- bulge the nose/forebody to create a larger shock layer, increasing the temperature and raising the local accoustic velocity to reduce shock strength. mach 2 flight effectively becomes mach 1.1 flight at the nose.
shaping of the forebody could also help create more intersecting oblique shocks to gradually step down through the pressure gradients, but it'd be tricky to reduce wave drag in that complex flowfield... the shocks could generate several much smaller booms instead of a single big one though.
"We don't believe that Amazon plans to trick its customers - it's not its style and the customers can sue if it fails."
Customers can sue for wrong release dates? Hasn't this been disproven with every release date Amazon has shown for all of id's titles? Amazon isn't trying to trick anyone, but that release date is just an oversight by price-marking drone.
Re:Its a matter of perspective
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Too true. At the University of Michigan, 27% of students in the College of Engineering eventually leave to the liberal arts. This includes the get-rich types but also the fence-sitters ("major in chemistry or chemical engineering? biology or biomedical engineering?") and the guys who just can't hack it. Countless others want to leave, but can't afford to having taken already 70+ engineering credits. In engineering, every class is a weed out class.
The astrodynamics section has no clear intended audience, as they note:
If you're not familiar with calculus, we'll save you most of the headache and just write the final product
...which is still greek to someone who doesn't know calculus. Akin to that they provide "the rocket equation," whose concepts of pressure, m dot notation are foreign to anyone but college students who have already decided to study engineering.
So what's the point of the site? It seems useful as a study guide for an intro astrodynamics or celestial mechanics course, but it explains no better than any textbook I've seen ("Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" is my preference, it's only $10 too). In fact, by avoiding derivations it skips the physical ties that impart a real understanding of the subject. It could be used as a quick equations review, but certainly not for teaching.
The elementary physics of the site (newton, momentum etc.) isn't specific to astronautics. It can be found better explained elsewhere on and offline. So I see there's no real use for that, and it's certainly not a new attempt at "space education" (what ever the heck that is).
The nuclear propulsion section is kind of cool but falls into science fanboy/activ-ism. So is this a site for teaching about space or pushing science fads?
Throwing out equations won't attract anyone to aerospace engineering, astronomy, cosmology or related fields. These pages seem convenient for exam reviews but nothing more. They're passing off a lame study guide as a revolution in astrodynamics teaching, but they avoid any real teaching. Exercises? Team projects? MATLAB coding assignments? There are none, and students learn nothing without practice.
This site will not attract new aerospace engineering majors and addresses absolutely no problems in current teaching methods. They throw out a lot of good information, but it's presented in either standard or inferior ways.
The only people I see benefitting from this site are current or former aero majors who have lost their textbooks and don't know how to use google.
P.S. The site's design is a nasa.gov knock-off, which just bugs me as a web designer.
Great sentence structure! Seriously, too many Slashdotters think correct grammar is the end-all be-all requirement for decent writing. They never realize that style dictates the clarity of a message more than the grammar. Note the popularity of four-clause sentences in Wikipedia ("the encyclopedia that Slashdot built"), and you see what I mean.
Though it requires the installation of a receiver device on the aircraft to be controlled. In other words, any aircraft of today could not be stopped by the system unless Honeywell were to retrofit it with their device.
Maybe someone can create a new GUI for OOo that doesn't like that of Office 97. Sad but true, much open source software clings to GUIs of old closed source designs (Nautilus : MacOS 9, Epiphany : Netscape 4, AbiWord : Word 97 etc.). I wonder when open source developers will make GUIs that are innovatively good, rather than creatively bad (Blender, Grip anyone?).
Open source developers at their finest. No wonder we have Gnome's Epiphany browser (gecko based) using the same interface as Netscape 4. Most developers in the open source world just don't care about decent GUIs and (as we see) will fight to preserve their old ways, ignoring the new. Whenever they try to break from Windows or OS X knockoffs, they just create a horrible mess, like Blender or the Gimp.
According to nuclear physicist Freeman Dyson, it's harder to create nukes that are smaller rather than larger. Likely they want to use these lasers to develop nuclear "bunker buster" bombs that would require sub-kiloton yields. There are also efforts at reducing the radiation fallout while maintaining the physical blast, so possibly we could have "non-atrocious" super-bombs.
We always need a hero. When there are none, we create them. We forget that Colin Powell wanted to invade Iraq, that Pope John Paul II's peaceful words toppled no governments, that Che Guevara executed more political prisoners than anyone he opposed. Without heroes, life is just too boring.
Slashdot Mirror
a closed form solution to the Navier-Stokes equations? Quite a riddle I'd say.
Centuries? My friend, I have been doing it for over a million years.
- bulge the nose/forebody to create a larger shock layer, increasing the temperature and raising the local accoustic velocity to reduce shock strength. mach 2 flight effectively becomes mach 1.1 flight at the nose.
shaping of the forebody could also help create more intersecting oblique shocks to gradually step down through the pressure gradients, but it'd be tricky to reduce wave drag in that complex flowfield... the shocks could generate several much smaller booms instead of a single big one though.
"We don't believe that Amazon plans to trick its customers - it's not its style and the customers can sue if it fails."
Customers can sue for wrong release dates? Hasn't this been disproven with every release date Amazon has shown for all of id's titles? Amazon isn't trying to trick anyone, but that release date is just an oversight by price-marking drone.
lol, what?
Too true. At the University of Michigan, 27% of students in the College of Engineering eventually leave to the liberal arts. This includes the get-rich types but also the fence-sitters ("major in chemistry or chemical engineering? biology or biomedical engineering?") and the guys who just can't hack it. Countless others want to leave, but can't afford to having taken already 70+ engineering credits. In engineering, every class is a weed out class.
So what's the point of the site? It seems useful as a study guide for an intro astrodynamics or celestial mechanics course, but it explains no better than any textbook I've seen ("Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" is my preference, it's only $10 too). In fact, by avoiding derivations it skips the physical ties that impart a real understanding of the subject. It could be used as a quick equations review, but certainly not for teaching.
The elementary physics of the site (newton, momentum etc.) isn't specific to astronautics. It can be found better explained elsewhere on and offline. So I see there's no real use for that, and it's certainly not a new attempt at "space education" (what ever the heck that is).
The nuclear propulsion section is kind of cool but falls into science fanboy/activ-ism. So is this a site for teaching about space or pushing science fads?
Throwing out equations won't attract anyone to aerospace engineering, astronomy, cosmology or related fields. These pages seem convenient for exam reviews but nothing more. They're passing off a lame study guide as a revolution in astrodynamics teaching, but they avoid any real teaching. Exercises? Team projects? MATLAB coding assignments? There are none, and students learn nothing without practice.
This site will not attract new aerospace engineering majors and addresses absolutely no problems in current teaching methods. They throw out a lot of good information, but it's presented in either standard or inferior ways.
The only people I see benefitting from this site are current or former aero majors who have lost their textbooks and don't know how to use google.
P.S. The site's design is a nasa.gov knock-off, which just bugs me as a web designer.
Zonk doesn't care about black people.
Great sentence structure! Seriously, too many Slashdotters think correct grammar is the end-all be-all requirement for decent writing. They never realize that style dictates the clarity of a message more than the grammar. Note the popularity of four-clause sentences in Wikipedia ("the encyclopedia that Slashdot built"), and you see what I mean.
Though it requires the installation of a receiver device on the aircraft to be controlled. In other words, any aircraft of today could not be stopped by the system unless Honeywell were to retrofit it with their device.
I'll bet none of suspected this. I have heard that Apple has also developed an Intel-compatible version of OS X, can you tell us more about this too?
Maybe someone can create a new GUI for OOo that doesn't like that of Office 97. Sad but true, much open source software clings to GUIs of old closed source designs (Nautilus : MacOS 9, Epiphany : Netscape 4, AbiWord : Word 97 etc.). I wonder when open source developers will make GUIs that are innovatively good, rather than creatively bad (Blender, Grip anyone?).
Yaacov Cohen
cool name. i'm in.
Open source developers at their finest. No wonder we have Gnome's Epiphany browser (gecko based) using the same interface as Netscape 4. Most developers in the open source world just don't care about decent GUIs and (as we see) will fight to preserve their old ways, ignoring the new. Whenever they try to break from Windows or OS X knockoffs, they just create a horrible mess, like Blender or the Gimp.
What a stupid question.
Does it still perform like a more stable version of Windows 98? That is, is it still a massive memory hog and is it slow as all hell?
Do you speak it?
Hey that's not a real wikipedia article. What's the deal?
Um, who the fuck cares?
According to nuclear physicist Freeman Dyson, it's harder to create nukes that are smaller rather than larger. Likely they want to use these lasers to develop nuclear "bunker buster" bombs that would require sub-kiloton yields. There are also efforts at reducing the radiation fallout while maintaining the physical blast, so possibly we could have "non-atrocious" super-bombs.
Technically, vi is better.
Why? Just because.
This is one of those games I'd call "innovatively bad."
lol what
Wow, Slashdot following Genmay for once.
We always need a hero. When there are none, we create them. We forget that Colin Powell wanted to invade Iraq, that Pope John Paul II's peaceful words toppled no governments, that Che Guevara executed more political prisoners than anyone he opposed. Without heroes, life is just too boring.