The Sun (and solar system) last crossed the plane of the Galaxy 2 million years ago and we are currently in the thick of the particulate dust which is held near the plane.
However, the sun is presently located about 50 light-years above the central plane of the galaxy and is currently moving away from the plane of the Milky Way at 7km a second. It is estimated that it will take 14 million years for the gravitational pull of the Galaxy to stop our outward motion and begin to bring us back in.
Unless the Solar system is about to dissipate 7km/second worth of velocity and do an about face and the travel at 100 times the speed of light back to the plane, we won't be back there any time soon.
I think what you were trying to describe is the Earth's path through the Solar system. We will be passing back through the path of the ecliptic which is in effect the 'plane' of the Solar system where the majority of small hard rock type objects reside.
This is, of course, at the system level of motion rather than the galactic level.
We are here:-
Approx 28,000ly from galaxy centre on the 'Orion' arm.
Approx 50ly from mean plane of galaxy
Approx speed relative to galaxy centre: 200km a second.
Okay so I'm replying to myself but is the 'significant' difference here the 64bit port? - Is it wildly different from the 32bit version of AA or is it just quicker?
Anyone have any further info on this 64bit port as the article seems a little thin in that respect....
Didn't Gentoo already do this when they created an Americas Army LiveCD for "any" x86 system?
Well, alright, it didn't actually run on "any" system - maybe on ran on "some" systems but I seem to remember this was quite a while back when Icculus first ported it.
Lets say the unthinkable happened and an SRB started shearing on the Shuttle just as it left the pad; the whole Shuttle / SRB / lox assembly heeling over and heading back to earth from less than 500feet.
There is no abort mode from this situation. - You just hold tight and wait to find out if it really is painless.
At least with a Saturn V which has the potential (as does the shuttle) to do a good impression of a small hydrogen bomb on the pad, you have a chance of survival with the escape tower trying to drag you clear.
I notice that the Russians in the 60s managed to save their unmanned capsules from launch pad destuction using escape towers when their enourmous N1 rockets exploded - The technology works.
I believe that any Astronaut brave enough to strap themselves to a huge potential bomb (any rocket) and 'just hold on' should be given every chance of survival - The general asthetics of the vehicle should be the last priority!
If the plans are gone, someones going to have to start crawling around the remaining 3 Saturn V's with a set of feeler guages and a truckload of notepaper!:)
If the Saturn 1B designs are still in existance, they have good commonality with the Saturn V (Saturn IVb) upper stages.
This is about simplifying the airframe to make it safer.
It doesn't take an aerospace engineer to work out that the shuttle's back must have incurred some design concessions to allow for its open-lid.
Also less mass can help to make the vehicle safer, you don't need as much fuel to get on orbit and you can use small motors.
But the most important element of reducing the mass is that your inertial on re-entry becomes less, swifter decelleration from orbital speed and less generation of heat on the hull can only help to make a passenger carrying vehicle safer.
NASA is fully aware that a loss of a manned craft is not only a tragedy it is a potential PR disaster
Like I said, use the shuttles engine system for the cargo sled: its an 'available' design.
You can still have 'control surfaces' for launch stability but you don't need expensive aircraft type load-bearing wings for a landing.
As for bits of foam falling off, who cares? as long as the thing is tough enough to make orbit; even if it doesn't, there's nobody on board to worry about. (Just make sure the downrange area is clear). You don't have to recover any of the vehicle if it is made largely of the composites that the russians developed for the 'Fregat' shrouds which vaporise on re-entry.
As for the motor system, you could provide that with a ceramic heatshield and recovery parachutes so that bit could be re-used. (Although you don't have to) Not forgetting the added bonus of a lower propellant mass than the shuttle uses as after the sled's shrouds and payload have gone, there is much less mass to de-orbit.
I'm taking an educated guess that the costs of developing a 'sled' which behaves like the shuttle on the back of the SRB/LOX combination would be considerably cheaper than re-tooling the Saturn launch system.
As for getting astronauts on/off orbit, 3 options:
1) Develop NASAs 'minibus' spaceplane
2) Pay the Russians to fly them with the proven Soyuz system.
3) Get NASA to develop a capsule launch system simmilar to Soyuz
Its likely that option 2 would be the most cost effective (Soyuz is incredibly cheap per launch) but is also the most unlikely as America doesn't want to loose face.
You've already got a system capable of delivering probably 60-65 tons or so to LEO right under your nose!
Take the exisiting SRB+Fuel tank combination that launches the shuttle and design a payload-sled based around the shuttles existing motors without the fancy cargo-bay, wings, avionics, cabin, life-support etc. Hey-presto you have a heavy unmanned launcher based around existing technology.
You may even get better than 65tons payload because you won't need the fancy 'throttled' ascents (no need to avoid aerodynamic loading on wings).
Lets not forget the Ariane 5V system in service since 2001 which can launch a 5.4m wide 80,000kg payload to GTO
Then there's always talk of foreign investment breathing life back into the dormant Russian Energia lauch system which was designed to inject up to 200,000Kg of payload into LEO which has already been tested in a 110,000Kg payload configuration for launching the cancelled Buran Orbiter
It makes the shuttle's maximum payload to LEO of 28,803Kg look rather small.
Not all fuel injected cars have manual throttle bodies.
Manufacturers such as Mercedes and Range Rover are using accelerators which have a simple potentiometer fitted. Even the Transit van I use for work is drive by wire throttle.
This is used to 'request' throttle from the vehicles ECU, the ECU then decides how much to provide taking into account current road speed/rpm/gear etc.
This sort of 'drive by wire' system has the potential to malfunction although I haven't heard of any such throttle related incidents.
I have, however heard of Mercedes E Class cars in the UK developing a fault with the electronic braking system which would apply maximum braking at high speed. This prompted the UK DVLA to review the type-approval for this car in view of there being limited direct control over braking.
The radiated energy from a nuclear detonation would actually cause the molecules of the moons surface to be 'excited' and move but essentially your statement is correct for non-nuclear (or low-radiation) explosions in a vacuum.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to get hold of both parties and knock their flamin' heads together. >:(
Trousers down, bend over.......ready........thwack!
Is this corporate terrorism perhaps?
The Sun (and solar system) last crossed the plane of the Galaxy 2 million years ago and we are currently in the thick of the particulate dust which is held near the plane.
However, the sun is presently located about 50 light-years above the central plane of the galaxy and is currently moving away from the plane of the Milky Way at 7km a second. It is estimated that it will take 14 million years for the gravitational pull of the Galaxy to stop our outward motion and begin to bring us back in.
Unless the Solar system is about to dissipate 7km/second worth of velocity and do an about face and the travel at 100 times the speed of light back to the plane, we won't be back there any time soon.
I think what you were trying to describe is the Earth's path through the Solar system. We will be passing back through the path of the ecliptic which is in effect the 'plane' of the Solar system where the majority of small hard rock type objects reside.
This is, of course, at the system level of motion rather than the galactic level.
We are here:-
Approx 28,000ly from galaxy centre on the 'Orion' arm.
Approx 50ly from mean plane of galaxy
Approx speed relative to galaxy centre: 200km a second.
Okay so I'm replying to myself but is the 'significant' difference here the 64bit port? - Is it wildly different from the 32bit version of AA or is it just quicker?
Anyone have any further info on this 64bit port as the article seems a little thin in that respect....
Didn't Gentoo already do this when they created an Americas Army LiveCD for "any" x86 system?
Well, alright, it didn't actually run on "any" system - maybe on ran on "some" systems but I seem to remember this was quite a while back when Icculus first ported it.
Capsules also come with less mass, therefore less inertia for re-entry.
I would have thought that less inertia to keep you tearing along in the upper atmosphere at high speeds and temperatures would be a good thing?
Lets say the unthinkable happened and an SRB started shearing on the Shuttle just as it left the pad; the whole Shuttle / SRB / lox assembly heeling over and heading back to earth from less than 500feet.
There is no abort mode from this situation. - You just hold tight and wait to find out if it really is painless.
At least with a Saturn V which has the potential (as does the shuttle) to do a good impression of a small hydrogen bomb on the pad, you have a chance of survival with the escape tower trying to drag you clear.
I notice that the Russians in the 60s managed to save their unmanned capsules from launch pad destuction using escape towers when their enourmous N1 rockets exploded - The technology works.
I believe that any Astronaut brave enough to strap themselves to a huge potential bomb (any rocket) and 'just hold on' should be given every chance of survival - The general asthetics of the vehicle should be the last priority!
Funny, I thought everyone South of the Thames was just an "escaped criminal" :p
Surely killing a company would just require more ammunition (than an individual)?
now you know i'm joking.............
If the plans are gone, someones going to have to start crawling around the remaining 3 Saturn V's with a set of feeler guages and a truckload of notepaper! :)
If the Saturn 1B designs are still in existance, they have good commonality with the Saturn V (Saturn IVb) upper stages.
Agreed, 200tons to LEO not bad for a days work :)
I was going to point out that its Jovians too :)
Frankly, I think people should have more respect; what would you feel like if someone crased 34lbs of plutonium into your back yard!
AFAIK PC stands for 'Personal Computer'
Clearly Macs, Linux boxes etc are not Personal Computers; perhaps they are Public Computers......no, thats not it.....
I know, I know, its been said before but its such a bluidy stupid non-generalisation that I thought most people had grown out of using it.
When we hear this term "PC", most think of an Intel derived system running MS Windows.
Perhaps it stands for "Permanently Crippled" - Who knows.........
Well, if there's no linux support, I'll definately not be buying a copy; whether I like the look of the game or not.
Its just a lost sale (but there may be more than one)
This is about simplifying the airframe to make it safer.
It doesn't take an aerospace engineer to work out that the shuttle's back must have incurred some design concessions to allow for its open-lid.
Also less mass can help to make the vehicle safer, you don't need as much fuel to get on orbit and you can use small motors.
But the most important element of reducing the mass is that your inertial on re-entry becomes less, swifter decelleration from orbital speed and less generation of heat on the hull can only help to make a passenger carrying vehicle safer.
NASA is fully aware that a loss of a manned craft is not only a tragedy it is a potential PR disaster
Well, they're down now.
This appears to be as a result of a combined DoS attack by the MPAA and BMI along the slashdot effect.
Its a real pain, it's not often I feel like getting the plastic out of my wallet!
If they'd like British public opinion on their side, they'd be better off considering a long walk off a short pier.
We're not all blonde and living in Essex you know.
Could this be democracy in action?
Or just another slow motion train-wreck?
Only the MEPs will decide
Oh dear......
So a good bet is to develop the small personell spaceplane (or capsule) and develop a HLV with existing components from the shuttle system perhaps.
Like I said, use the shuttles engine system for the cargo sled: its an 'available' design.
You can still have 'control surfaces' for launch stability but you don't need expensive aircraft type load-bearing wings for a landing.
As for bits of foam falling off, who cares? as long as the thing is tough enough to make orbit; even if it doesn't, there's nobody on board to worry about. (Just make sure the downrange area is clear). You don't have to recover any of the vehicle if it is made largely of the composites that the russians developed for the 'Fregat' shrouds which vaporise on re-entry.
As for the motor system, you could provide that with a ceramic heatshield and recovery parachutes so that bit could be re-used. (Although you don't have to) Not forgetting the added bonus of a lower propellant mass than the shuttle uses as after the sled's shrouds and payload have gone, there is much less mass to de-orbit.
I'm taking an educated guess that the costs of developing a 'sled' which behaves like the shuttle on the back of the SRB/LOX combination would be considerably cheaper than re-tooling the Saturn launch system.
As for getting astronauts on/off orbit, 3 options:
1) Develop NASAs 'minibus' spaceplane
2) Pay the Russians to fly them with the proven Soyuz system.
3) Get NASA to develop a capsule launch system simmilar to Soyuz
Its likely that option 2 would be the most cost effective (Soyuz is incredibly cheap per launch) but is also the most unlikely as America doesn't want to loose face.
You've already got a system capable of delivering probably 60-65 tons or so to LEO right under your nose!
Take the exisiting SRB+Fuel tank combination that launches the shuttle and design a payload-sled based around the shuttles existing motors without the fancy cargo-bay, wings, avionics, cabin, life-support etc. Hey-presto you have a heavy unmanned launcher based around existing technology.
You may even get better than 65tons payload because you won't need the fancy 'throttled' ascents (no need to avoid aerodynamic loading on wings).
Now why didn't I think about that before?
Only by a multiple of 10 ;) oops
Lets not forget the Ariane 5V system in service since 2001 which can launch a 5.4m wide 80,000kg payload to GTO
Then there's always talk of foreign investment breathing life back into the dormant Russian Energia lauch system which was designed to inject up to 200,000Kg of payload into LEO which has already been tested in a 110,000Kg payload configuration for launching the cancelled Buran Orbiter
It makes the shuttle's maximum payload to LEO of 28,803Kg look rather small.
Not all fuel injected cars have manual throttle bodies.
Manufacturers such as Mercedes and Range Rover are using accelerators which have a simple potentiometer fitted. Even the Transit van I use for work is drive by wire throttle.
This is used to 'request' throttle from the vehicles ECU, the ECU then decides how much to provide taking into account current road speed/rpm/gear etc.
This sort of 'drive by wire' system has the potential to malfunction although I haven't heard of any such throttle related incidents.
I have, however heard of Mercedes E Class cars in the UK developing a fault with the electronic braking system which would apply maximum braking at high speed.
This prompted the UK DVLA to review the type-approval for this car in view of there being limited direct control over braking.
The radiated energy from a nuclear detonation would actually cause the molecules of the moons surface to be 'excited' and move but essentially your statement is correct for non-nuclear (or low-radiation) explosions in a vacuum.