Actually it's not perfect for satellites (and much worse for manned missions, remember Challenger)
To be precise, the Challenger accident was caused by operating the SRB's out of their design range. While they were not supposed to be used at less than 50 degrees, the night before the launch, the temps dropped to 18 degrees F, and were still below too cold at launch. The joint seals did exactly what the were expected to do when launched out of design window.
It was one of those cases of humans trying to trump physics with the suit's decisions.
It is, but the fuel on the other hand is very cheap, whereas solid propellants can be much more expensive to process, especially for very big rockets. Anyway, building SRBs is more or less a side effect of having missile-equipped military. You don't look at costs at that point.
There is some pretty solid science and technical reasons why a strap-on SRB is a more cost efficient way to go than designing and running a liquid fueled rocket capable of running the whole mission.
Especially that first few thousand feet.
Do you have any references to solid fuel boosters being more expensive to process than the compression and storage and pumping and evacuation if needed of the liquid fuels? I assume that you are speaking only of hydrogen/oxygen fuel, not the hypergolics or highly refined kerosene fuels.
It would seem that technology enthusiasts who have an interest in information systems don't have a strong desire to read about rockets posted on a website that used to be dedicated to news about information systems.
If you look at the top of the page, there are many things that Slashdot is about. Technology is one of them.
And this is technology, and this is of direct interest to many of us - myself included.
I mean it isn't the level of interest of Vim vs emacs arguments always bring us, or the ever enjoyable password arguments, but some of us have a passing interest in rocketry.
Why on Earth anyone would make a rocket out of solid fuel is beyond me. It seems unnecessarily hazardous and I don't understand the benefits. Are they gonna sell it to the Russians for giggles?
Solid fuel is more stable.
You don't have to fuel right before launch, lose a lot of the fuel and Oxidizer during the runup to launch, and then have to pump it back out if the launch is scrubbed.
It's really handy for first stage boosters. If you want a lot of boost, a rocket like the Saturn V has to have incredible amount of thrust just to get off the ground. Strap on a couple solid boosters and suddenly you can save the liquid fuel for later in the flight when the throttleability that solid fuel lacks is more needed for precise orbit injection.
Does anyone know if political calls are exempt? I'm asking for a friend.
Political calls are exempt, and are the moral equivalent of the Bob from India telling you your PC has an infection they can help you with. They don't get answered.
Except the spammy douchebags are just spoofing local numbers to fool people into picking them up. They seem to change them weekly or so.
My method works better, If I don't know who it is, if it isn't in my address book I don't pick up the phone. Don't give a shit any more. The telephone system has been ruined, and is essentially worthless.
When a non confrontational post is modded as a troll, it merely shows that th eperson marking it as such, recognnizes it as the truth, but their cognitive dissonance won't allow them.
If you just disagree, you shoulf mark it over rated.
Or even better, engage me in a discussion instead of hiding behind your modpoints.
So, instead of refuting the claim, you go and make fun of them for what they are. Take a long slow look in the mirror, and realize that you are indeed the hypocrite. Why don't you accept them as they are, after all, you expect them to do the same for your views.;)
Hold on a second, How on earth are you suggesting that I'm being a hypocrite for saying that people who have a problem with transgenders might have their own problem issues?
This is nothing new. It's called projection. And it works a lot. It's why we see politicians who rail about gays and end up caught in a bathroom giving another guy a blowjob. Or Family values reality stars who end up liking to get jiggy wit young girls, and have accounts with fuck for fun websites. Or preachers who like little girls, or special massage sessions, or being on child welfare panels and trying to get dates with underage same sex interns. on and on and on.
My statement is valid, and meant to be crude for the shock value. The only times I think about transgender people or hermaphroditic folk, is when a discussion comes up about it. Others perhaps think about it a lot more, certainly the number of pornsites devoted to that kind of thing might attest to that fact.
As for accepting those who have a problem with transgenders, and want to marginalize them or deprive them of civil rights, of course I accept their views. What you are saying to me is shut up and don't give your views. Sorry, perhaps some day, I can be killed or imprisoned for my views by people like you (you'd like that, eh?) but until then, well, I suppose you could just nor read my posts.
Because even if it were somehow true, nothing could ever be determined about any individual's intelligence by looking at them and judging the intelligence by the person being male or female, light or dark skinned.
Yes but the fundamental problem with that argument is this. Unless you possess the capability to reliably and efficiently assess individuals, than if there are real general trends toward superiority among groups, that it would absolutely make sense to discriminate based on those characteristics in cases where more deterministic data isn't available.
So what you are saying is that you can definitely and without mistake, choose the best candidate for a job by gender of skin color.
Sorry, thanks for playing. You have bought into the old political argument that you can make the porest stupidest white man feel as if he is superior to any and all Black people. It works, because the poor stupid white man cannot see that he is stupid, and if a person can tell him that he is superior to all blacks, then he will not only vote against his self interests, but happily open his wallet to those who tell him he is superior.
You aren't even wrong, you are that poor white guy.
You are five to ten times more likely to die from slipping off the roof by cleaning your solar panels than you would from any nuclear power accident.
Hilarious. So, if I don't go up on the roof to clean them? Is it safer to climb around on roofs of nuc plants than on my house roof? This is one of the more entertaining non-sequiturs I've read in a long time. Do go on.
We've gone over the nuc issues so many times in here - I hate to belabor the issue all over again, so I'll just note that nuclear power plants and their proponents have a big credibility problem. We're told that it's the safest form of power, then we watch Chernobyl and Fukushima go off. Then we're told those are old reactor designs - new ones will never do that. Then we're told that we're idiots.
Credibility problems, along with arrogance. Let us know how that works out for ya.
One thing is for certain - if My solar panel fails catastrophically, we don't have to evacuate the town around it.
So when you see that 9.5 gigawatts of solar compared to 8 gigawatts of natural gas, it's more like 3 gigawatts of average solar output versus 7 gigawatts of gas...
And? I would look at those numbers and do some quick calculations about an inplace technology that is now providing almost half of the power that a technology that involves drilling and pipelines, trains, compressor stations, and a lot of infrastructure.
We are seeing some models already. A local small power generating plant, designed to supplement the power system as needed, generates power and steam heat from natgas. Uses essentially a Jet engine turbine, and collects the waste heat for heating buildings. Backup is a diesel engine for power. So we have Natgas as the fuel of choice adding to the grid, and diesel in a pinch. So solar or wind can be backed up by natgas.
I'm seeing this as a likely new paradigm for power generation. The humongous plants of old, replaced by the sort of scheme I mentioned above. And a lot of other people going off-grid totally. For natgas, that makes sense. For coal, not so much. Coal is in deep trouble, unless we have some socialist makework project to subsidize the shit out of it.
It is so quaint and cute that so many people think he's actually going to follow through on his multitude of campaign promises.
Build the wall, put her in jail, and unless we somehow do a CCC level makework project, those coal miners aren't getting their jerbs back, certainly not mining coal, for what there is left of it is automated just like the rest of mining.
Coal mining in my area is quick and automated. And Limestone (dolomite) mining is so automated that what took several decades to do back in the 40's and 50's can now be done in a couple years.
It's cool to be this angry about gender. Really fucking cool.
Isn't it odd? One thing is for certain - these folks spend more time thinking about Chicks with Dicks or whatever they call the female/male version of that than chicks with dicks do.
Does that mean the male brain is superior, being an evolved version of the female brain with more bits acting in concert to handle more-demanding intellectual problems; or that it is inferior, being a hobbled version with bits weakened and disconnected so as to interfere with cognition?
Trigger warning - I'm replying about the story instead of the predictable direction the comments went.
It isn't a matter of superior or inferior. A pregnant woman goes through a fair number of biological adjustments, and it isn't too surprising that some of them are in the brain. And a lot of men can attest to their wife becoming a rather different person after childbirth. While this may or may not present a problem for the male isn't totally relevant, as the changes are related to survival of the child on the mother's part.
I suspect that these changes are more permanent than lasting only a couple years.
But as to being superior or inferior, it isn't that. This goes a long way toward explaining some personality changes, and might even be tied into the unfortunate post-partum depression that affects some women.
Mental superiority by gender is one of those ridiculous concepts just like racial superiority by some IQ test. Because even if it were somehow true, nothing could ever be determined about any individual's intelligence by looking at them and judging the intelligence by the person being male or female, light or dark skinned.
And I don't even know how to address the weird transgender bender the discussion went on, so I'll leave it at that.
On my desktop box I use Win 7 and FF, and they work just fine for me; I see no compelling reason to upgrade or change.
I use Linux Mint and FF on my laptop and also see no reason to change anything there.
Not all of us want to spend our lives upgrading stuff or chasing the release or gadget or whatever. Some of us just want to find something that works and use it.
That's because we are actually doing things, and not just trying to get the operating system to work.
So odd to see these shills yapping about how awesome W10 is, and that no one should mind the telemetry because other stuff has it, when at base, Updates break your system. Then again, some as swipe said we're just supposed to avoid buying things that Windows 10 breaks.
The shills are getting rather psychotic these days.
Meanwhile you stay on an insecure OS and you make it possible for your machine to become a zombie and interrupt MY experience. Don't like it? Well set aside those Libertarian ideas that \. loves so much, boys, only regulation will fix this kind of crap.
Well, Einstein, you just made millions of people revert to Windows 95 in the hope that they can be owned, and absolutely ruin your experience.
Slashdot Mirror
That oughta make America great again. Coal and repetitive industry production line jobs.
Booyeah!
Actually it's not perfect for satellites (and much worse for manned missions, remember Challenger)
To be precise, the Challenger accident was caused by operating the SRB's out of their design range. While they were not supposed to be used at less than 50 degrees, the night before the launch, the temps dropped to 18 degrees F, and were still below too cold at launch. The joint seals did exactly what the were expected to do when launched out of design window.
It was one of those cases of humans trying to trump physics with the suit's decisions.
It is, but the fuel on the other hand is very cheap, whereas solid propellants can be much more expensive to process, especially for very big rockets. Anyway, building SRBs is more or less a side effect of having missile-equipped military. You don't look at costs at that point.
There is some pretty solid science and technical reasons why a strap-on SRB is a more cost efficient way to go than designing and running a liquid fueled rocket capable of running the whole mission.
Especially that first few thousand feet.
Do you have any references to solid fuel boosters being more expensive to process than the compression and storage and pumping and evacuation if needed of the liquid fuels? I assume that you are speaking only of hydrogen/oxygen fuel, not the hypergolics or highly refined kerosene fuels.
It would seem that technology enthusiasts who have an interest in information systems don't have a strong desire to read about rockets posted on a website that used to be dedicated to news about information systems.
If you look at the top of the page, there are many things that Slashdot is about. Technology is one of them.
And this is technology, and this is of direct interest to many of us - myself included.
I mean it isn't the level of interest of Vim vs emacs arguments always bring us, or the ever enjoyable password arguments, but some of us have a passing interest in rocketry.
Why on Earth anyone would make a rocket out of solid fuel is beyond me. It seems unnecessarily hazardous and I don't understand the benefits. Are they gonna sell it to the Russians for giggles?
Solid fuel is more stable.
You don't have to fuel right before launch, lose a lot of the fuel and Oxidizer during the runup to launch, and then have to pump it back out if the launch is scrubbed.
It's really handy for first stage boosters. If you want a lot of boost, a rocket like the Saturn V has to have incredible amount of thrust just to get off the ground. Strap on a couple solid boosters and suddenly you can save the liquid fuel for later in the flight when the throttleability that solid fuel lacks is more needed for precise orbit injection.
How could I have missed something? I made the post as a metaphorical tribute to Japan. Perhaps you missed that?
Some AC's ain't got it going on. Hard to imagine he didn't get the reference.
BoC's Godzilla is a highlight of Rock music, amazing the original AC in this thread didn't get that.
History shows again and again
How nature points up the folly of men
Godzilla!
Fear is the motivator, fear of homelessness, fear of starvation - people who are motivated by that will jump when you tell them to jump.
I'm going to assume you are being a Poe here Joe, because fear turns to hate, and hate can only be controlled for a short while before it eats itself.
Even an absolute dictator has to provide something that the general public accepts
So its the fault of "I'm going to build a wall and stop illegal immigration" that we have more illegal immigrants?
Schrodinger's immigrant:
Simultaneously takes your job and is too lazy to work.
I bet you still believe in trickle down.
Amazingly enough, some still do. And it isn't going to change any time soon.
Why not just have a bigger army? It'll be needed sooner or late.
Because we'll all get jerbs workin in the coal mines. King Coal shall rise again!
Does anyone know if political calls are exempt? I'm asking for a friend.
Political calls are exempt, and are the moral equivalent of the Bob from India telling you your PC has an infection they can help you with. They don't get answered.
Except the spammy douchebags are just spoofing local numbers to fool people into picking them up. They seem to change them weekly or so.
My method works better, If I don't know who it is, if it isn't in my address book I don't pick up the phone. Don't give a shit any more. The telephone system has been ruined, and is essentially worthless.
Now quick - call me an idiot.
When a non confrontational post is modded as a troll, it merely shows that th eperson marking it as such, recognnizes it as the truth, but their cognitive dissonance won't allow them.
If you just disagree, you shoulf mark it over rated.
Or even better, engage me in a discussion instead of hiding behind your modpoints.
But I'll accept your concession.
So, instead of refuting the claim, you go and make fun of them for what they are. Take a long slow look in the mirror, and realize that you are indeed the hypocrite. Why don't you accept them as they are, after all, you expect them to do the same for your views. ;)
Hold on a second, How on earth are you suggesting that I'm being a hypocrite for saying that people who have a problem with transgenders might have their own problem issues?
This is nothing new. It's called projection. And it works a lot. It's why we see politicians who rail about gays and end up caught in a bathroom giving another guy a blowjob. Or Family values reality stars who end up liking to get jiggy wit young girls, and have accounts with fuck for fun websites. Or preachers who like little girls, or special massage sessions, or being on child welfare panels and trying to get dates with underage same sex interns. on and on and on.
My statement is valid, and meant to be crude for the shock value. The only times I think about transgender people or hermaphroditic folk, is when a discussion comes up about it. Others perhaps think about it a lot more, certainly the number of pornsites devoted to that kind of thing might attest to that fact.
As for accepting those who have a problem with transgenders, and want to marginalize them or deprive them of civil rights, of course I accept their views. What you are saying to me is shut up and don't give your views. Sorry, perhaps some day, I can be killed or imprisoned for my views by people like you (you'd like that, eh?) but until then, well, I suppose you could just nor read my posts.
Because even if it were somehow true, nothing could ever be determined about any individual's intelligence by looking at them and judging the intelligence by the person being male or female, light or dark skinned.
Yes but the fundamental problem with that argument is this. Unless you possess the capability to reliably and efficiently assess individuals, than if there are real general trends toward superiority among groups, that it would absolutely make sense to discriminate based on those characteristics in cases where more deterministic data isn't available.
So what you are saying is that you can definitely and without mistake, choose the best candidate for a job by gender of skin color.
Sorry, thanks for playing. You have bought into the old political argument that you can make the porest stupidest white man feel as if he is superior to any and all Black people. It works, because the poor stupid white man cannot see that he is stupid, and if a person can tell him that he is superior to all blacks, then he will not only vote against his self interests, but happily open his wallet to those who tell him he is superior.
You aren't even wrong, you are that poor white guy.
it is fun to have geysers in front of the house ...
Here in America, we have Geezers in front of the house, yelling at the kids to get off of their lawn
You are five to ten times more likely to die from slipping off the roof by cleaning your solar panels than you would from any nuclear power accident.
Hilarious. So, if I don't go up on the roof to clean them? Is it safer to climb around on roofs of nuc plants than on my house roof? This is one of the more entertaining non-sequiturs I've read in a long time. Do go on.
We've gone over the nuc issues so many times in here - I hate to belabor the issue all over again, so I'll just note that nuclear power plants and their proponents have a big credibility problem. We're told that it's the safest form of power, then we watch Chernobyl and Fukushima go off. Then we're told those are old reactor designs - new ones will never do that. Then we're told that we're idiots.
Credibility problems, along with arrogance. Let us know how that works out for ya.
One thing is for certain - if My solar panel fails catastrophically, we don't have to evacuate the town around it.
Now quick - call me an idiot.
Not total delivered.
So when you see that 9.5 gigawatts of solar compared to 8 gigawatts of natural gas, it's more like 3 gigawatts of average solar output versus 7 gigawatts of gas...
And? I would look at those numbers and do some quick calculations about an inplace technology that is now providing almost half of the power that a technology that involves drilling and pipelines, trains, compressor stations, and a lot of infrastructure.
We are seeing some models already. A local small power generating plant, designed to supplement the power system as needed, generates power and steam heat from natgas. Uses essentially a Jet engine turbine, and collects the waste heat for heating buildings. Backup is a diesel engine for power. So we have Natgas as the fuel of choice adding to the grid, and diesel in a pinch. So solar or wind can be backed up by natgas.
I'm seeing this as a likely new paradigm for power generation. The humongous plants of old, replaced by the sort of scheme I mentioned above. And a lot of other people going off-grid totally. For natgas, that makes sense. For coal, not so much. Coal is in deep trouble, unless we have some socialist makework project to subsidize the shit out of it.
Is he going to get me a jerb too?
It is so quaint and cute that so many people think he's actually going to follow through on his multitude of campaign promises.
Build the wall, put her in jail, and unless we somehow do a CCC level makework project, those coal miners aren't getting their jerbs back, certainly not mining coal, for what there is left of it is automated just like the rest of mining.
Coal mining in my area is quick and automated. And Limestone (dolomite) mining is so automated that what took several decades to do back in the 40's and 50's can now be done in a couple years.
It's cool to be this angry about gender. Really fucking cool.
Isn't it odd? One thing is for certain - these folks spend more time thinking about Chicks with Dicks or whatever they call the female/male version of that than chicks with dicks do.
Does that mean the male brain is superior, being an evolved version of the female brain with more bits acting in concert to handle more-demanding intellectual problems; or that it is inferior, being a hobbled version with bits weakened and disconnected so as to interfere with cognition?
Trigger warning - I'm replying about the story instead of the predictable direction the comments went.
It isn't a matter of superior or inferior. A pregnant woman goes through a fair number of biological adjustments, and it isn't too surprising that some of them are in the brain. And a lot of men can attest to their wife becoming a rather different person after childbirth. While this may or may not present a problem for the male isn't totally relevant, as the changes are related to survival of the child on the mother's part.
I suspect that these changes are more permanent than lasting only a couple years.
But as to being superior or inferior, it isn't that. This goes a long way toward explaining some personality changes, and might even be tied into the unfortunate post-partum depression that affects some women.
Mental superiority by gender is one of those ridiculous concepts just like racial superiority by some IQ test. Because even if it were somehow true, nothing could ever be determined about any individual's intelligence by looking at them and judging the intelligence by the person being male or female, light or dark skinned.
And I don't even know how to address the weird transgender bender the discussion went on, so I'll leave it at that.
Most feminists see the fact that some people feel like they have been born in the wrong sexe, and therefore identify themselves as a different gender.
I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.....
On my desktop box I use Win 7 and FF, and they work just fine for me; I see no compelling reason to upgrade or change.
I use Linux Mint and FF on my laptop and also see no reason to change anything there.
Not all of us want to spend our lives upgrading stuff or chasing the release or gadget or whatever. Some of us just want to find something that works and use it.
That's because we are actually doing things, and not just trying to get the operating system to work.
So odd to see these shills yapping about how awesome W10 is, and that no one should mind the telemetry because other stuff has it, when at base, Updates break your system. Then again, some as swipe said we're just supposed to avoid buying things that Windows 10 breaks.
The shills are getting rather psychotic these days.
Meanwhile you stay on an insecure OS and you make it possible for your machine to become a zombie and interrupt MY experience. Don't like it? Well set aside those Libertarian ideas that \. loves so much, boys, only regulation will fix this kind of crap.
Well, Einstein, you just made millions of people revert to Windows 95 in the hope that they can be owned, and absolutely ruin your experience.
Too much coffee today, or just a natural rager?