CAs exist for authentication, not encryption. You either need central authentication, or you need to individually authorize each and every identification key from every entity you communicate with, and even then how would you know that first initial contact didn't have someone in the middle?
Are you implying that scientific equipment and basic amenities couldn't survive high Gs? You'd be surprised what engineering can do that biology can't.
Certain rugged pieces of potted electronics could handle the tens of thousands of Gs necessary to launch using this mechanism. Sensitive scientific equipment will not. Basic things like water could handle the Gs necessary, but any form of food other than a paste will become a paste.
With an Earth launcher, your primary market is a thousand different little orbital planes near Earth. You'd need a tether in nearly every possible orbit.
Or just one, tied to a manufacturing facility that can make use of those raw materials. As long as you're not in a big hurry, it's not that expensive to get from any Earth orbit to any other Earth orbit. 6km/s and a week of travel is enough to burn around the Moon, and half that could be provided by the manufacturing facility. With several months lead time, you could slew into place with only a small amount of fuel and an ion drive.
You're missing something. Re-entry vehicles want to slow down. They're intentionally designed as a high drag vehicle because they want to dissipate all that energy. They're short and blunt to maximize the amount of frontal surface area. A launch vehicle would be long and narrow to limit the amount of energy lost to drag, and thus would experience considerably less heat build up.
What he's saying is that if you don't want your payload to impact the Earth, you will need something else to boost it to orbit once it reaches space. "Space guns" can only directly fire into sub-orbital and escape trajectories.
It all comes down to acceleration. The higher your acceleration, the simpler your cargo must be, and the more difficult it will be to get that apogee boost. In order to reduce your acceleration, you need a larger device, and a linear accelerator will always be smaller and simpler than a curved accelerator.
Have you? A rail gun is just a pair of dumb conductive bars. All the complexity is figuring out how to deliver that obscene amount of electrical power into it. This is going to have all the same electrical issues, but lumps in a whole host of new mechanical and structural difficulties.
The tricky part is you'd need to accelerate your projectile at over 5000 gravities for the ~ 0.3 seconds it would take to get up to escape velocity. (these calcs are about right to within an order of magnitude). That's quite a lot of acceleration.
The tricky part is that the same acceleration applies to a circular accelerator too. A circular accelerator has as much radial acceleration as a linear accelerator roughly one third its diameter. All a circular accelerator gets you is lower power requirements, assuming you have an efficient means of maintaining that radial acceleration.
A kickstarter for a version that'll launch 1lb loads up to a small portion of the speed of sound.
Surely they're more aggressive than that. I mean even the Romans built siege weapons that were capable of more than than. Surely technology has improved some over the past two millennia.
They are unlikely to be able to build a rocket that is hardened enough to survive launch, but is large enough and has enough thrust to raise perigee before it and the payload reenter and burn up.
With sufficient accuracy, you wouldn't need to. Build a skyhook. Construct a long whip, and spin it. The bottom end will be traveling at a much lower relative velocity, and can grab the slow moving sub-orbital vehicles. Use some of the payload as orbital maintenance fuel.
That might take you from the few single digits we have today into the few double digits, and you can't simply submerge the astronauts. You have to completely saturate their tissues in a fluid comparable in density. They have to be completely incompressible and neutrally buoyant. We have too many gas-filled cavities to just drop an astronaut in a water tank and call it a day.
Not quite. Fetuses are human, they are not a person. One is not a person until they have accumulated some amount of memory, and begun to develop unique, persistent thought patterns. The human body is only worth a couple bucks in raw materials, or a couple hundred thousand in spare parts, depending on condition. A person's real value is in their mind, and until a person begins to grow one of their own, they are merely undeveloped potential.
Even if european colonists had been friendly, honest, fair and caring neighbors the native americans would have been largely wiped out by european diseases.
Wouldn't the indigenous (we won't call them "native" since they were merely the first to travel here) American peoples have killed all the European immigrants through their own diseases just the same? Aside from a handful of cases where they were sold products intentionally infected with Smallpox, your argument doesn't hold.
Nonsense. Most CAPTCHAs can be reliably processed by machine vision, and the remainder can be processed by real humans in third world countries for pennies on the dozen. There are actually companies that sell such services. Alternatively, one can set up a fake free porn site, and route those CAPTCHAs through to users trying to access it.
No. It's still a reflex. You don't consciously type. You think of some words, your speech center talks to your motor cortex, and it decides where and how to move your fingers to press the necessary buttons. This has all be hard wired over years of typing to happen very quickly. Now, think of individual letters, and their position on the keyboard, and then try to spell out each word. The whole process becomes much slower, because your conscious mind is getting involved in places it really isn't needed and doesn't belong.
Will realize? The Air Force has been saying that for seventy years. They would just be tickled pink if the DOD stopped giving the Navy money, and bought them tons of new bombers.
As in, money that the company had previously earned through commercial and military sales went into the development of that prototype. They were not working under any government contract, nor any direct external funding. You seem like a very bitter person...
Of course Navier-Stokes is easy to program. The equations have been around since the mid-1800s. They are damn tough to actually compute, which is why we don't run Navier-Stokes simulations in CFD. We run complex statistical models on top of the basic Navier-Stokes equations, in an attempt to make the simulation accurate at sufficiently coarse length and time scales that our puny modern supercomputers can actually manage. There's no way in hell their flight control system is based off the real-time computation of DNS on airborne hardware. You distill the flight dynamics down to a handful of coefficients, describing linear and angular acceleration due to control inputs at various flight conditions, and use that highly simplified model to run your flight control system.
Also, just how the fuck do you intend to control an aircraft with no moving parts? Are you proposing RCS thrusters, or some form of active flow control using compressor/exhaust bleed vents? You've been posting a lot on this topic about how you've done all this already, but you're just not making any sense. It's like you're just throwing out random technical jargon.
Slashdot Mirror
Even Einstein would agree that it at least happened months ago.
Why was he nude?
That orca had a pretty blowhole.
CAs exist for authentication, not encryption. You either need central authentication, or you need to individually authorize each and every identification key from every entity you communicate with, and even then how would you know that first initial contact didn't have someone in the middle?
Are you implying that scientific equipment and basic amenities couldn't survive high Gs? You'd be surprised what engineering can do that biology can't.
Certain rugged pieces of potted electronics could handle the tens of thousands of Gs necessary to launch using this mechanism. Sensitive scientific equipment will not. Basic things like water could handle the Gs necessary, but any form of food other than a paste will become a paste.
With an Earth launcher, your primary market is a thousand different little orbital planes near Earth. You'd need a tether in nearly every possible orbit.
Or just one, tied to a manufacturing facility that can make use of those raw materials. As long as you're not in a big hurry, it's not that expensive to get from any Earth orbit to any other Earth orbit. 6km/s and a week of travel is enough to burn around the Moon, and half that could be provided by the manufacturing facility. With several months lead time, you could slew into place with only a small amount of fuel and an ion drive.
Now what if that payload were a baseball?
You're missing something. Re-entry vehicles want to slow down. They're intentionally designed as a high drag vehicle because they want to dissipate all that energy. They're short and blunt to maximize the amount of frontal surface area. A launch vehicle would be long and narrow to limit the amount of energy lost to drag, and thus would experience considerably less heat build up.
What he's saying is that if you don't want your payload to impact the Earth, you will need something else to boost it to orbit once it reaches space. "Space guns" can only directly fire into sub-orbital and escape trajectories.
It all comes down to acceleration. The higher your acceleration, the simpler your cargo must be, and the more difficult it will be to get that apogee boost. In order to reduce your acceleration, you need a larger device, and a linear accelerator will always be smaller and simpler than a curved accelerator.
Have you? A rail gun is just a pair of dumb conductive bars. All the complexity is figuring out how to deliver that obscene amount of electrical power into it. This is going to have all the same electrical issues, but lumps in a whole host of new mechanical and structural difficulties.
The tricky part is you'd need to accelerate your projectile at over 5000 gravities for the ~ 0.3 seconds it would take to get up to escape velocity. (these calcs are about right to within an order of magnitude). That's quite a lot of acceleration.
The tricky part is that the same acceleration applies to a circular accelerator too. A circular accelerator has as much radial acceleration as a linear accelerator roughly one third its diameter. All a circular accelerator gets you is lower power requirements, assuming you have an efficient means of maintaining that radial acceleration.
A kickstarter for a version that'll launch 1lb loads up to a small portion of the speed of sound.
Surely they're more aggressive than that. I mean even the Romans built siege weapons that were capable of more than than. Surely technology has improved some over the past two millennia.
1 and 5, sure. 3 is iffy. 2 and 4 are out of the question.
They are unlikely to be able to build a rocket that is hardened enough to survive launch, but is large enough and has enough thrust to raise perigee before it and the payload reenter and burn up.
With sufficient accuracy, you wouldn't need to. Build a skyhook. Construct a long whip, and spin it. The bottom end will be traveling at a much lower relative velocity, and can grab the slow moving sub-orbital vehicles. Use some of the payload as orbital maintenance fuel.
That might take you from the few single digits we have today into the few double digits, and you can't simply submerge the astronauts. You have to completely saturate their tissues in a fluid comparable in density. They have to be completely incompressible and neutrally buoyant. We have too many gas-filled cavities to just drop an astronaut in a water tank and call it a day.
Slaves were human. Fetuses are not.
Not quite. Fetuses are human, they are not a person. One is not a person until they have accumulated some amount of memory, and begun to develop unique, persistent thought patterns. The human body is only worth a couple bucks in raw materials, or a couple hundred thousand in spare parts, depending on condition. A person's real value is in their mind, and until a person begins to grow one of their own, they are merely undeveloped potential.
Even if european colonists had been friendly, honest, fair and caring neighbors the native americans would have been largely wiped out by european diseases.
Wouldn't the indigenous (we won't call them "native" since they were merely the first to travel here) American peoples have killed all the European immigrants through their own diseases just the same? Aside from a handful of cases where they were sold products intentionally infected with Smallpox, your argument doesn't hold.
Yeah, plus it was done using Ruby. Now if this were done in Perl, no one would have any problem calling it hacking.
Nonsense. Most CAPTCHAs can be reliably processed by machine vision, and the remainder can be processed by real humans in third world countries for pennies on the dozen. There are actually companies that sell such services. Alternatively, one can set up a fake free porn site, and route those CAPTCHAs through to users trying to access it.
No. It's still a reflex. You don't consciously type. You think of some words, your speech center talks to your motor cortex, and it decides where and how to move your fingers to press the necessary buttons. This has all be hard wired over years of typing to happen very quickly. Now, think of individual letters, and their position on the keyboard, and then try to spell out each word. The whole process becomes much slower, because your conscious mind is getting involved in places it really isn't needed and doesn't belong.
It's cool. HIV has been around long enough that that patents on it have all expired.
They could have been using a cute little monkey pilot, or a pigeon. Pigeons have piloted bombs before.
Will realize? The Air Force has been saying that for seventy years. They would just be tickled pink if the DOD stopped giving the Navy money, and bought them tons of new bombers.
As in, money that the company had previously earned through commercial and military sales went into the development of that prototype. They were not working under any government contract, nor any direct external funding. You seem like a very bitter person...
Of course Navier-Stokes is easy to program. The equations have been around since the mid-1800s. They are damn tough to actually compute, which is why we don't run Navier-Stokes simulations in CFD. We run complex statistical models on top of the basic Navier-Stokes equations, in an attempt to make the simulation accurate at sufficiently coarse length and time scales that our puny modern supercomputers can actually manage. There's no way in hell their flight control system is based off the real-time computation of DNS on airborne hardware. You distill the flight dynamics down to a handful of coefficients, describing linear and angular acceleration due to control inputs at various flight conditions, and use that highly simplified model to run your flight control system.
Also, just how the fuck do you intend to control an aircraft with no moving parts? Are you proposing RCS thrusters, or some form of active flow control using compressor/exhaust bleed vents? You've been posting a lot on this topic about how you've done all this already, but you're just not making any sense. It's like you're just throwing out random technical jargon.