...or they might take an engine off a rocket they have in the garage and use it instead.
You gotta admit that's pretty cool, eh?
"You see, the problem here is this faulty thingamijigger-whosamawhatsit on engine 5."
"Really? Well, that's too bad..."
"Sure is, but you're in luck, we've got a spare rocket engine just sitting over in the hangar there. We'll swap the parts and you'll be on your merry way to orbit in a couple days!"
"Oh! How fortuitous!"
I mean, how many launch companies can realistically have a dialogue like that?
Don't think you can turn off the engines once they are lit up, most rockets are based on one long controlled explosion coming out of the back.
The article I saw said it was aborted at T minus 0 5 seconds, which is cutting it closer to the explosion than most action movies does:D
Well, actually the explosions (9 of them, 18 technically if you count the gas generators) happened. Rewatch the videos, you can see the engines light, very brightly if I do say so. They were just cut off when a commanded abort closed some valves somewhere along the fuel/ox supply lines.
As for being able to shut rocket engines off, well that's simply a matter of what kind of fuel you're burning and how much control you have over your valves if the fuels are liquid or gaseous.
Could give us some insight into unknown gravity field configurations throughout our solar system. That could prove to be pretty useful one day. Right now we mostly have only analytical models of our system's gravity field. If we could get some hard data of paths that we have not commonly traveled, we might find something useful.
Argue that all you want, but the fact is that politicians don't get paid all that much, yet Senators all live very well, well beyond what a $175k/yr salary would suggest.
When the fuck did $175,000 / year get classified as not "all that much." Both of my parents combined never made even close to that amount and we grew up fine and dandy.
That actually depends on the rifle and the animal. I'm pretty sure a simple.32 wouldn't bring down a full grown bull elephant... or, for that matter, even an octopus. And I'd still be interested in seeing the rifle that can take out a large ant colony.
It is always amazing to me when folks are willing to hold up a piece of fictional art to contest a15,000 year old (how long have modern humans been around exactly?) historical trend. We've been developing earth-shattering technologies that could be used to royally obliterate ourselves for awhile now. Think about it, designing a metallic blade that could, literally, break every other blade wielded against it back during the various transitions from stone-age to bronze-age probably convinced many of the folks at the time that the individual wielding the metallic blade was all but invincible. And yet, somehow one metal blade wielding psychopath didn't conquer the whole world (though, some tried).
Technology breakthroughs have been occuring for thousands of years. The nuclear bomb, dynamite, machine guns, rifles, muskets, long bows, hell, even something as simple as putting a rotten corpse on a catapult and flinging it at your enemies could be considered technology. We've managed not to kill ourselves yet.
Does this new technology have the potential to destroy the human race? Maybe it will eventually, but so have a dozen other inventions throughout history. One badass, epic science fiction T.V. series is not an adequate bit of evidence to hold up and dispute this trend.
I think my favorite thing about your posts, Grishnakh, is that you post one or two comments in a story that interests you that are pretty insightful and frank, but simple enough to not be rude or flamebaitish. Then when someone replies to your posts, you almost always respond with a link and a direct insult on their intelligence. It's quite amusing.
Meh. It will save on cheap plastic/foam sword expenses... and the home blackmail videos that you can show to their future significant others will be much more entertaining.
I am not sure cutting down the size of the military drastically is necessarily the best way to go after the bloated DoD budget. You could just as easily scrap and cancel a number of government-military-industiral-complex boondoggles and save a lot of money. I mean, if you look at some of the weapon systems being developed by Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics (is that what they're still called nowadays?), etc. you'll see that they are still, essentially, fighting the cold war. It could even be funny if it weren't so god-damned expensive.
So his actual complaint is that, while President Obama stood up and advocated developing commercial launch instead of the SLS, when push came to shove, he just accepted the Congressional budget that was written despit all the grand-standing?
Interesting. I wonder if he thinks President Obama should have kept vetoing budgets until SLS got cut down to a size that was reasonable....for whatever definition of reasonable you like.
I hate to bring reality into this discussion, but the bill that was passed allows the police to search phones of people "incident to arrest".
I hate to bring the Constitution into your pedantry but what the hell does that matter? The fourth amendment is pretty damned clear that an officer of the law needs a warrant to search your belongings. That guaranteed right doesn't get pissed out the window just because a bastard in a uniform slapped a pair of 'cuffs on you. If you are arrested, and if the contents of your cell phone can be reasonably demonstrated to be pertinent to the legal case that you are being held for, then let the prosecutor prove it to a judge and get a warrant to search it just like they are supposed to do with a locked box.
I don't know what your civics class taught you, but as a California native I was taught that folks suspected of a crime (under arrest but not yet convicted) still have the same Constitutional rights that all citizens of the United States are delineated.
Wake me when Ron Paul runs for Governor of California. Until then, the parent's question still stands. Who the hell are we supposed to replace Brown with?
I used to do this. I found a nifty little hack around a lot of the corporate rules and some of the laws associated with having shoes in public places. Many of the rules and laws are written in such a way that makes it necessary for a person to have shoes, "on," but neglect to say anything about wearing them on their feet. I always walked around with a cheap pair of sandals clipped to my hip and the stores eventually figured out that I wasn't really violating any of their rules.:)
Well that whole 6th (5th?) commandment gets in the way sometimes.
Thou shalt not kill
Of course, most of the Christian religion is based around the theme of, "Do as I say, not as I do." But since that is also one of the fundamental parenting techniques we use to raise kids in the States, it shouldn't come as a suprise that it is widely accepted.
Anyone who thinks girls (or, more generally, the opposite sex) are a waste of time really is doing the whole, "life," thing wrong, no matter how smart they are.
Luckily for Mr. Obama, voters like you, who think for themselves, are in the extreme minority.:)
He'll get re-elected. There isn't a single candidate anywhere else in the country that doesn't come off as a complete lunatic or is not the victim of a media-wide smear campaign.
It's sad that you have had to repeat your main complaint (what is it now, 7 times?) on a site that is supposed to be full of intelligent commenters. And folks wonder why words like "groupthink" get tossed around about slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ah, the good old days when launching a rocket involved someone named "Hans" and a big red button."
... Dr. Hans Koenigsmann at SpaceX. Also see their people page here: SpaceX People
Funny you should mention that
...or they might take an engine off a rocket they have in the garage and use it instead.
You gotta admit that's pretty cool, eh?
"You see, the problem here is this faulty thingamijigger-whosamawhatsit on engine 5."
"Really? Well, that's too bad..."
"Sure is, but you're in luck, we've got a spare rocket engine just sitting over in the hangar there. We'll swap the parts and you'll be on your merry way to orbit in a couple days!"
"Oh! How fortuitous!"
I mean, how many launch companies can realistically have a dialogue like that?
Don't think you can turn off the engines once they are lit up, most rockets are based on one long controlled explosion coming out of the back. The article I saw said it was aborted at T minus 0 5 seconds, which is cutting it closer to the explosion than most action movies does :D
Well, actually the explosions (9 of them, 18 technically if you count the gas generators) happened. Rewatch the videos, you can see the engines light, very brightly if I do say so. They were just cut off when a commanded abort closed some valves somewhere along the fuel/ox supply lines.
As for being able to shut rocket engines off, well that's simply a matter of what kind of fuel you're burning and how much control you have over your valves if the fuels are liquid or gaseous.
Technically it's the Dragon spacecraft that services the ISS.
;)
The Falcon's just the ride to one of the nicer views of the horizon.
Could give us some insight into unknown gravity field configurations throughout our solar system. That could prove to be pretty useful one day. Right now we mostly have only analytical models of our system's gravity field. If we could get some hard data of paths that we have not commonly traveled, we might find something useful.
Argue that all you want, but the fact is that politicians don't get paid all that much, yet Senators all live very well, well beyond what a $175k/yr salary would suggest.
When the fuck did $175,000 / year get classified as not "all that much." Both of my parents combined never made even close to that amount and we grew up fine and dandy.
Donate to sperm banks often. You may not know your offspring, but chances are you will have some.
That actually depends on the rifle and the animal. I'm pretty sure a simple .32 wouldn't bring down a full grown bull elephant... or, for that matter, even an octopus. And I'd still be interested in seeing the rifle that can take out a large ant colony.
It is always amazing to me when folks are willing to hold up a piece of fictional art to contest a15,000 year old (how long have modern humans been around exactly?) historical trend. We've been developing earth-shattering technologies that could be used to royally obliterate ourselves for awhile now. Think about it, designing a metallic blade that could, literally, break every other blade wielded against it back during the various transitions from stone-age to bronze-age probably convinced many of the folks at the time that the individual wielding the metallic blade was all but invincible. And yet, somehow one metal blade wielding psychopath didn't conquer the whole world (though, some tried).
Technology breakthroughs have been occuring for thousands of years. The nuclear bomb, dynamite, machine guns, rifles, muskets, long bows, hell, even something as simple as putting a rotten corpse on a catapult and flinging it at your enemies could be considered technology. We've managed not to kill ourselves yet.
Does this new technology have the potential to destroy the human race? Maybe it will eventually, but so have a dozen other inventions throughout history. One badass, epic science fiction T.V. series is not an adequate bit of evidence to hold up and dispute this trend.
I think my favorite thing about your posts, Grishnakh, is that you post one or two comments in a story that interests you that are pretty insightful and frank, but simple enough to not be rude or flamebaitish. Then when someone replies to your posts, you almost always respond with a link and a direct insult on their intelligence. It's quite amusing.
Meh. It will save on cheap plastic/foam sword expenses ... and the home blackmail videos that you can show to their future significant others will be much more entertaining.
The kids ate it all.
Well there is upward of 500 Lex Luthor wannabes in Congress at the moment, from what I can tell...
I am not sure cutting down the size of the military drastically is necessarily the best way to go after the bloated DoD budget. You could just as easily scrap and cancel a number of government-military-industiral-complex boondoggles and save a lot of money. I mean, if you look at some of the weapon systems being developed by Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics (is that what they're still called nowadays?), etc. you'll see that they are still, essentially, fighting the cold war. It could even be funny if it weren't so god-damned expensive.
So his actual complaint is that, while President Obama stood up and advocated developing commercial launch instead of the SLS, when push came to shove, he just accepted the Congressional budget that was written despit all the grand-standing?
Interesting. I wonder if he thinks President Obama should have kept vetoing budgets until SLS got cut down to a size that was reasonable....for whatever definition of reasonable you like.
I hate to bring reality into this discussion, but the bill that was passed allows the police to search phones of people "incident to arrest".
I hate to bring the Constitution into your pedantry but what the hell does that matter? The fourth amendment is pretty damned clear that an officer of the law needs a warrant to search your belongings. That guaranteed right doesn't get pissed out the window just because a bastard in a uniform slapped a pair of 'cuffs on you. If you are arrested, and if the contents of your cell phone can be reasonably demonstrated to be pertinent to the legal case that you are being held for, then let the prosecutor prove it to a judge and get a warrant to search it just like they are supposed to do with a locked box.
I don't know what your civics class taught you, but as a California native I was taught that folks suspected of a crime (under arrest but not yet convicted) still have the same Constitutional rights that all citizens of the United States are delineated.
For the record, I live in CA and voted for Jerry Brown in the last election
Woops.
Wake me when Ron Paul runs for Governor of California. Until then, the parent's question still stands. Who the hell are we supposed to replace Brown with?
I used to do this. I found a nifty little hack around a lot of the corporate rules and some of the laws associated with having shoes in public places. Many of the rules and laws are written in such a way that makes it necessary for a person to have shoes, "on," but neglect to say anything about wearing them on their feet. I always walked around with a cheap pair of sandals clipped to my hip and the stores eventually figured out that I wasn't really violating any of their rules. :)
Sometimes being pedantic is fun.
Why shouldn't Christians kill?
Well that whole 6th (5th?) commandment gets in the way sometimes.
Thou shalt not kill
Of course, most of the Christian religion is based around the theme of, "Do as I say, not as I do." But since that is also one of the fundamental parenting techniques we use to raise kids in the States, it shouldn't come as a suprise that it is widely accepted.
This should be modded up, imho.
Anyone who thinks girls (or, more generally, the opposite sex) are a waste of time really is doing the whole, "life," thing wrong, no matter how smart they are.
Luckily for Mr. Obama, voters like you, who think for themselves, are in the extreme minority. :)
He'll get re-elected. There isn't a single candidate anywhere else in the country that doesn't come off as a complete lunatic or is not the victim of a media-wide smear campaign.
It's sad that you have had to repeat your main complaint (what is it now, 7 times?) on a site that is supposed to be full of intelligent commenters. And folks wonder why words like "groupthink" get tossed around about slashdot.
He also stole it from a sign.