In astronomy, "baryons" can also include "leptons", simply because leptons are included in the mass that one measures using a galaxy rotation curve.
Nope. Baryons are the heavy particles made up of three quarks. Leptons are light particles that are themselves fundamental particles. In between are mesons, made of a quark and antiquark.
You've got to remember that the terminology astronomers use is a bit...different. This is much like how they call anything heavier than helium a "metal".
One thing: when the battery dies, could you just use the bird when it's in sunlight? what's the orbit period like up there? would you have the content dropping out in the middle of the transmission, or could you hand it off to another old bird that just passed the daylight terminator?
Since they're talking about old tv satellites out at 35000km, it looks like these are geosynchronous orbits. This means that an orbit takes 24 hours. A geosynchronous satellite should only be in Earth's shadow for a brief time each day (too lazy to look it up/do the math).
(including a bomb threat that AOL would not trace for us, even with a search warrant from the FBI)
Since when can the FBI issue search warrants?
Re:space elevator physics explained
on
Columbia Coverage
·
· Score: 1
No, but a common mistake. Centripetal force pulls things *out* from the center. Centrifugal force pushes things *toward* the center.
Thanks for playing.
Centripetal force is the force applied to make you go around in a circle, rather than a straight line. Centripetal force thus pulls you towards the center. If you tie a bucket to a rope, and spin it around, the centripetal force on the bucket is being applied by the rope.
Centrifugal force is fictional. It pushes you out to the edge, and can be explained by the interaction of various real physical effects (mostly inertia).
What would have stopped them from, e.g. getting another shuttle up,
Lack of time. The time necessary to get one of the other shuttles put back together and on the launchpad would have been longer than Columbia's atmospheric systems could have lasted.
stopping by the space station, etc.?
Lack of fuel. You can't just point the nose to the left and coast over to another orbit.
As for NASA's "groupthink", what the fuck do you know about the people who work for NASA, or the way they think? The people that I work with in the shuttle program are some of the best and brightest people I've ever worked with, and that includes both the graybeards and the baby engineers. They bring a variety of viewpoints, experience, opinions, and creativity to bear on every problem NASA encounters. To suggest that these people don't think for themselves is the height of ignorance.
Or one could have read the various non-NASA reports about the Challenger disaster, where it is shown that the people who actually knew what they were doing were ignored by the groupthinking PR-jockeys in charge.
Yes, it has been a long time since Challenger. Long enough for bureaucrats to have forgotten the lessons.
Survival is possible... space shuttle was relatively slow, already mostly throught the atmosphere the crew may have been able to bail out, and they do have parachutes.
I have watched shuttle reentries from east Texas (but not this one, foggy at my location, fortunately). When a shuttle passes over, it's still white hot and glowing.
Maybe it is not so bad for the space program itself. It was the first failure of the Apollo mission that sparked NASA's motivation, and inherent success, thereafter, I believe. The results of this, although acutely tragic, could certainly bring about renewed motiviation. If that is the case, then at least this loss will not have been in vain.
We're not dealing with the Apollo-era "risk is our business" NASA here. We're dealing with the STS-era NASA that sat around pointing fingers at everyone for almost three years after Challenger exploded.
but fusion reactors will most likely contain deuterium, tritium, and lithium (tritium's not exactly water)
Of course not. Tritium's a form of hydrogen. You'd need oxygen to make water (assuming those two extra neutrons don't get in the way, IANA-Nuclear-Physicist).
ASBESTOS-EATING-BACTERIA may also eat carrots from your garden. Do not place ASBESTOS-EATING-BACTERIA near iron i-beams. ASBESTOS-EATING-BACTERIA has been found to cause cancer in ASBESTOS-EATING-BACTERIA. And like coffee, ASBESTOS-EATING-BACTERIA is good for the heart, bad for the heart, stimulating, depressing, addicting, and tastes terrible on Mondays.
If you're walking down 5th Avenue in Manhattan and some homeless guy is beating away at a drum and chanting "Fuck the USA. Don't bomb Iraq" you cannot sue him because it would breech the freedom of speech laws.
And if he kept sneaking into my business to do his musical number, I have the right to have him charged for tresspassing.
Freedom of speech does not mean you get to use other people's property (in this case, a website) to practice it.
This technology could be a massive boon to poor developing countries
I can never understand this stuff. You want to give "poor developing countries" internet access?
I can never understand why the "We could use wireless for poor countries!"/"The money could be better spent" debate has to be posted on every damn wireless communication article.
1.) The Crusader is a smaller system then the current Paladin system that has been in use since around the 1950's. Yes we are talking the 1950's
A Paladin weighs approx. 32 tons. The Crusader started out at 60 tons, and was reduced to 40 because they realized they could only carry one on a C-5. The single biggest criticism of the Crusader was that it was too damn heavy.
The Paladin also received a major redesign in 1979.
3.) The crew of a Crusader is 1/2 the size of the Paladin crew. Most of the system is using computers compared to Paladin which has 100% no computers. (this does not count fire direction control) The Crusader has proven to also be more accurate in shooting as well.
A Crusader has a 3 man crew in the artillery vehicle, and a 3 man crew in the resupply vehicle. A Paladin has a 4 man crew. 4/2 = 6?
5.) A round from a aircraft, or a rocket that does equal amount of damage cost over $1K, a round from a Crusader costs under $100. Oh and these smart rounds we always hear about are also made for Field Artillery systems and are just as effective.
This doesn't support your argument, as rounds for any artillery unit are going to be cheap.
Aircraft can also be where they are needed in minutes. Takes a long time to move artillery.
2.) 1 Crusader can send out more rounds in one minute then a entire battery of Paladins. A battery usualy consists of 6 to 9 Paladins.
6.) To move a Paladin battery it would take like 10 C5 airplanes to deploy them. For the same firepower you can move 2 Crusaders on 1 C-5.
Man, you're really smoking the cheap stuff. 6 to 9 Paladins on "like 10" C-5s.
7.) A lighter model can be airdropped into combat, current we have no decent system in field artillery that can be dropped into combat. Oh and the Paladin weighs more then the Crusader.
I can find no references on this, but given that it's a 40 ton two-vehicle artillery unit, I'm calling bullshit.
I've already established that the Crusader is heavier.
The project was running under budget, and within 10 years would have started saving billions of dollars on what we are currently using.
The budget to deliver the prototype was $1.7 billion.
Besides we already spent several millions to build the system.
"We already spent a bazillion dollars on this!" is not a sound decision making strategy.
A direct link so you can brush up on your bullshitting skillz
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/
Read your own damn link, much of what I'm throwing at you is coming from there.
Wouldn't this be more likely to be a very large rocky object? That close to the star, I'd expect volatiles to be stripped.
The writeup says the planet has 0.9 times Jupiter's mass, and the article says it has a temperature of 3100 F. This probably means it is not a true gas giant (whoopsie), but it is still hot enough to melt silicon and iron, so there's still no solid surface. Imagine a planet of magma. Were it to cool off, it should become a very large rocky object.
As it is, there's nothing to land on, and it's too hot for a ship to survive. And even if it were cool enough to safely land on, the gravity would be too high for human habitation.
Slashdot Mirror
Understood? Perhaps not fully, but one has to start looking somewhere. Why shouldn't we start looking from where we are now?
You've got to remember that the terminology astronomers use is a bit...different. This is much like how they call anything heavier than helium a "metal".
But only if it's tomorrow's edition.
(I'm finding it hard to believe that I just made that reference.)
Why bother? Its most effective predator is alive and well. And now instead of spears, they have firearms.
Since they're talking about old tv satellites out at 35000km, it looks like these are geosynchronous orbits. This means that an orbit takes 24 hours. A geosynchronous satellite should only be in Earth's shadow for a brief time each day (too lazy to look it up/do the math).
Since when can the FBI issue search warrants?
Thanks for playing.
Centripetal force is the force applied to make you go around in a circle, rather than a straight line. Centripetal force thus pulls you towards the center. If you tie a bucket to a rope, and spin it around, the centripetal force on the bucket is being applied by the rope.
Centrifugal force is fictional. It pushes you out to the edge, and can be explained by the interaction of various real physical effects (mostly inertia).
Lack of time. The time necessary to get one of the other shuttles put back together and on the launchpad would have been longer than Columbia's atmospheric systems could have lasted.
Lack of fuel. You can't just point the nose to the left and coast over to another orbit.
Or one could have read the various non-NASA reports about the Challenger disaster, where it is shown that the people who actually knew what they were doing were ignored by the groupthinking PR-jockeys in charge.
Yes, it has been a long time since Challenger. Long enough for bureaucrats to have forgotten the lessons.
I have watched shuttle reentries from east Texas (but not this one, foggy at my location, fortunately). When a shuttle passes over, it's still white hot and glowing.
We're not dealing with the Apollo-era "risk is our business" NASA here. We're dealing with the STS-era NASA that sat around pointing fingers at everyone for almost three years after Challenger exploded.
Yes, but I already heard the cliche about a woodpecker and civilization being destroyed.
Of course not. Tritium's a form of hydrogen. You'd need oxygen to make water (assuming those two extra neutrons don't get in the way, IANA-Nuclear-Physicist).
You've confused Ogg, the wrapper format, and Vorbis, the lossy compressed audio format.
Note to self: take down my "Wesley sucks" web page.
You've confused impossible and infeasible.
Please don't do it again.
Do not taunt ASBESTOS-EATING-BACTERIA.
And if he kept sneaking into my business to do his musical number, I have the right to have him charged for tresspassing.
Freedom of speech does not mean you get to use other people's property (in this case, a website) to practice it.
I can never understand why the "We could use wireless for poor countries!"/"The money could be better spent" debate has to be posted on every damn wireless communication article.
You know, any time I see something like this said about a piece of software, it makes me want to go running to their competition.
A Paladin weighs approx. 32 tons. The Crusader started out at 60 tons, and was reduced to 40 because they realized they could only carry one on a C-5. The single biggest criticism of the Crusader was that it was too damn heavy.
The Paladin also received a major redesign in 1979.
A Crusader has a 3 man crew in the artillery vehicle, and a 3 man crew in the resupply vehicle. A Paladin has a 4 man crew. 4/2 = 6?
This doesn't support your argument, as rounds for any artillery unit are going to be cheap.
Aircraft can also be where they are needed in minutes. Takes a long time to move artillery.
Man, you're really smoking the cheap stuff. 6 to 9 Paladins on "like 10" C-5s.
I can find no references on this, but given that it's a 40 ton two-vehicle artillery unit, I'm calling bullshit.
I've already established that the Crusader is heavier.
The budget to deliver the prototype was $1.7 billion.
"We already spent a bazillion dollars on this!" is not a sound decision making strategy.
Read your own damn link, much of what I'm throwing at you is coming from there.
It's cold. Next!
The writeup says the planet has 0.9 times Jupiter's mass, and the article says it has a temperature of 3100 F. This probably means it is not a true gas giant (whoopsie), but it is still hot enough to melt silicon and iron, so there's still no solid surface. Imagine a planet of magma. Were it to cool off, it should become a very large rocky object.
As it is, there's nothing to land on, and it's too hot for a ship to survive. And even if it were cool enough to safely land on, the gravity would be too high for human habitation.
Photons have no mass. They have energy, which can be considered equivalent to a tiny mass in many situations.