Neodymium? For turbines connected to an AC grid, I understand it is standard to have a 3-phase induction generator (no magnets).
It's cheaper that way.
Failing that there are always other options (hint: fancy fixed magnets are new, but the electricity grid is old).
For solar thermal, such as from this company: http://solarheatpower.veritel.com.au/
It is possibly to have some thermal storage. In this case they are planing on some extra 11hrs? worth.
For a suitably large grid, such as that being proposed in the US, wind can provide some 30%+? of it's capacity as baseload (as it's always blowing somewhere you see).
From a British report IIRC.
So, this is a letter written, with names of non-climatologists added.
How is this interesting?
Scientists typically have very narrow areas of knowledge. There is no reason to have an interest in the opinions of these people on this subject.
As for actual researchers in the field, the consensus in published research is extremely high. I read in a Wiki page (I can't find it off hand) one year recently it was unanimous.
This is astonishing really.
You and yours have no credibility.
I recommend you learn about the scientific method.
You you explain it to us?
I don't see the advantage of not landing the rocket. All I see is an extra level of complexity.
I don't see how this method saves fuel, or gives a softer landing.
A separation problem.
The last failure was related to separation as well. - The stages "hit" resulting in full sloshing.
The first idea that comes to mind is the explosive bolts.
Tradtionaly considered to be extremely reliable, but have been causing trouble recently with the Soyuz re-entry.
I wonder why? Do the US and the USSR have old stock that is not ageing well?
Anyhow, I will follow Spacex with enthusiasm and optimism:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Neodymium? For turbines connected to an AC grid, I understand it is standard to have a 3-phase induction generator (no magnets). It's cheaper that way. Failing that there are always other options (hint: fancy fixed magnets are new, but the electricity grid is old).
For solar thermal, such as from this company: http://solarheatpower.veritel.com.au/ It is possibly to have some thermal storage. In this case they are planing on some extra 11hrs? worth.
For a suitably large grid, such as that being proposed in the US, wind can provide some 30%+? of it's capacity as baseload (as it's always blowing somewhere you see). From a British report IIRC.
So, this is a letter written, with names of non-climatologists added. How is this interesting? Scientists typically have very narrow areas of knowledge. There is no reason to have an interest in the opinions of these people on this subject. As for actual researchers in the field, the consensus in published research is extremely high. I read in a Wiki page (I can't find it off hand) one year recently it was unanimous. This is astonishing really. You and yours have no credibility. I recommend you learn about the scientific method.
You you explain it to us? I don't see the advantage of not landing the rocket. All I see is an extra level of complexity. I don't see how this method saves fuel, or gives a softer landing.
A separation problem. The last failure was related to separation as well. - The stages "hit" resulting in full sloshing. The first idea that comes to mind is the explosive bolts. Tradtionaly considered to be extremely reliable, but have been causing trouble recently with the Soyuz re-entry. I wonder why? Do the US and the USSR have old stock that is not ageing well? Anyhow, I will follow Spacex with enthusiasm and optimism :-)