Are you sure that wasn't a ramjet that your friend built in high school 45 years ago? A Scramjet is a supersonic combustion ramjet, it has to be going faster than Mach 1 to get going. Strapping one to a bicycle or a car won't go fast enough to get it lit.
I just recently upgraded to a similar configuration, an A7V, 1 Gig Athlon, SB Live!, and an Asus 7700 with a Geforce 2 GTS and 64 MB of DDR RAM. It would freeze up on my quite often when running Direct X programs. I tried the latest Detonator driver from Nvidia and quite a few other things. Finally, I got a BIOS update from Asus and that fixed the problems. I think it was rev. 1050D.
Well, about the only one I heard about is "Thirteen Days". On Mir they built up quite a large collection of video tapes, and according to an article in "Air and Space" recently, one of them was "Apollo 13".
It's legal to walk on the walkways or drive on the roadway, but it's not legal to go climbing on the underside of the bridge.
They stiffened the penalties for this sort of thing a few years ago after Woody Harrellson and his friends blocked all traffic on the bridge for several hours during a protest agains rainforest logging.
Sounds like SOFIA. An infra-red telescope that's being put into a 747SP. It's supposed to be based at NASA's Ames Research Center when it's finished. It's not a weapons system, it's an observatory.
White markings on the fusalage between the cockpit windows and just below the refueling receptacle. Also, that's not a KC-135, it's a KC-10.
Re:So why do we need a Missle defense system?
on
Laser-equipped 747
·
· Score: 1
No, it's not for ICBMs, it's for "Theater Ballistic Missiles", ones that have a range of a few hundred to a thousand miles or so. ICBM means Inter Continental Ballistic Missile.
No, the chemicals would probably not burn up. However, the explosion would be very near the launch site, so it's much better that the chemical weapon is dispersed back on the people that launched the missile.
Also, the Patriot missile does carry any chemicals to burn up chemicals in a SCUD. It just has an explosive warhead.
Obviously you didn't read the whole article. It does have a reason, shoot down missles over a battlefield. It would have been real useful around 10 years ago.
These would not be the first military 747's. The E-4 "doomsday" or "Looking Glass" planes are based on the 747 airframe, and so is "Air Force One".
Also, I don't know how many of you haver ever looked at a real radar screen (and not something in a hollywood movie), but just by looking at the radar return (even the "raw" return) you can *not* tell what kind of aircraft it is. Besides, you're not going to have civilian 747's flying in the same airspace as the AL-1's. They'll be pretty close to the action, and as high value targets (like the E-3 "AWACS") will be protected by fighters.
There is no track gauge difference between the UK and France, they both use 4 ft. 8.5 in., or 1435mm. There is no "sophisticated technology on the Chunnel trains to take care of this". There is a change of gauge when going between Spain and France, however. Some of the trains are capable of a gauge change. They run them through a building where locking pins are pulled out, the wheels move, and locking pins are put back in while the train moves forward slowly.
For the most part, China uses the North American/UK/European (other than Spain, Portugal, and Russia) standard gauge (4 ft., 8.5 in. or 1435mm). However, in Mongolia China Rail does use the Russian 5 ft. gauge, since originally that region was connected to the Russian rail system and not to China's. In the 80's China Rail bought hundreds of diesel locomotives from GE here in the US and the first few went through high altitude testing on the Union Pacific Railroad's line over Sherman Hill in Wyoming. If there was a direct track connection between the US and China we would be able to interchange cars. The track gauge and air brake systems are compatible.
There is no rail line connecting the west coast to Alaska. The closest rail connection is to Ft. Nelson, BC on BC Rail. There is a railroad in Alaska that connects Anchorage to Fairbanks, with some other branch lines. It's connection to the outside world is via rail barges from Seattle and Vancouver.
Snow removal can be done with plows. It wouldn't have to be roofed over.
Believe it or not, there already is a railroad in Alaska. The mainline runs from Anchorage to Fairbanks. You can find out more about it at http://www.akrr.com They've been running for quite a few years, and while track maintenance is more expensive up there, it's managable. A long time ago there was even a railroad in the Nome area. Some of the equipment is still sitting up there.
For passengers, yes. But a 747 freighter carries 249,000 lbs. That's less than two railroad hopper cars of coal. Typically coal hoppers carry 100 tons, 200,000 lbs.
The trains wouldn't stop in Alaska or Siberia. You'd also have to build connections to the rest of the network in Canada and Russia. Then it makes sense.
Well, of course it wouldn't make sense to build such a tunnel just to get stuff from Siberia to Alaska, but what about shipping things from Asia or Europe to Canada, the US, or Mexico? Then it makes sense. It'd be a little more expensive than by ship, but a lot faster.
You'd have to build a lot of track to connect the gaps in South America. The North American rail network goes as far south a bridge from Mexico to Guatemala. After that things aren't connected up. (And Guatemala uses 3 foot gauge track, not our 4 foot 8.5 inches.) A lot of track has been abandoned in South America has been abandoned in the last few years, too.
BART has a tunnel under San Francisco Bay. It went through the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake with no problems. Japan has several very long undersea rail tunnels, and have not had any problems with them during quite a few quakes. Not a problem.
Yes, water transport is cheapest, but it's also the slowest. In fact, in the US the big railroads carry quite a bit of container traffic for the shipping companies like Maersk and APL. The ships call at Seattle or Portland or Oakland or LA and the railroads carry them to Boston or New York and the containers are put back on a ship to get to Europe. It's a lot faster than going all water via the Panama Canal.
Subic Bay hasn't been a US Navy base for quite a few years. The lease ran out and the government wouldn't renew it. Also, the US Air Force shut down Clark AFB after Mt. Pinatubo erupted and buried the base under a few feet of ash. You'll have to blame someone else for what's going on in Olangapo now.
And this is related to the US government in what way? The game show people are contracting with the Russians to send the winner up. This will not be funded by the US!
Not all manned launches are on the Shuttle. The Russians are using the "tried and true" Soyuz capsule, and that's what the contest "winners" will be riding.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure that wasn't a ramjet that your friend built in high school 45 years ago? A Scramjet is a supersonic combustion ramjet, it has to be going faster than Mach 1 to get going. Strapping one to a bicycle or a car won't go fast enough to get it lit.
I just recently upgraded to a similar configuration, an A7V, 1 Gig Athlon, SB Live!, and an Asus 7700 with a Geforce 2 GTS and 64 MB of DDR RAM. It would freeze up on my quite often when running Direct X programs. I tried the latest Detonator driver from Nvidia and quite a few other things. Finally, I got a BIOS update from Asus and that fixed the problems. I think it was rev. 1050D.
Well, about the only one I heard about is "Thirteen Days". On Mir they built up quite a large collection of video tapes, and according to an article in "Air and Space" recently, one of them was "Apollo 13".
It's legal to walk on the walkways or drive on the roadway, but it's not legal to go climbing on the underside of the bridge.
They stiffened the penalties for this sort of thing a few years ago after Woody Harrellson and his friends blocked all traffic on the bridge for several hours during a protest agains rainforest logging.
You've just described a combined cycle power plant. Someone else already invented it. There are some already built.
Sounds like SOFIA. An infra-red telescope that's being put into a 747SP. It's supposed to be based at NASA's Ames Research Center when it's finished. It's not a weapons system, it's an observatory.
White markings on the fusalage between the cockpit windows and just below the refueling receptacle. Also, that's not a KC-135, it's a KC-10.
No, it's not for ICBMs, it's for "Theater Ballistic Missiles", ones that have a range of a few hundred to a thousand miles or so. ICBM means Inter Continental Ballistic Missile.
No, the chemicals would probably not burn up. However, the explosion would be very near the launch site, so it's much better that the chemical weapon is dispersed back on the people that launched the missile.
Also, the Patriot missile does carry any chemicals to burn up chemicals in a SCUD. It just has an explosive warhead.
Actually, a weapon to blind enemy soldiers would not be allowed under the Geneva Convention. Of course, so is shooting them with large caliber ammo.
Obviously you didn't read the whole article. It does have a reason, shoot down missles over a battlefield. It would have been real useful around 10 years ago.
These would not be the first military 747's. The E-4 "doomsday" or "Looking Glass" planes are based on the 747 airframe, and so is "Air Force One".
Also, I don't know how many of you haver ever looked at a real radar screen (and not something in a hollywood movie), but just by looking at the radar return (even the "raw" return) you can *not* tell what kind of aircraft it is. Besides, you're not going to have civilian 747's flying in the same airspace as the AL-1's. They'll be pretty close to the action, and as high value targets (like the E-3 "AWACS") will be protected by fighters.
There is no track gauge difference between the UK and France, they both use 4 ft. 8.5 in., or 1435mm. There is no "sophisticated technology on the Chunnel trains to take care of this". There is a change of gauge when going between Spain and France, however. Some of the trains are capable of a gauge change. They run them through a building where locking pins are pulled out, the wheels move, and locking pins are put back in while the train moves forward slowly.
For the most part, China uses the North American/UK/European (other than Spain, Portugal, and Russia) standard gauge (4 ft., 8.5 in. or 1435mm). However, in Mongolia China Rail does use the Russian 5 ft. gauge, since originally that region was connected to the Russian rail system and not to China's. In the 80's China Rail bought hundreds of diesel locomotives from GE here in the US and the first few went through high altitude testing on the Union Pacific Railroad's line over Sherman Hill in Wyoming. If there was a direct track connection between the US and China we would be able to interchange cars. The track gauge and air brake systems are compatible.
There is no rail line connecting the west coast to Alaska. The closest rail connection is to Ft. Nelson, BC on BC Rail. There is a railroad in Alaska that connects Anchorage to Fairbanks, with some other branch lines. It's connection to the outside world is via rail barges from Seattle and Vancouver.
Snow removal can be done with plows. It wouldn't have to be roofed over.
Believe it or not, there already is a railroad in Alaska. The mainline runs from Anchorage to Fairbanks. You can find out more about it at http://www.akrr.com They've been running for quite a few years, and while track maintenance is more expensive up there, it's managable. A long time ago there was even a railroad in the Nome area. Some of the equipment is still sitting up there.
For passengers, yes. But a 747 freighter carries 249,000 lbs. That's less than two railroad hopper cars of coal. Typically coal hoppers carry 100 tons, 200,000 lbs.
The trains wouldn't stop in Alaska or Siberia. You'd also have to build connections to the rest of the network in Canada and Russia. Then it makes sense.
Well, of course it wouldn't make sense to build such a tunnel just to get stuff from Siberia to Alaska, but what about shipping things from Asia or Europe to Canada, the US, or Mexico? Then it makes sense. It'd be a little more expensive than by ship, but a lot faster.
You'd have to build a lot of track to connect the gaps in South America. The North American rail network goes as far south a bridge from Mexico to Guatemala. After that things aren't connected up. (And Guatemala uses 3 foot gauge track, not our 4 foot 8.5 inches.) A lot of track has been abandoned in South America has been abandoned in the last few years, too.
BART has a tunnel under San Francisco Bay. It went through the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake with no problems. Japan has several very long undersea rail tunnels, and have not had any problems with them during quite a few quakes. Not a problem.
Yes, water transport is cheapest, but it's also the slowest. In fact, in the US the big railroads carry quite a bit of container traffic for the shipping companies like Maersk and APL. The ships call at Seattle or Portland or Oakland or LA and the railroads carry them to Boston or New York and the containers are put back on a ship to get to Europe. It's a lot faster than going all water via the Panama Canal.
Subic Bay hasn't been a US Navy base for quite a few years. The lease ran out and the government wouldn't renew it. Also, the US Air Force shut down Clark AFB after Mt. Pinatubo erupted and buried the base under a few feet of ash. You'll have to blame someone else for what's going on in Olangapo now.
And this is related to the US government in what way? The game show people are contracting with the Russians to send the winner up. This will not be funded by the US!
Not all manned launches are on the Shuttle. The Russians are using the "tried and true" Soyuz capsule, and that's what the contest "winners" will be riding.