have yet to be punished in any way. So I don't understand the second sentence you wrote. Operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated on public roads is illegal, at least where I live. That means it is a crime, and blood alcohol level is a pretty good indicator of ethanol consumption - at least for evidence purposes. Maybe you're upset that the BAC levels are set very low in some areas of the country. Maybe you have a point there, I don't know. It would be nice if policy regarding this was data-driven and not MAD-driven, but it's my understanding that having just one drink noticeably affects a person's ability to drive - no matter how much they like to believe the opposite. Driving while intoxicated is illegal for good reason. Your third sentence makes is seem like you think drunk driving is a right, but I'm probably miss-reading it. Also, I'm pretty sure that rape receives a greater penalty than drunk driving (I've known lots of people with a DUI, and while they may have to pay fines, take classes, and not drive for a few months, they don't spend years in jail - something that is likely for a first time rapist). Point is, the part about not being allowed to have a penis doesn't make any sense to me either. Hopefully you can explain it to me.
I'm not qualified to determine what is the greatest achievement of mankind to date is, but my vote wouldn't be these rovers. They are a great achievement regardless, and at the level of these rovers, it seems silly to try to rank achievements. Walking on the moon certainly had a greater emotional impact for the average person than this, but knowledge gained from projects such as Hubble, Pioneer, Voyager, Viking, and Kepler is considerable, and current and future missions similar to these projects, to me, seem to be working the margins. Granted there is a lot of margin left for exploration of destinations investigated by previous programs. The rovers and orbiters of Mars have been outstanding. I'm looking forward to the launch of Curiosity. I hope everything goes well. Landing a 2000 lb. object safely on Mars will make for a tense situation for everyone who has an interest.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way this will be reusable is if the Falcon 9 from SpaceX that Stratolaunch intends to use is reusable, and that depends on if SpaceX can get their pad-launched Falcon 9 to be reusable. Again, it has nothing to do with comparing reusability between whatever Scaled Composites is doing and what SpaceX is doing. This is the point being made.
On another topic, this says the goal is to get 13,500 lb to low earth orbit. What happens if you want to launch twice this payload to low earth orbit? Building twice the plane (which is already going to be the biggest ever, by wingspan) won't be enough. These things don't scale like that. For getting heavy hardware and people into orbit, pad-based launches make a lot more sense, especially if SpaceX can drive down the cost as they seem prepared to do. For putting that small satellite into orbit, perhaps an air-launched rocket will be cheaper. This is already done, as NuSTAR was launched by a Pegasus recently.
The point is that SS2 has no chance of making orbit after a few modifications, while SS2 is the next iteration of SS1. SpaceX is putting things into orbit. Comparing anything that SpaceX is doing with anything scaled composites is doing as far as reusability is concerned is stupid, done only by those who don't understand the difference between orbit and just touching the edge of the atmosphere for a short time. The fact that Scaled Composites is reusing their plane with attached rocket engine really isn't relevant. Besides, even if they do put things into orbit, they will only be able to put very small things into orbit. The concept of dropping a rocket from a plane doesn't scale well. SpaceX is making things to go to space and stay there. Scaled Composites is making interesting airplanes, with one that can go to space briefly.
I totally agree with this. The typical fearmonger will lose a lot of momentum when surrounded by people who all got bored watching their phone-based radiation detectors spike by several orders of magnitude as they walk around day to day. The fearmonger survives on attention and ignorance of others, not on shoulder shrugs.
Bring on the phone-based radiation detectors. I'd like to have one, even though I would also get bored with it after a week. It would still be occasionally useful, just as the compass on my phone is occasionally useful. A great teaching tool for the kids too.
Did you know we have yet to use the F22 ANYWHERE? Why? too damned expensive to risk, and I'm betting the same will be said of the F35.
The more likely reason the F-22 hasn't seen combat use is that the United States hasn't been involved in a conflict that has required it. The B-2 is quite a bit more expensive and they have seen use, so this calls into question your reasoning. I'd trust the people in charge of planning missions on deciding the equipment used to execute the mission before I'd trust your hunches about their motivations.
The German WWII anology is silly. If the United States decides to attack all of Europe and Russia, I'd expect early successes as the Germans experienced, followed by a war of attrition that would eventually be hopeless (not counting nuclear, of course). This attrition would happen whether F-15s or F-22s are used. You think the Germans would have been more successful with inferior equipment? I don't. Their problem was that they attacked everybody, not their advanced equipment. They were fighting pretty much all of Europe, Russia, and the United States. That is a lost cause no matter what equipment is used.
Frustration with the cost overruns with the F-22 and F-35 are understandable. I agree it's a mess. I think everybody does. I don't know what to do about it, but the answer is certainly not stocking up on old designs. The F-15Es, F-16s, F-18Es, and Warthogs will still be in service for a long time after introduction of the newer planes. If a conflict arises where the capabilities of the F-22 and F-35 are needed, those planes will be there. Until then, I guess you can continue to post your comments about how the reason they haven't been used is that they are too expensive, even though that's not the reason at all.
I don't think that taking a page from Iran is an idea worth even the slightest bit of respect. You really think that the chance of the United States gaining air superiority during an Iranian conflict would be better using Iranian hardware? You think chances are hurt by having the F-22?
The difference between 1 and 100 is 2 orders of magnitude.
Heating the earth's atmosphere by 1 C is also a pretty big factor. If you actually work it out for yourself, you'll find it's a lot bigger than c^2.
There are 1.3e9 km^3 of water in the world. That is 1.3e24 cm^3. It takes 4.184 J of energy to heat one cm^3 of water, so heating the oceans 1 C would take 5.6e24 J of energy. 5.6e24 / (1kg * (1e8 m/s))^2 is 6.2e7 kg. About 62 thousand tonnes mass equivalent. I'd say your math is way off.
No memo for you, because you got everything in your post wrong. Energy equivalence of a kg - 9e16 J. Annual world energy consumption in a year - 474e18. A factor of 5000 difference. So it's more like 2 hours. You see, this is math, and you might try it sometime. It's much better than your hokey religion. Also, nobody said burning dead dinosaur releases 160 tonnes energy equivalent. I don't know how you came up with that. Perhaps a memo stapled to your forehead EVERY SINGLE time you make up something would help. Let's just imagine the water in the earths oceans heats up 1C. Thats 1.33e9 km^3 of water, which is 1.33e24 cm^3. Raising it 1 C takes 5.6e24 J (4.184 J / cm^3). This is the mass equivalent of 6.2e7 kg of energy... which is 62,000 metric tonnes. Of course water expands when heated, and there would be PV work too, but still, the 160 tonnes figure is certainly not absurd. Again, to reiterrate. Math jmorris, try it sometime. It works a lot better then your hokey religion.
Who mods this stuff interesting when the calculation is so many orders of magnitude off? Seriously, 22 kJ to raise the earth 1 C? It's bad enough someone (Curunir_wolf) actually wrote the comment in the first place.
No, it's like telling the Wright brothers that they shouldn't bother flying their first plane around the world, because by the time they do so, somebody else would have already done it with an improved plane that is faster, safer, and can fly longer distances. It's even worse because the time it would take the Wright brothers to fly their plane whatever distance it flew, move their setup, fly again, etc., is still small to the amount of time it would take for people to send a spacecraft to the nearest star with current technology. We just don't have the technology right now to send anything with mass to the nearest star, so it's a waste of resources to force it using insufficient technology. Doesn't mean people should not think about it, but public money should be spent on more useful space activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flora
Under "Bacterial Flora" is says 10^14 bacteria cells vs. 10^13 human cells. The reference stating this is
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.mi.31.100177.000543
I leave it to you to check the veracity of these sources. The three seconds on Google it took me to find the above is stretching me pretty thin.
No you didn't. You still don't understand what an irrational number is, or the notation. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html
Please tell me what irrational number I listed. Every number in my post is a rational number.
Most likely? I don't understand that. Are you saying the notation expresses a probability now?
Please tell me this number that is closest to 1 without being 1. I guarantee that whatever number you chose, I can find a number closer (all I have to do is take the average of the number you chose and 1). Thus, such a number does not exist. It is pointless to talk of something that does not exist!
No, 1/3, 8/9, 9/9, 0.9..., 0.3... and so on are not irrational numbers. They are rational. Numbers like pi and sqrt(2) are irrational. You don't understand what irrational numbers are, you're claiming you understand the notation when you don't. There is no cheat, and no hack, and the entire point of this entire thread/forum/story is to point this out. If this really doesn't make sense, I'm sorry. Otherwise, I've been trolled, so congratulations.
The ellipse after the decimal number (...) implies the completed infinite. It is a notation. The same way that 9/9 is a notation. Using this notation, 1/3 = 0.333... exactly. What these notations represent really are equal, and not an approximation that you claim. The problem a lot of people have with math is understanding the notation. Your post is wrong because you do not understand it. Until you understand the notation, it is understandable that you make the claim that you do. And in the set of real numbers, and even in the set of rational numbers, there is no number that is closest to 1 without being 1. Such a number does not exist. Point is, 0.99... = 1 in all instances, because that is how the notation is accepted by the math community. Don't like it? Make your own notation. I'm fine with it the way it is.
That's because bitches make no sense. If you put the most sophisticated encryption and hardest puzzles into a device that, if cracked, would open up and display a vagina, the geeks would have no problem with it, and the jocks would be the ones without booty. As it is, being able to manage endless contradictions is what makes morons so successful with bitches. Helps to be hot too (and able to figure out what "hot" is - see previous point). Actually, if I were smart, I would become a moron. I'm trying to make the transition.
I can also hear the interference if there are nearby speakers. With my t-mobile service, I can determine if my phone is checking in, about to receive a text message, or start ringing, based on the pattern of sound I hear over the speakers. Especially in my car, if I don't have the music up too much. Comes off my computer desktop speakers too.
The color scale is different for each image.
As an engineering student, I got quite tired of the jokes and the attitudes that my peers had towards people who are "different" (i.e. not engineers). It goes both ways though, as always. It just feels so good to feel superior to others, and then to share that feeling.
It may have been economics too. The southerners considered their slaves investments, and the north just wanted to do away with it. Perhaps if the north had just paid for the slaves to free them (and provide a means to keep productivity high - like money for machinery), the south could have stomached the change a little better. The economy of the south was dependent on the slaves. A less extreme example is telling a country that they can't grow a certain substance, and then wondering why they resist with violence. It's nice to play the moral card, but it's more likely the economics. The north was forcing a massive change. A meaningful heath care bill in this country is too much change for people. Can you think of a change as dramatic as eliminating slavery to an economy dependent on slavery happening in the US today without some dramatic consequences - especially if the difference was highly correlated with geography? Learning that the Civil War was fought for slavery in grade school did make me feel good though - and righteous.
Haha... you've never dealt with ASCAP. If you have a television in your bar, they send people out, and you get a notice in the mail that because the TV has the potential to play protected music, then you are in violation and must provide royalties. They threaten to take you to court. Few people will call their bluff, and if they do, that doesn't mean that that ASCAP goes away, or that it is actually a bluff. The musician in a bar thing is not surprising at all. I understand that in most cases when you hear a story like this that there must be something more to it, but when ASCAP is involved, it really is that bad. Think about it... pretty much every restaurant/store you visit is paying these fees, even if they don't play music over their speakers. If they aren't, they have been harassed by ASCAP, and ASCAP has money for lots of lawyers.
Or swarming a natural disaster area with resources.
I'm actually disappointed that more people didn't quickly point this out. A hint to anyone who makes more than one prediction and expects ALL of them (the entire family) to have 95% confidence: the errors have to be adjusted accordingly. Bonferroni correction is one example of a method for this. But if I make 100 predictions with 100 95% intervals calculated independently, then the expectation is that 5 of the intervals will not contain their respective true value.
Because short bursts of gunfire are effective - the performance of the plane is not affected much. It's easier to aim - no added complexity of a pilot trying to aim a gun behind his back. Rounds have much more kinetic energy when a plane is flying towards a target than away from it - and the effectiveness of the gun is related to kinetic energy (If the plane is going 400mph, the difference is 800mph). Are these reasons sufficient?
I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand your comment. I consume ethanol regularly, and in public, and have yet to be punished in any way. So I don't understand the second sentence you wrote. Operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated on public roads is illegal, at least where I live. That means it is a crime, and blood alcohol level is a pretty good indicator of ethanol consumption - at least for evidence purposes. Maybe you're upset that the BAC levels are set very low in some areas of the country. Maybe you have a point there, I don't know. It would be nice if policy regarding this was data-driven and not MAD-driven, but it's my understanding that having just one drink noticeably affects a person's ability to drive - no matter how much they like to believe the opposite. Driving while intoxicated is illegal for good reason. Your third sentence makes is seem like you think drunk driving is a right, but I'm probably miss-reading it. Also, I'm pretty sure that rape receives a greater penalty than drunk driving (I've known lots of people with a DUI, and while they may have to pay fines, take classes, and not drive for a few months, they don't spend years in jail - something that is likely for a first time rapist). Point is, the part about not being allowed to have a penis doesn't make any sense to me either. Hopefully you can explain it to me.
I'm not qualified to determine what is the greatest achievement of mankind to date is, but my vote wouldn't be these rovers. They are a great achievement regardless, and at the level of these rovers, it seems silly to try to rank achievements. Walking on the moon certainly had a greater emotional impact for the average person than this, but knowledge gained from projects such as Hubble, Pioneer, Voyager, Viking, and Kepler is considerable, and current and future missions similar to these projects, to me, seem to be working the margins. Granted there is a lot of margin left for exploration of destinations investigated by previous programs. The rovers and orbiters of Mars have been outstanding. I'm looking forward to the launch of Curiosity. I hope everything goes well. Landing a 2000 lb. object safely on Mars will make for a tense situation for everyone who has an interest.