First off, it's not "in addition to", it's "instead of". Earth fiber networks don't run on fairy dust either, they also consume power. The internet is one of the biggest power consumers on Earth. That's just the way it is.
Doing my own math. You could fit ~141 in a Falcon Heavy to LEO. They don't say how many are actually planned, or even whether they plan to use Falcoln 9 or Heavy. Taking into account the higher altitude and practical considerations, let's say 60 satellites per flight on Heavies. So that's about 75 flights. Per FH flight, RP1 mass is ~400 tonnes and LOX mass ~935 tonnes. LOX is cheap and low energy to produce, so let's focus on the RP1. Total that's 30k tonnes of RP1. Which is 1,4TJ, or about 380 MWh higher heat value, which is 100-200MWh electricity generation potential. I didn't find how much energy Chicago consumes per year, but a reference on MIT's School of Engineering states that NYC consumes 60 TWh electricity per year. So I think you're way off in your estimate.
User terminals operating with the SpaceX system will use similar phased array technologies to allow for highly directive, steered antenna beams that track the system's low-Earth orbit satellites.
The antennas aren't physically steered, they're steered by adjusting the relative phases of the individual sub-antennas.
The funny thing is, it's the popular press are the ones who always jump over backwards to make sure they use the term "dwarf planet" when describing Pluto, as people like Tyson always give anyone who doesn't use the IAU's term a "Scientists Have Decided, Anyone Who Doesn't Accept This Is Rejecting Science" dressing down. You'll notice that the linked popular press articles were very careful to always say "dwarf planet". Yet in the scientific press people still use "planet" to describe Pluto as much as they do dwarf planet. Including in the linked Nature article, which uses both (ex: "... can substantially alter Pluto’s inertia tensor, resulting in a reorientation of the dwarf planet.." but "... loading and global expansion due to the freezing of a possible subsurface ocean generates stresses within the planet’s lithosphere..").
The IAU is overwhelmingly a group of astronomers. Aka, people who study stars, not planets. Planetologists never wanted this redefinition; to a planetologist, if it's in hydrostatic equilibrium and not fusing, it's a planet - regardless of whether it means some (ill defined and based on a false premise) "cleared the neighborhood" test. Hydrostatic equilibrium is the meaningful characteristic for studying planets. If the body is too small to deform to hydrostatic equilibrium, then you're looking at primitive material; it's the sort of place you'd go to study accretion, the origins of the solar system, the building blocks of life that planets were seeded with, etc. If the body is large enough to deform to hydrostatic equilibrium, then you're looking at altered material, the release of heat, generally fluids, often liquid water and atmospheres (even if the body has since "died" and had its atmosphere stripped), etc. They're the sort of places you go to learn about tectonics, vulcanism, geochemistry, prebiotic chemistry, searches for current or past life, etc. There's a very big difference between the two.
"Cleared the neighborhood" has zero significance to a planetologist. An exact copy of Earth, with all of its life, receiving the same amount of light, etc, would not have "cleared its neighborhood" if it were located in the habitable zone of a young star or a very large star. Not that an exact copy of Earth *anywhere* would be classified as a planet by the IAU, as they explicitly prevent extrasolar planets from being classified as planets. Despite the fact they have an "extrasolar planets" working group. Of course, internal consistency sure never seemed to be a concern of the IAU, as to them "dwarf stars" are stars and "dwarf galaxies" are galaxies, but apparently "dwarf planets" aren't planets. Just terrible terminology. Of course, any terminology that says "Mars and Jupiter are part of the same group, but Mars and Pluto aren't" is pretty ridiculous. If any line needed to be drawn in the "planet" group, it was to separate the gas giants, ice giants and rocky planets from each other.
To me, the worst parts of it are twofold. One, it's based entirely on a false premise: that planets each cleared their own neighborhood. But this is not at all what solar system formation models say. The inner planets had significant sweeping from Jupiter; Mars's neighborhood was almost entirely swept by Jupiter, not by itself. Some people might respond, "Well, okay, yes, that's true, but Mars could have swept its neighborhood, according to its Stern-Levison parameter." That's not what the Stern-Levison parameter says. The parameter is based around the ability of a body to scatter asteroids, with our current asteroid belt distribution. Not protoplanets. Not to mention, Stern is one of the biggest opponents of the "Cleared the Neighborhood" concept (I've never heard Levison's comments on the issue).
My other biggest issue with the decision is timing. And not even the "let's do this on the last day of a conference that most of our membership didn't even attend, after lots of people have left, including most of the opponents of the
Gravity isn't a constant force; it decreases with distance. Having heavier mass nearer and lighter mass further is a lower energy state, and is thus thermodynamically favoured.
These sorts of things really tempt me to get into VR... but I'm not really ready to dive in all the way with an expensive piece of kit, as I'm not a gamer. On the other hand, Google Cardboard looks a bit too.. um... primitive for me. Are there any "use your own cell phone"-based systems that don't involve having to constantly hold a piece of folded cardboard up to your eyes - some sort of head mount that's just the frame and lenses to put a cell phone into?
It's no secret that BLM incites violence against white people and cops,
Reference to the BLM policy supporting "inciting violence against white people and cops", please.
As for them protesting and practicing civil disobedience, I'm terribly sorry that their feeling the need to draw attention to the (statistically demonstrable) greater likelihood of an unarmed black person being killed by the police and similar issues is inconveniencing you. I'm sure they never would have done so if they had known that they might have made you late for a dinner party.
Burn rate, mainly. Solids are very different from hybrids in that the oxidizer is intermixed with the fuel, and thus it's easy to get any burn rate you want, from "none" to "rapid unscheduled disassembly";) With hybrids, combustion only occurs on the surface as a surface/gas reaction and the rate of reaction there is limited, so it's much more of an issue. With polybutadiene, this means having more channels and thinner walls to get the burn rate up, which increases the odds that chunks will break off as it burns, among other problems. It's generally recognized that the optimal situation is to have a fuel that readily forms a low viscosity melt layer which can be easily aerosolized, dramatically increasing the surface area. So, for example, fuels like paraffin wax and polyethylene work very well for hybrids. Combustion enhancers like aluminum significantly help as well.
Corr: that was five years from the unveiling to the flight failure. It was nearly a decade since the initial announcement. Oh, and I forgot one major issue - they had a tank explosion in 2007 that killed three employees. It's just been a trouble-plagued process. But they're still working on it.
They spent five years developing their first commercial craft... and then accidentally destroyed it on its fourth test flight, killing the copilot and seriously injuring the pilot. Ironically, the crash had nothing to do with it being a rocket; a combination of too few safety lockouts and poor pilot training led to the air braking system being deployed at too low of a speed. Which was a brand new huge setback. The fact that it took five years to even get to that point was itself due to a series of delays, including a complete redesign of the motor (really, the first team should have just read the research on hybrid rocket engines, they would have learned that polybutadiene, while a classic binder for solid rocket fuel, does not make a good hybrid fuel).
Not going to comment on most of that, but I do agree that there's a market. It's probably a wise decision that they went for a smaller aircraft - weaker sonic boom and more frequent flights for a market of a given size (and the ability to serve lower-traffic markets). Combined with modern tech for aerodynamic efficiency, propulsion, sonic boom modeling, etc, and a long list of "lessons learned" from Concorde, I wouldn't be surprised to see this - or at least one of their competitors - succeed.
I'm sorry, I think you're confusing football - you know, the game where move a ball around with your feet - with an American curiosity, "Handegg".
While we're on the subject, "Handball" is not a game played by yuppies involving hitting a ball against a wall; it's a fast-paced aggressive team sport, something like a cross between basketball and football (not handegg).
Honestly, the domestic aspects are mainly just a curiosity to me. I have some friends and family in the US, and so I care what happens because it affects them, but it doesn't affect me personally. On the other hand, the international stuff absolutely affects me. So that's what I'm watching closest.
Anyone hoping to get policy support from him better used to treating him to luxury, complimenting him profusely, and pitching every concept to him as if it's his idea and it's going to make him look good. Some attacks against those he's currently in feuds with will likewise go a long way.
He also railed against Goldman Sachs, and now has an ex Goldman Sachs banker-turned-media magnate as his chief strategist, and a Goldman Sachs-banker-turned-filmmaker is the leading contender for his treasury secretary.
He ran on "draining the swamp", and now his transition team is dominated by the swamp itself, a bunch of scandal-wrapped establishment and wannabe-establishment figures. Of course even that seems to oscillate as they bounce each other around. One day Chris Christie is leading the transition, the next day he's not even part of it. Now Pence is running it, while also fighting a legal battle in Indiana to (facepalm) prevent the public from seeing his emails.
He ran on an immediate full repeal of Obamacare, now he says he's going to evaluate it and try to keep some of its most important provisions, like the ban on discrimination for preexisting conditions, and keeping children on their parents' policies. Which I can't even begin to imagine the outcome of, because if he does that, then he has to make something functionally equivalent to the mandate - otherwise, healthy people who don't get insurance through their employer go without insurance until they get something serious, wherein they can just sign right up despite the "preexisting condition", and hence almost everyone on a non-corporate insurance policy is being treated for something expensive, and thus the rates become astronomical.
He ran on building a wall, huge, thick, unbroken, and explicitly never just a fence... now it's going to be a mix of walls, fences, and possibly not even that in places. At least that's the stated policy plan as of today, who knows what it will be tomorrow.
I have no clue what sort of policies this guy is actually going to pursue, and neither does anyone else here. He's changed so much over the years, and often day to day. Like most people except for the hardest-core partisans on each side, I'm hoping for the best and fearing the worst. I'm not even sure he really knows what to do next in many cases. The fact that nobody in his campaign even knew that you have to replace the White House staff when you take office blows my mind. Were they paying that little attention when Obama, or any other president for that matter, took office?
Jetsons-sounding cars would be awesome;) Or you could go on the weird end with something like whale song or chattering dolphins. Or on the mean end, the sound of fingernails being scratched across a chalkboard.
" It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign"
But of course, you didn't want to include that part because it contradicts your narrative, that " the NYT has admitted that they'd abandoned any pretense of objectivity in their coverage". A statement that says "We believe we reported on both candidates fairly" is precisely the opposite of "admitted that they'd abandoned any pretense of objectivity"
Slashdot Mirror
First off, it's not "in addition to", it's "instead of". Earth fiber networks don't run on fairy dust either, they also consume power. The internet is one of the biggest power consumers on Earth. That's just the way it is.
Doing my own math. You could fit ~141 in a Falcon Heavy to LEO. They don't say how many are actually planned, or even whether they plan to use Falcoln 9 or Heavy. Taking into account the higher altitude and practical considerations, let's say 60 satellites per flight on Heavies. So that's about 75 flights. Per FH flight, RP1 mass is ~400 tonnes and LOX mass ~935 tonnes. LOX is cheap and low energy to produce, so let's focus on the RP1. Total that's 30k tonnes of RP1. Which is 1,4TJ, or about 380 MWh higher heat value, which is 100-200MWh electricity generation potential. I didn't find how much energy Chicago consumes per year, but a reference on MIT's School of Engineering states that NYC consumes 60 TWh electricity per year. So I think you're way off in your estimate.
You could just read the document, you know.
The antennas aren't physically steered, they're steered by adjusting the relative phases of the individual sub-antennas.
Preventing dead satellites from accumulating in the middle of their constellation isn't incentive?
The funny thing is, it's the popular press are the ones who always jump over backwards to make sure they use the term "dwarf planet" when describing Pluto, as people like Tyson always give anyone who doesn't use the IAU's term a "Scientists Have Decided, Anyone Who Doesn't Accept This Is Rejecting Science" dressing down. You'll notice that the linked popular press articles were very careful to always say "dwarf planet". Yet in the scientific press people still use "planet" to describe Pluto as much as they do dwarf planet. Including in the linked Nature article, which uses both (ex: "... can substantially alter Pluto’s inertia tensor, resulting in a reorientation of the dwarf planet .." but "... loading and global expansion due to the freezing of a possible subsurface ocean generates stresses within the planet’s lithosphere..").
The IAU is overwhelmingly a group of astronomers. Aka, people who study stars, not planets. Planetologists never wanted this redefinition; to a planetologist, if it's in hydrostatic equilibrium and not fusing, it's a planet - regardless of whether it means some (ill defined and based on a false premise) "cleared the neighborhood" test. Hydrostatic equilibrium is the meaningful characteristic for studying planets. If the body is too small to deform to hydrostatic equilibrium, then you're looking at primitive material; it's the sort of place you'd go to study accretion, the origins of the solar system, the building blocks of life that planets were seeded with, etc. If the body is large enough to deform to hydrostatic equilibrium, then you're looking at altered material, the release of heat, generally fluids, often liquid water and atmospheres (even if the body has since "died" and had its atmosphere stripped), etc. They're the sort of places you go to learn about tectonics, vulcanism, geochemistry, prebiotic chemistry, searches for current or past life, etc. There's a very big difference between the two.
"Cleared the neighborhood" has zero significance to a planetologist. An exact copy of Earth, with all of its life, receiving the same amount of light, etc, would not have "cleared its neighborhood" if it were located in the habitable zone of a young star or a very large star. Not that an exact copy of Earth *anywhere* would be classified as a planet by the IAU, as they explicitly prevent extrasolar planets from being classified as planets. Despite the fact they have an "extrasolar planets" working group. Of course, internal consistency sure never seemed to be a concern of the IAU, as to them "dwarf stars" are stars and "dwarf galaxies" are galaxies, but apparently "dwarf planets" aren't planets. Just terrible terminology. Of course, any terminology that says "Mars and Jupiter are part of the same group, but Mars and Pluto aren't" is pretty ridiculous. If any line needed to be drawn in the "planet" group, it was to separate the gas giants, ice giants and rocky planets from each other.
To me, the worst parts of it are twofold. One, it's based entirely on a false premise: that planets each cleared their own neighborhood. But this is not at all what solar system formation models say. The inner planets had significant sweeping from Jupiter; Mars's neighborhood was almost entirely swept by Jupiter, not by itself. Some people might respond, "Well, okay, yes, that's true, but Mars could have swept its neighborhood, according to its Stern-Levison parameter." That's not what the Stern-Levison parameter says. The parameter is based around the ability of a body to scatter asteroids, with our current asteroid belt distribution. Not protoplanets. Not to mention, Stern is one of the biggest opponents of the "Cleared the Neighborhood" concept (I've never heard Levison's comments on the issue).
My other biggest issue with the decision is timing. And not even the "let's do this on the last day of a conference that most of our membership didn't even attend, after lots of people have left, including most of the opponents of the
Gravity isn't a constant force; it decreases with distance. Having heavier mass nearer and lighter mass further is a lower energy state, and is thus thermodynamically favoured.
These sorts of things really tempt me to get into VR... but I'm not really ready to dive in all the way with an expensive piece of kit, as I'm not a gamer. On the other hand, Google Cardboard looks a bit too.. um... primitive for me. Are there any "use your own cell phone"-based systems that don't involve having to constantly hold a piece of folded cardboard up to your eyes - some sort of head mount that's just the frame and lenses to put a cell phone into?
Reference to the BLM policy supporting "inciting violence against white people and cops", please.
As for them protesting and practicing civil disobedience, I'm terribly sorry that their feeling the need to draw attention to the (statistically demonstrable) greater likelihood of an unarmed black person being killed by the police and similar issues is inconveniencing you. I'm sure they never would have done so if they had known that they might have made you late for a dinner party.
Burn rate, mainly. Solids are very different from hybrids in that the oxidizer is intermixed with the fuel, and thus it's easy to get any burn rate you want, from "none" to "rapid unscheduled disassembly" ;) With hybrids, combustion only occurs on the surface as a surface/gas reaction and the rate of reaction there is limited, so it's much more of an issue. With polybutadiene, this means having more channels and thinner walls to get the burn rate up, which increases the odds that chunks will break off as it burns, among other problems. It's generally recognized that the optimal situation is to have a fuel that readily forms a low viscosity melt layer which can be easily aerosolized, dramatically increasing the surface area. So, for example, fuels like paraffin wax and polyethylene work very well for hybrids. Combustion enhancers like aluminum significantly help as well.
Corr: that was five years from the unveiling to the flight failure. It was nearly a decade since the initial announcement. Oh, and I forgot one major issue - they had a tank explosion in 2007 that killed three employees. It's just been a trouble-plagued process. But they're still working on it.
They spent five years developing their first commercial craft... and then accidentally destroyed it on its fourth test flight, killing the copilot and seriously injuring the pilot. Ironically, the crash had nothing to do with it being a rocket; a combination of too few safety lockouts and poor pilot training led to the air braking system being deployed at too low of a speed. Which was a brand new huge setback. The fact that it took five years to even get to that point was itself due to a series of delays, including a complete redesign of the motor (really, the first team should have just read the research on hybrid rocket engines, they would have learned that polybutadiene, while a classic binder for solid rocket fuel, does not make a good hybrid fuel).
Not going to comment on most of that, but I do agree that there's a market. It's probably a wise decision that they went for a smaller aircraft - weaker sonic boom and more frequent flights for a market of a given size (and the ability to serve lower-traffic markets). Combined with modern tech for aerodynamic efficiency, propulsion, sonic boom modeling, etc, and a long list of "lessons learned" from Concorde, I wouldn't be surprised to see this - or at least one of their competitors - succeed.
At the very least, their API was terrible if it permitted this.
I'm sorry, I think you're confusing football - you know, the game where move a ball around with your feet - with an American curiosity, "Handegg".
While we're on the subject, "Handball" is not a game played by yuppies involving hitting a ball against a wall; it's a fast-paced aggressive team sport, something like a cross between basketball and football (not handegg).
But the fox has a degree in hen studies!
Honestly, the domestic aspects are mainly just a curiosity to me. I have some friends and family in the US, and so I care what happens because it affects them, but it doesn't affect me personally. On the other hand, the international stuff absolutely affects me. So that's what I'm watching closest.
Because it's the way things get done with him?
Anyone hoping to get policy support from him better used to treating him to luxury, complimenting him profusely, and pitching every concept to him as if it's his idea and it's going to make him look good. Some attacks against those he's currently in feuds with will likewise go a long way.
He also railed against Goldman Sachs, and now has an ex Goldman Sachs banker-turned-media magnate as his chief strategist, and a Goldman Sachs-banker-turned-filmmaker is the leading contender for his treasury secretary.
He ran on "draining the swamp", and now his transition team is dominated by the swamp itself, a bunch of scandal-wrapped establishment and wannabe-establishment figures. Of course even that seems to oscillate as they bounce each other around. One day Chris Christie is leading the transition, the next day he's not even part of it. Now Pence is running it, while also fighting a legal battle in Indiana to (facepalm) prevent the public from seeing his emails.
He ran on an immediate full repeal of Obamacare, now he says he's going to evaluate it and try to keep some of its most important provisions, like the ban on discrimination for preexisting conditions, and keeping children on their parents' policies. Which I can't even begin to imagine the outcome of, because if he does that, then he has to make something functionally equivalent to the mandate - otherwise, healthy people who don't get insurance through their employer go without insurance until they get something serious, wherein they can just sign right up despite the "preexisting condition", and hence almost everyone on a non-corporate insurance policy is being treated for something expensive, and thus the rates become astronomical.
He ran on building a wall, huge, thick, unbroken, and explicitly never just a fence... now it's going to be a mix of walls, fences, and possibly not even that in places. At least that's the stated policy plan as of today, who knows what it will be tomorrow.
I have no clue what sort of policies this guy is actually going to pursue, and neither does anyone else here. He's changed so much over the years, and often day to day. Like most people except for the hardest-core partisans on each side, I'm hoping for the best and fearing the worst. I'm not even sure he really knows what to do next in many cases. The fact that nobody in his campaign even knew that you have to replace the White House staff when you take office blows my mind. Were they paying that little attention when Obama, or any other president for that matter, took office?
Again: I hope for the best but fear the worst.
Crooked Leia, storing classified information in a private server... did you know that she's still under investigation by the empire for doing so?
Jetsons-sounding cars would be awesome ;) Or you could go on the weird end with something like whale song or chattering dolphins. Or on the mean end, the sound of fingernails being scratched across a chalkboard.
I'd like a continuous version of the sound of the Millenium Falcon malfunctioning while trying to go into hyperspace. ;)
(the core of the sound is a biplane inertia starter motor :) )
Or, as the headline read, "Dyslexia For Cure Found" ;)
I know, I shouldn't make jokes about dyslexics. My sister is dyslexic. I fully understand that it's dyslexic being hell.
Dyslexics of the world untie!
Not hybrids. Hyrbids. A derp-version of a hybrid.
Continuing:
" It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign"
But of course, you didn't want to include that part because it contradicts your narrative, that " the NYT has admitted that they'd abandoned any pretense of objectivity in their coverage". A statement that says "We believe we reported on both candidates fairly" is precisely the opposite of "admitted that they'd abandoned any pretense of objectivity"
Nowhere did I write that flagging would automatically get a story marked.