The V1 "buzz bomb" in world war two had control surfaces (controlled IIRC by a combination of clockwork timers and a mechanical gyrocompass) and an air-breathing engine. So, was it an aircraft or a missile.
Missiles go from point A to point B. Craft take something from point A to point B, deliver it, and are then ready for use to go to point C. Like an ox-cart, instead of an arrow. Does that work better as a distinction?
It doesn't convince me either. Looking at the video (linked to from the original article)it looks as if his thesis is more about the effects of basally-detached slabs (subduction from a spreading centre in the region of the Tharsis volcanos?) generating "V-shaped" fault patterns. But that would have the sense of movement on Vallis Marineris in the opposite sense to what is marked on the press-release.
I'm not going to hold my breath looking to see what actually comes out of this. Looks like a pretty poor press release to me, and I'm not inclined to by the paper. If it flies, there'll be something in the public domain eventually.
About a decade ago, magnetometry produced weak evidence for magnetic "striping" running more-or-less parallel to the (present) Martian equator. That certainly stimulated much thinking about the tectonics of Mars (plate tectonics, overturn tectonics, hotspot tectonics?). But that's an open debate on a changing evidence base, not an assumption.
So, four out of the classical nine planets (Venus, Earth, Uranus, Pluto) got "fucked over" by something late in their formation, leading to double-planets/ giant moons (Earth-Moon ; Pluto-Charon) or high axial tilts (Venus, Uranus).
Four out of nine is nearly a majority, isn't it?
Breaking News! Mercury has been mantle stripped. It's over-dense for it's size, and looks like the core of a somewhat larger terrestrial planet which has had much of it's mantle torn off. Which is one of the things that a giant impact can do.
So that makes five out of nine.
Looks to me like giant impacts may be "normal" in the formation of planets.
It certainly has lava flows (from the radar data mentioned elsewhere). It has volcano-like (though not very like Earth volcanos) structures. But there's very little evidence for current activity. On the other hand, crater counts (even accounting for the much thicker atmosphere) suggest that the visible surface is all younger than the average of the Earth's continents. But on the gripping hand, older than the average of the Earth's oceans.
No-one knows what is going on there. One of the more interesting (to me, as a geologist) suggestions is that Venus has lost the water from it's surface which on Earth would get partly subducted into the mantle, leading to a stiffer mantle on Venus, and thus differences in the mode of heat transport on Venus. (Earth has a few 10ths of a percent of water in it's mantle.)
But anyone who claims "this is the solution" is almost certainly wrong. There are different theories, and all have some good points and some bad points. Take your pick.
There are a lot of little round balls out there. And even more little not-so-round balls. And some very large and quite round balls. A little more precision would be helpful. It might even improve your miserable self-esteem to the point that you can bear to be identified by your posts.
With a Japanese-sounding name (not that I know your family history), and Japan being one of the most volcanically-active islands in the world, that sounds much more disturbing to me than it probably sounded to you.
Do you want to get fucked by a volcano having a "nocturnal emission"? Proper fucked?
In a world where a small number of people are allergic to water,
And which world would that be?
I'll grant that there are possibly people who think they are allergic to water ; which is not the same thing. Similarly, there may be people allergic to particular impurities in water from a particular source (my teeth ache after more than a few days drinking water from any limestone region ; something about my (mouth) chemistry doesn't like the calcium ions in the tap water ; but it's not an allergy). But allergies to pure, unadulterated dihydrogen monoxide?
Citations please, from the formal literature, not the lunatic fringe (i.e. Daily Mail) who are concerned with the purity of their (not-very) precious bodily fluids.
99% of brickings are the result of people doing stuff that the manufacturer did not intend for you to do
In that case, that should happen with deep space probes quite a lot.
... or it would do, if the manufacturers and the users weren't the same group. Or, for the likes of NASA, the manufacturers of the flight hardware computers and the manufacturers of the flight software weren't two groups of the same organisation, both of whom would take equal accountability for a failure like this. (And probably work in the same building complex, if not the same office block.)
Which is the norm for deep space devices, wherever they come from.
Before someone points it out, they do buy in the radiation-hardened processors from an outside supplier. But that is one of the reasons that they are very conservative about which processors they use, to only use processors whose design they understand in great depth. In a related recent thread there was discussion about why the imagers on MSL used a 2MPixel sensor. One of the points that didn't get stressed much in that was that all of the imagers on MSL use the same sensor, whether it be a science-imaging sensor, a hazard-hunting imager, or a long-range viewing sensor. They all use the same sensor, because it is a sensor that the JPL imaging team understand well. As a different example of the same logic, they chose to not build a zoom lens for the long-range sensor (twice ; they started and stopped the zoom lens programme twice) because they couldn't find a way to build a zoom lens without using "wet" lubrication, and they don't have confidence in the behaviour of wet lubricants under Mars surface conditions, and couldn't afford the weight and power to heat the lens to non-Mars surface conditions. (Which kind-of begs the question of couldn't they put multiple fixed-focal length lenses onto a turret ; but maybe a turret would also have required "wet" lubrication?)
My camera takes RAW images at about 5MB each ; 3-4MB for JPEGS (which I wouldn't bother trying to work with in any important sense). Say a modern camera takes RAWs at 10MB apiece, that would be 6400-ish images per day. For a 12 hour working day... that is 534 images per hour; 6 seconds per image.
It's extremely fast, allowing almost no time for composition, thinking about exposures, avoiding flare and glare. Or for changing cards in the camera or administrivia. Or for... well the gal must be using a porta-pissa strapped to his waist and adult-sized nappies (yes, they exist). But it is just about credible. Say, the person who is taking continuity photos for a movie production. No, that doesn't work ; they take shots at start and end of a take, and of the actors costumed on set, but not normally during the shoot. But it's extremely fast shooting and therefore must be highly automated with little user input.
Space imagers don't have anything like that bandwidth, due to Spaces being really big ; mind-bogglingly incomprehensibly big (#include . The state of the art (for space imagery) new Mars rover ("MSL") has about 1/4 GB per day/sol of bandwidth available to it. What they do do is use filters appropriately, of carefully targeted shots. Which is precisely NOT comparable with what the OP is doing at 6 seconds per image. For MSL, it's probably more like 5 minutes discussion (on Earth, half-dozen people in meeting) per image.
Better to let the craft burn off its flammables safely on the pad and away from people than to send firefighters in to spray down an already burning bomb.
Agreed.
Which is precisely why my industry has, for over 30 years (possibly longer) installed pre-placed, remotely operated "monitors" (including A.F.F.F. ones) oriented to dump water (or foam) into the middle of events that you don't want to turn into (yet another) 100+fatality bomb.
But then again, we don't do rocket science. There might be a very good reason for not having pre-placed firefighting equipment. Which would be an interesting reason to hear.
Which has very little to do with what is correct English. I believe that making a verb directly out of a noun is popular in American ; that doesn't make it right. It's the "four million American housewives can't be wrong" syndrome - of course they could ; four million Albert Einstein clones can also be wrong, but about most technical matters they're less to be wrong than the housewives. Or four mega-house-husbands.
They [the US's "Founding Fathers", begging the question of the founding mothers?] had direct knowledge of companies with too much power did through their experiences with the East India Company."
I think our Founding Fathers had more direct interaction with Hudson's Bay Company
I was pretty dubious about the claim about the EIC. HBC sounds much more credible. But even so, it's another country's history, and barely relevant to the present world.
Aren't you glad that you were doing this on lines that didn't have re-watering troughs? The engines that used those had much, much smaller clearances between the rails and the under-train equipment. Come to think of it, the chain links hanging under the couplings would have used up a lot of the "headroom" too. But different countries use different coupling systems.
When I was growing up, there was a small epidemic of inner-city children playing "chicken" with suburban trains, particularly around tunnels. With the predictable consequences for the drivers and the suicidal idiots. Lots of publicity about that. Also plenty of publicity about kids getting lost in the wartime iron ore mine workings, which were finally closed off when I was about 7. Somehow, artificial holes in the ground didn't have much appeal for me. 11 years later, natural holes in the ground, "Kewl!"
I will not give up my Chicken, red meat and the occasional Pork item(usually bacon or sausage).
But you will have to pay more for it. And the articles in question (they come around regularly) are predicting that meat prices will increase faster than general inflation. Not being much of a foodie, I don't pay much attention to such things, but I do think that is what has been happening for decades anyway.
Incidentally, I don't know what the regulations are in your country, but here, you can describe something as "sausage" if it contains as little as 18% "meat." It may even be as little as 13% (IANA-foodie, as I said a few moments ago). In your "pork goods" category you'll see the percentages going down, and the quality of the ingredients going down, as the price (for a set quality/ quantity) goes up. Ditto for your "chicken goods", beef goods... venison goods? Very likely. Fish products? For certain.
Then you were not as quick (nor as dumb) as I was as a kid. I've lived through several rapidly approaching trains in tunnels.
I accept your point that you know of and can find workman's "pockets" and unevennesses in the walls, fast enough, without panicking.
But what were you doing that would regularly put you through tunnels which weren't designed for pedestrian use? If the terrain is that mountainous... well, pedestrian tunnels get built (or pedestrian walkways added to road tunnels ; I've never taken a train in Norway to see what they do with railway tunnels).
a spokesperson [...] wrote that 'anyone familiar with the political process in America knows this information about registered voters is available and easily accessible to the public
So, what possible reason could there be for this information to be present in the public domain. Or hasn't America introduced the secret ballot yet?
What happens to those people who register as being Republocrat, Demician, Indepone, and Nabove simultaneously, because there are multiple people in the house, or because their opinions align with different parties on different topics. Is it the gallows, lethal injection (can you still get the drugs?), or a 9mm problem-solver?
I also remember that trajectories were planned to make this easy (from a delta-V sense).
Can you think of a trajectory that would put the command/ service module into orbit around the Moon (while the Lander, lands), without going around the "back" of the Moon?
I'm not sure that it's possible, unless you went into a polar orbit. And that is not easy - I think the first mission to achieve it was LCROSS, about 5 years ago?
(OK ; I checked ; LCROSS went into a polar orbit around Earth, before impacting the Moon. So LRO may have been the first spacecraft to enter a polar lunar orbit.)
L.Ron was taking a LOT of pain medications (so I've read)
What... you mean that his religious woo wasn't enough to let him transcend his agony with god-like disdain as a 14th-level Thetan?
This rumour of the non-perfection of Our Lord LRon must be suppressed by $cientology Inc. The SUV with the blacked-out windows should be pulling up at your door now ; resistance is likely to get you a baton in the kidneys.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to go - 50 conspiracy theorists have just shot their wads into their cornflakes at having their suspicions confirmed.
Missiles go from point A to point B. Craft take something from point A to point B, deliver it, and are then ready for use to go to point C. Like an ox-cart, instead of an arrow. Does that work better as a distinction?
I'm not going to hold my breath looking to see what actually comes out of this. Looks like a pretty poor press release to me, and I'm not inclined to by the paper. If it flies, there'll be something in the public domain eventually.
About a decade ago, magnetometry produced weak evidence for magnetic "striping" running more-or-less parallel to the (present) Martian equator. That certainly stimulated much thinking about the tectonics of Mars (plate tectonics, overturn tectonics, hotspot tectonics?). But that's an open debate on a changing evidence base, not an assumption.
Four out of nine is nearly a majority, isn't it?
Breaking News! Mercury has been mantle stripped. It's over-dense for it's size, and looks like the core of a somewhat larger terrestrial planet which has had much of it's mantle torn off. Which is one of the things that a giant impact can do.
So that makes five out of nine.
Looks to me like giant impacts may be "normal" in the formation of planets.
It certainly has lava flows (from the radar data mentioned elsewhere). It has volcano-like (though not very like Earth volcanos) structures. But there's very little evidence for current activity. On the other hand, crater counts (even accounting for the much thicker atmosphere) suggest that the visible surface is all younger than the average of the Earth's continents. But on the gripping hand, older than the average of the Earth's oceans.
No-one knows what is going on there. One of the more interesting (to me, as a geologist) suggestions is that Venus has lost the water from it's surface which on Earth would get partly subducted into the mantle, leading to a stiffer mantle on Venus, and thus differences in the mode of heat transport on Venus. (Earth has a few 10ths of a percent of water in it's mantle.)
But anyone who claims "this is the solution" is almost certainly wrong. There are different theories, and all have some good points and some bad points. Take your pick.
There are a lot of little round balls out there. And even more little not-so-round balls. And some very large and quite round balls. A little more precision would be helpful. It might even improve your miserable self-esteem to the point that you can bear to be identified by your posts.
Actually, that sounds like a good one for the Mythbusters!
Do you want to get fucked by a volcano having a "nocturnal emission"? Proper fucked?
And which world would that be?
I'll grant that there are possibly people who think they are allergic to water ; which is not the same thing.
Similarly, there may be people allergic to particular impurities in water from a particular source (my teeth ache after more than a few days drinking water from any limestone region ; something about my (mouth) chemistry doesn't like the calcium ions in the tap water ; but it's not an allergy).
But allergies to pure, unadulterated dihydrogen monoxide?
Citations please, from the formal literature, not the lunatic fringe (i.e. Daily Mail) who are concerned with the purity of their (not-very) precious bodily fluids.
... or it would do, if the manufacturers and the users weren't the same group. Or, for the likes of NASA, the manufacturers of the flight hardware computers and the manufacturers of the flight software weren't two groups of the same organisation, both of whom would take equal accountability for a failure like this. (And probably work in the same building complex, if not the same office block.)
Which is the norm for deep space devices, wherever they come from.
Before someone points it out, they do buy in the radiation-hardened processors from an outside supplier. But that is one of the reasons that they are very conservative about which processors they use, to only use processors whose design they understand in great depth.
In a related recent thread there was discussion about why the imagers on MSL used a 2MPixel sensor. One of the points that didn't get stressed much in that was that all of the imagers on MSL use the same sensor, whether it be a science-imaging sensor, a hazard-hunting imager, or a long-range viewing sensor. They all use the same sensor, because it is a sensor that the JPL imaging team understand well.
As a different example of the same logic, they chose to not build a zoom lens for the long-range sensor (twice ; they started and stopped the zoom lens programme twice) because they couldn't find a way to build a zoom lens without using "wet" lubrication, and they don't have confidence in the behaviour of wet lubricants under Mars surface conditions, and couldn't afford the weight and power to heat the lens to non-Mars surface conditions. (Which kind-of begs the question of couldn't they put multiple fixed-focal length lenses onto a turret ; but maybe a turret would also have required "wet" lubrication?)
Hmmm,
My camera takes RAW images at about 5MB each ; 3-4MB for JPEGS (which I wouldn't bother trying to work with in any important sense). Say a modern camera takes RAWs at 10MB apiece, that would be 6400-ish images per day. For a 12 hour working day ... that is 534 images per hour; 6 seconds per image.
It's extremely fast, allowing almost no time for composition, thinking about exposures, avoiding flare and glare. Or for changing cards in the camera or administrivia. Or for ... well the gal must be using a porta-pissa strapped to his waist and adult-sized nappies (yes, they exist). But it is just about credible. Say, the person who is taking continuity photos for a movie production. No, that doesn't work ; they take shots at start and end of a take, and of the actors costumed on set, but not normally during the shoot. But it's extremely fast shooting and therefore must be highly automated with little user input.
Space imagers don't have anything like that bandwidth, due to Spaces being really big ; mind-bogglingly incomprehensibly big (#include . The state of the art (for space imagery) new Mars rover ("MSL") has about 1/4 GB per day/sol of bandwidth available to it. What they do do is use filters appropriately, of carefully targeted shots. Which is precisely NOT comparable with what the OP is doing at 6 seconds per image. For MSL, it's probably more like 5 minutes discussion (on Earth, half-dozen people in meeting) per image.
(Signed)Obie.
Alligator toastie?
Agreed.
Which is precisely why my industry has, for over 30 years (possibly longer) installed pre-placed, remotely operated "monitors" (including A.F.F.F. ones) oriented to dump water (or foam) into the middle of events that you don't want to turn into (yet another) 100+fatality bomb.
But then again, we don't do rocket science. There might be a very good reason for not having pre-placed firefighting equipment. Which would be an interesting reason to hear.
Americans might not.
Which has very little to do with what is correct English. I believe that making a verb directly out of a noun is popular in American ; that doesn't make it right. It's the "four million American housewives can't be wrong" syndrome - of course they could ; four million Albert Einstein clones can also be wrong, but about most technical matters they're less to be wrong than the housewives. Or four mega-house-husbands.
I was pretty dubious about the claim about the EIC. HBC sounds much more credible. But even so, it's another country's history, and barely relevant to the present world.
When I was growing up, there was a small epidemic of inner-city children playing "chicken" with suburban trains, particularly around tunnels. With the predictable consequences for the drivers and the suicidal idiots. Lots of publicity about that. Also plenty of publicity about kids getting lost in the wartime iron ore mine workings, which were finally closed off when I was about 7. Somehow, artificial holes in the ground didn't have much appeal for me. 11 years later, natural holes in the ground, "Kewl!"
But you will have to pay more for it. And the articles in question (they come around regularly) are predicting that meat prices will increase faster than general inflation. Not being much of a foodie, I don't pay much attention to such things, but I do think that is what has been happening for decades anyway.
Incidentally, I don't know what the regulations are in your country, but here, you can describe something as "sausage" if it contains as little as 18% "meat." It may even be as little as 13% (IANA-foodie, as I said a few moments ago). In your "pork goods" category you'll see the percentages going down, and the quality of the ingredients going down, as the price (for a set quality/ quantity) goes up. Ditto for your "chicken goods", beef goods ... venison goods? Very likely. Fish products? For certain.
I accept your point that you know of and can find workman's "pockets" and unevennesses in the walls, fast enough, without panicking.
But what were you doing that would regularly put you through tunnels which weren't designed for pedestrian use? If the terrain is that mountainous ... well, pedestrian tunnels get built (or pedestrian walkways added to road tunnels ; I've never taken a train in Norway to see what they do with railway tunnels).
But instead, I'm off to update my Facebook page.
It's not news to me. Hasn't been for decades.
Can you think of a trajectory that would put the command/ service module into orbit around the Moon (while the Lander, lands), without going around the "back" of the Moon?
I'm not sure that it's possible, unless you went into a polar orbit. And that is not easy - I think the first mission to achieve it was LCROSS, about 5 years ago?
(OK ; I checked ; LCROSS went into a polar orbit around Earth, before impacting the Moon. So LRO may have been the first spacecraft to enter a polar lunar orbit.)
What ... you mean that his religious woo wasn't enough to let him transcend his agony with god-like disdain as a 14th-level Thetan?
This rumour of the non-perfection of Our Lord LRon must be suppressed by $cientology Inc. The SUV with the blacked-out windows should be pulling up at your door now ; resistance is likely to get you a baton in the kidneys.