So now they will dismantle it and make a new one, and at some point it will say "remember all the good times we had with all the testing, before you murdered me?"
Amazing how nobody can get these figures right. Million, billions, hundreds of millions, whatever, just throw them all together and don't bother to verify that it all adds up. According to Engadget, 1.2 billion plus 10.3 billion plus 5 million make 12 billion. The Slashdot comments have a bunch of other versions, but i have yet to see one that adds up.
Actually, recommended procedure for extinguishing burning lithium batteries in electronic devices is submerging them in water. When they are already burning, short circuits are no longer a problem. Heat is. So you need to cool them down as quickly as possible to stop the chain reaction.
Airplane cabin crews have special bags for electronic equipment fires, they fill the bag with water (or soda) and put the equipment into the bag.
It's probably a little harder than that. First of all you don't just launch stuff in the direction of a desert, you launch them retrograde to the asteroid's orbit so it gets into an orbit with a perigee close to earth. Then you have to keep it from burning up in the atmosphere, which means you'll have to enclose it in some sort of vessel that can survive reentry (unless you send a really huge chunk and accept the fact that much of it will burn up in the atmosphere and you'll have to dig up the rest from the impact crater).
O, and make sure you don't hit any satellites or space stations.
I think people will certainly try it at some point. It might even make sense for spacecraft to use its resources in situ. Bringing it back to earth will probably only be useful for the scientific value but not worth it economically. That doesn't mean people won't try, though.
I assume you've never played Kerbal Space Program.
Why would you want to get into a solar orbit? Your goal is to get close to the asteroid with zero relative velocity, in other words you need to get into exactly the same orbit around the earth. I fail to see how exiting the earth's gravity well and then coming back again would somehow make that easier to achieve.
The easiest way to get there is probably by first getting into low earth orbit, then accelerating into a slingshot maneuver around the moon that raises your apogee to touch the asteroid's orbit, preferably near its apogee, all timed so you meet the asteroid there. It will be approaching you from behind, so you need to accelerate on your orbit around the earth, raising your perigee (and adjusting inclination) until your orbit matches that of the asteroid. I suppose you can call that "braking" in the asteroid's reference frame, I'll give you that, but it's really more like merging onto a highway and accelerating to keep up with traffic. Most of your energy will be spent getting there: it's so far away from the earth that orbital velocities are very low, so you won't need much delta-v to match its speed. That last part will actually be a lot easier than getting to the moon.
If you're really good, you can skip the low earth orbit and launch straight into a moon slingshot, but that will give you a really tiny and infrequent launch window. Probably not the best idea in practice.
They do have a point. You know, whenever someone says "thank you" to me, I always naturally assume that they are working for Citigroup. When it turns out they don't work for Citigroup and they were just saying it to be nice, it confuses the hell out of me. Could everyone please stop abusing registered trademarks like that? Thank you.
But I'm detecting gravitons all the time! I wouldn't be sitting in this seat if it wasn't for gravitons. I think someone misunderstood something here. Possibly me;-)
but the real ones detected by LIGO seem to propagate at something more on the order of 0.01 c. Does someone have a more exact value?
Sure, as far as we know, the exact value is c. Where did you find 0.01c?
The distance between Livingston and Hanford is 3002 km, and the signals were received 1.1 milliseconds apart. In a straight line that would be rougly 3 million km/sec, or 10c. But obviously the signal came in at an angle. If it had come in perpendicular to the line between the two detectors, they would have detected it simultaneously. So it must have come from somewhere in between, I would say around 6 degrees off the perpendicular plane between the two detectors.
The number of engines they use depend on the mission. I believe on the last webcast they said something like 1-3-1 for a GTO mission. So they first start one, then add two more for the 12g deceleration, then turn those two back off and land with just the center engine to have more precision.
The engines can throttle between 45% and 100%, and for a nearly empty rocket a single engine at 45% is already more than 1g. That indeed makes it a lot more challenging than landing the blue origin rockets which are a lot less powerful but can hover.
I wonder how they're going to "compensate" for a thrust shortfall on one engine. They start those three engines pretty much at the last possible moment. Once they've detected a thrust shortfall, that platform is getting pretty close. So what are they going to do? Add two other engines? Can they start them that quickly? They don't have much fuel to work with either.
And there's a Dutch woman in jail in Qatar right now, after having gone to the police to report that she had been raped. Meanwhile the female friend she was traveling with is missing, which seems to confirm that this was not just a case of some women getting drunk and doing something they regretted later.
At least the rapist is in jail too, at least for now. But the authorities very helpfully proposed that if she married him, they could both get out of jail.
And we are supposed to be tolerant of those retards?
Tesla has a slightly different take on this story which is worth reading. I\m not saying they are necessarily right and the customer is necessarily wrong, just that it could be useful to hear both sides of the story:
- They haven't seen this problem on any other cars (and they would know as they own all service centers). - The car in question experienced a very unusual use case, it was regularly used on a long dirt road and was caked in dirt (it took two tow trucks to retrieve it, one to get it to the highway and another to get it to the service center) - The NHTSA has not actually opened even a preliminary evaluation - Their document would not prevent the customer from talking to the NHTSA. - Tesla regularly meets with the NHTSA and has often issued recalls for defects before they ever became anything close to an actual safety issue - The blogger who fabricated this issue (sic) is the same person who previously wrote a blog titled "Tesla Death Watch", starting on May 19 2008.
Slashdot Mirror
So now they will dismantle it and make a new one, and at some point it will say "remember all the good times we had with all the testing, before you murdered me?"
Quite sad how pensioners get to decide the future of the next generation against their wishes.
Amazing how nobody can get these figures right. Million, billions, hundreds of millions, whatever, just throw them all together and don't bother to verify that it all adds up. According to Engadget, 1.2 billion plus 10.3 billion plus 5 million make 12 billion. The Slashdot comments have a bunch of other versions, but i have yet to see one that adds up.
Actually, recommended procedure for extinguishing burning lithium batteries in electronic devices is submerging them in water. When they are already burning, short circuits are no longer a problem. Heat is. So you need to cool them down as quickly as possible to stop the chain reaction.
Airplane cabin crews have special bags for electronic equipment fires, they fill the bag with water (or soda) and put the equipment into the bag.
That's why I always turn autocorect off. Maybe I'll make a misstake or two, but at least I won't get cancer.
That's true, I stand corrected, I didn't realize it was that far away from earth.
It's probably a little harder than that. First of all you don't just launch stuff in the direction of a desert, you launch them retrograde to the asteroid's orbit so it gets into an orbit with a perigee close to earth. Then you have to keep it from burning up in the atmosphere, which means you'll have to enclose it in some sort of vessel that can survive reentry (unless you send a really huge chunk and accept the fact that much of it will burn up in the atmosphere and you'll have to dig up the rest from the impact crater).
O, and make sure you don't hit any satellites or space stations.
I think people will certainly try it at some point. It might even make sense for spacecraft to use its resources in situ. Bringing it back to earth will probably only be useful for the scientific value but not worth it economically. That doesn't mean people won't try, though.
I assume you've never played Kerbal Space Program.
Why would you want to get into a solar orbit? Your goal is to get close to the asteroid with zero relative velocity, in other words you need to get into exactly the same orbit around the earth. I fail to see how exiting the earth's gravity well and then coming back again would somehow make that easier to achieve.
The easiest way to get there is probably by first getting into low earth orbit, then accelerating into a slingshot maneuver around the moon that raises your apogee to touch the asteroid's orbit, preferably near its apogee, all timed so you meet the asteroid there. It will be approaching you from behind, so you need to accelerate on your orbit around the earth, raising your perigee (and adjusting inclination) until your orbit matches that of the asteroid. I suppose you can call that "braking" in the asteroid's reference frame, I'll give you that, but it's really more like merging onto a highway and accelerating to keep up with traffic. Most of your energy will be spent getting there: it's so far away from the earth that orbital velocities are very low, so you won't need much delta-v to match its speed. That last part will actually be a lot easier than getting to the moon.
If you're really good, you can skip the low earth orbit and launch straight into a moon slingshot, but that will give you a really tiny and infrequent launch window. Probably not the best idea in practice.
They do have a point. You know, whenever someone says "thank you" to me, I always naturally assume that they are working for Citigroup. When it turns out they don't work for Citigroup and they were just saying it to be nice, it confuses the hell out of me. Could everyone please stop abusing registered trademarks like that? Thank you.
So the graviton was both there and not there as long as you didn't open the envelope?
But I'm detecting gravitons all the time! I wouldn't be sitting in this seat if it wasn't for gravitons. I think someone misunderstood something here. Possibly me ;-)
but the real ones detected by LIGO seem to propagate at something more on the order of 0.01 c. Does someone have a more exact value?
Sure, as far as we know, the exact value is c. Where did you find 0.01c?
The distance between Livingston and Hanford is 3002 km, and the signals were received 1.1 milliseconds apart. In a straight line that would be rougly 3 million km/sec, or 10c. But obviously the signal came in at an angle. If it had come in perpendicular to the line between the two detectors, they would have detected it simultaneously. So it must have come from somewhere in between, I would say around 6 degrees off the perpendicular plane between the two detectors.
The number of engines they use depend on the mission. I believe on the last webcast they said something like 1-3-1 for a GTO mission. So they first start one, then add two more for the 12g deceleration, then turn those two back off and land with just the center engine to have more precision.
The engines can throttle between 45% and 100%, and for a nearly empty rocket a single engine at 45% is already more than 1g. That indeed makes it a lot more challenging than landing the blue origin rockets which are a lot less powerful but can hover.
That would work if the center engine failed. But if it's one of the outers, will it have enough thrust vectoring to compensate for the imbalance?
I wonder how they're going to "compensate" for a thrust shortfall on one engine. They start those three engines pretty much at the last possible moment. Once they've detected a thrust shortfall, that platform is getting pretty close. So what are they going to do? Add two other engines? Can they start them that quickly? They don't have much fuel to work with either.
Well, it seems to be pretty strong if they can transport it on a truck with just one support at each end.
Nah, doesn't have rounded corners.
And there's a Dutch woman in jail in Qatar right now, after having gone to the police to report that she had been raped. Meanwhile the female friend she was traveling with is missing, which seems to confirm that this was not just a case of some women getting drunk and doing something they regretted later.
At least the rapist is in jail too, at least for now. But the authorities very helpfully proposed that if she married him, they could both get out of jail.
And we are supposed to be tolerant of those retards?
The word "sic" does not necessarily point out an error, it just clarifies that that was the way Tesla wrote it ("fabricated").
"Sic" is just latin for "like that".
Tesla has a slightly different take on this story which is worth reading. I\m not saying they are necessarily right and the customer is necessarily wrong, just that it could be useful to hear both sides of the story:
- They haven't seen this problem on any other cars (and they would know as they own all service centers).
- The car in question experienced a very unusual use case, it was regularly used on a long dirt road and was caked in dirt (it took two tow trucks to retrieve it, one to get it to the highway and another to get it to the service center)
- The NHTSA has not actually opened even a preliminary evaluation
- Their document would not prevent the customer from talking to the NHTSA.
- Tesla regularly meets with the NHTSA and has often issued recalls for defects before they ever became anything close to an actual safety issue
- The blogger who fabricated this issue (sic) is the same person who previously wrote a blog titled "Tesla Death Watch", starting on May 19 2008.
(Those are just a few highlights, read the to make up your own mind)
Great, I've got a patent on replies to first posts so I'll see you there.
Oh, that's just money. How about "Hackers kill prime minister by taking over his car, accelerating it to 200 km/h and crashing it into a tree". Lulz!
And after a few years they shut down the authentication server so you have to buy a new car.
I think they should just have some sort of online competition so people can propose and vote for the best names.