Good post. Although we assume (perhaps wrongly) that these university age students accept their responsibility as adults. Even if parents may be paying the bill.
PS: to force a paragraph/new line you need to type "less than sign p greater than sign" using symbols which this site won't let me write down without forcing a paragraph!
Or it means that the terms of design were set incorrectly by management. Management has in the last few (30+) years not been NASA's strong point
Your post is the most important and cogent point yet.
I think that without being able to examine the vehicles, we cannot tell what or where the failure points will be. Therefore it is difficult to tell what to engineer to fail earlier (or hopefully all at the same time). It would depend too on whether this more efficient design is in fact lighter/cheaper/smaller, etc. Perhaps the over-engineered parts that have not failed yet are the lightest and cheapest that can be made in a Mars rover.
Well at least "angular resolution comparable to the event horizon". Comparable to the diameter of the black hole I guess which is the event horizon. If this is one pixel then I don't know what you can get from that .
That is an 11 mile radius (380 sq miles) you can saturate with the sensor filled drones. Or 11 miles on either side of the balloons path. 22 mile wide coverage is pretty decent with minimal risk of personnel that would normally be used to place sensors (within 15 feet of target!).
I only ask because there are many fields -- IT being one of them -- in which the cinematic version is markedly different from the "real" version. Many of us, I think, if asked by a Hollywood film director to establish an IT character for the screen, would be troubled by the changes from real life needed for the film -- white lab coats and nutty screen displays being just two that come to mind.
From your description, it sounds like Bob could do so without apparent effort; it would be nice to understand his reasoning so that I could, for example, enjoy the next Hollywood blockbuster without throwing my hands up in disgust part-way through at the technical inaccuracies.
Which field isn't different in the movies though? A large part of fight choreography is ensuring the actors don't get hurt - even using blunt swords, etc is not enough. "Pulling a punch' fencing does not look good or natural and if you can't pull it then it must be parried - if the other actor forgets to parry then he/she is hurt. Also generally fencing action happens so fast/quickly and often subtly that it really doesn't film well. It looks best from behind your mask and in your brain.
Like your IT example: much is subtle or only understood/appreciated by a small portion of the movie going population. More than looking at or discovering the technical inadequacies one would need to appreciate the production and direction aspects of film makers and how easy or difficult it is to portrait the 'real life' they are filming. Much of movies making is meeting or exceeding peoples (often) incorrect expectations of what can be done. So lets just inject a computer virus into the mother ship of the alien invaders...
He was very modest about his cinematic achievements and about all of his work. He was head of the Canadian Fencing Association/Federation when I was involved as an athlete at a national/international level. He very much viewed it positively and has been mentioned was a true 'champion' of the sport. He hooked many people on the sport of fencing, as a result of his choreography, teaching and administration he performed.
As to "corrupting a purer art form": competitive fencing and fencing that looks good on film (to non-fencers) are completely different animals.
Stonehenge!
In ancient times...
Hundreds of years before the dawn of history
Lived a strange race of people... the Druids
No one knows who they were or what they were doing
But their legacy remains
Hewn into the living rock... Of Stonehenge
Stonehenge! Where the demons dwell
Where the banshees live and they do live well
Stonehenge! Where a man's a man
And the children dance to the Pipes of Pan....
Ambitious people? Sounds like they want people like the assholes who went to the law school my ex went to. They would take resumes of their classmates out of the job fair pile to better their chances. They were plenty ambitious.
Or is it they want folks who'll work themselves ragged at the slim chance of getting into space? It'd be easier to get filthy rich and pay someone to drive the bus up their for you. Yeah! That's a stat problem: compare the odds of becoming an astronaut with becoming someone rich enough to pay the Russians or even Virgin to send you up. The hard work I'd guess would cancel out of the equation. To bcome an astronaut the variables would be fgx and to become rich: abx. So compare fg with ab.
After meeting several astronauts they are far from assholes. Keeping one's nose clean is important to being able to 'fly'. Even 'interviewed' one when I was a grad student when she was applying to be faculty after her stint at NASA. They are ambitious or they wouldn't stick with it.
A good read is "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane. Very funny read. Kind of confessions of a shuttle crew member. Good insight into the psychology, physical demands, etc that NASA was looking for.
To quote Prof Matt Strassler: "except that instead of an atom built from a proton and an electron and held together by the electric force, this is an “atom” built from a bottom quark and a bottom anti-quark and held together by the strong nuclear force. (A few people still call “bottom quarks” by the name“beauty quarks”, but the name is dying out.) We call this atom “bottom quarkonium”, or sometimes “bottomonium”. And instead of calling the different energy levels of this atom “states” or “orbitals”, we call them “particles.”
The telescope is "seeing" the planet as it was 946 years ago... maybe it's not even there any longer
I know, planets these days are always picking up and vanishing without even saying good bye. First Ceres, then Pluto. Every morning I wake up I breathe a sigh of relief that the Earth is still here.
Remembering though that these incredibly powerful events (gas falling into a black hole) would radiate their most powerful energy (ie: accelerated particles) in two polar opposite directions. These beams are (thought to be) a result of tight magnetic and gravitational fields that are twisted and help to collimate whatever doesn't fall in to the black hole.
If these are pointed directly at us we see and could be affected by them. If they are a little off directed at us then they sweep by us up to multiple times per second due to high rotational rate of the dense object. See pulsars.
My complaint is when you change calendars from month to week to day the torn page stays the same! I know I can tear better than that. The rip should at least change size...
Did you look at the calendar you quoted?
Let's see for next year: (2012 Jun 04 11:04:20 Partial 140 0.370 02h07m Asia, Aus., Pacific, Americas
2012 Nov 28 14:34:07 Penumbral 145 -0.187 - Europe, e Africa, Asia, Aus.).
Every 29 days... hmmm... nope. The moon circles the Earth that often but due to the (about 5 degree) tilt of the orbits it does not fall in the shadow that often. Also, if the moon is eclipsed, it is visible from an entire hemisphere. You may be thinking of a solar eclipse for visibility.
The sense of humor is a ubiquitous human trait, yet rare or non-existent in the rest of the animal kingdom.
I have known parrots with excellent senses of humor.
The sense of humor is a ubiquitous human trait, yet rare or non-existent in the rest of the animal kingdom.
I have known parrots with excellent senses of humor.
In the video there is a gentleman looking through a periscope (1'08") in what I would interpret to be the bunker in case of explosion (with a couple of red covered kill switches?). Then shortly after (1'30"), while the rocket is still burning, it shows a large group of people watching from a relatively short distance away. What gives? Not that I wouldn't mind seeing something like that relatively close!
The Sex in Space article is interesting but seems to read as if it is from the 1960's. Many monkey studies are quoted. I thought psychology had advanced beyond this point.
Slashdot Mirror
PS: to force a paragraph/new line you need to type "less than sign p greater than sign" using symbols which this site won't let me write down without forcing a paragraph!
Don't deserve to be modded troll!
Your post is the most important and cogent point yet.
I think that without being able to examine the vehicles, we cannot tell what or where the failure points will be. Therefore it is difficult to tell what to engineer to fail earlier (or hopefully all at the same time). It would depend too on whether this more efficient design is in fact lighter/cheaper/smaller, etc. Perhaps the over-engineered parts that have not failed yet are the lightest and cheapest that can be made in a Mars rover.
Well at least "angular resolution comparable to the event horizon". Comparable to the diameter of the black hole I guess which is the event horizon. If this is one pixel then I don't know what you can get from that .
Maybe scientific Facebook pages that link to the Arxiv page?
That is an 11 mile radius (380 sq miles) you can saturate with the sensor filled drones. Or 11 miles on either side of the balloons path. 22 mile wide coverage is pretty decent with minimal risk of personnel that would normally be used to place sensors (within 15 feet of target!).
I only ask because there are many fields -- IT being one of them -- in which the cinematic version is markedly different from the "real" version. Many of us, I think, if asked by a Hollywood film director to establish an IT character for the screen, would be troubled by the changes from real life needed for the film -- white lab coats and nutty screen displays being just two that come to mind.
From your description, it sounds like Bob could do so without apparent effort; it would be nice to understand his reasoning so that I could, for example, enjoy the next Hollywood blockbuster without throwing my hands up in disgust part-way through at the technical inaccuracies.
Which field isn't different in the movies though? A large part of fight choreography is ensuring the actors don't get hurt - even using blunt swords, etc is not enough. "Pulling a punch' fencing does not look good or natural and if you can't pull it then it must be parried - if the other actor forgets to parry then he/she is hurt. Also generally fencing action happens so fast/quickly and often subtly that it really doesn't film well. It looks best from behind your mask and in your brain.
Like your IT example: much is subtle or only understood/appreciated by a small portion of the movie going population. More than looking at or discovering the technical inadequacies one would need to appreciate the production and direction aspects of film makers and how easy or difficult it is to portrait the 'real life' they are filming. Much of movies making is meeting or exceeding peoples (often) incorrect expectations of what can be done. So lets just inject a computer virus into the mother ship of the alien invaders...
My previous post was tongue-in-cheek!
I've never been on it...and I'm not missing a thing so far...plenty of friends without it.
But you would have so many more with it!
As to "corrupting a purer art form": competitive fencing and fencing that looks good on film (to non-fencers) are completely different animals.
Stonehenge! In ancient times... Hundreds of years before the dawn of history Lived a strange race of people... the Druids No one knows who they were or what they were doing But their legacy remains Hewn into the living rock... Of Stonehenge Stonehenge! Where the demons dwell Where the banshees live and they do live well Stonehenge! Where a man's a man And the children dance to the Pipes of Pan ....
Ambitious people? Sounds like they want people like the assholes who went to the law school my ex went to. They would take resumes of their classmates out of the job fair pile to better their chances. They were plenty ambitious.
Or is it they want folks who'll work themselves ragged at the slim chance of getting into space? It'd be easier to get filthy rich and pay someone to drive the bus up their for you. Yeah! That's a stat problem: compare the odds of becoming an astronaut with becoming someone rich enough to pay the Russians or even Virgin to send you up. The hard work I'd guess would cancel out of the equation. To bcome an astronaut the variables would be fgx and to become rich: abx. So compare fg with ab.
After meeting several astronauts they are far from assholes. Keeping one's nose clean is important to being able to 'fly'. Even 'interviewed' one when I was a grad student when she was applying to be faculty after her stint at NASA. They are ambitious or they wouldn't stick with it. A good read is "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane. Very funny read. Kind of confessions of a shuttle crew member. Good insight into the psychology, physical demands, etc that NASA was looking for.
To quote Prof Matt Strassler: "except that instead of an atom built from a proton and an electron and held together by the electric force, this is an “atom” built from a bottom quark and a bottom anti-quark and held together by the strong nuclear force. (A few people still call “bottom quarks” by the name“beauty quarks”, but the name is dying out.) We call this atom “bottom quarkonium”, or sometimes “bottomonium”. And instead of calling the different energy levels of this atom “states” or “orbitals”, we call them “particles.”
Bottomonium.... heheheh... and they say physics has no sense of humour.
Reminds me of the Brunnen-G fight song on Lexx...
The telescope is "seeing" the planet as it was 946 years ago ... maybe it's not even there any longer
I know, planets these days are always picking up and vanishing without even saying good bye. First Ceres, then Pluto. Every morning I wake up I breathe a sigh of relief that the Earth is still here.
Not a philosophy major with causality problems.
Remembering though that these incredibly powerful events (gas falling into a black hole) would radiate their most powerful energy (ie: accelerated particles) in two polar opposite directions. These beams are (thought to be) a result of tight magnetic and gravitational fields that are twisted and help to collimate whatever doesn't fall in to the black hole. If these are pointed directly at us we see and could be affected by them. If they are a little off directed at us then they sweep by us up to multiple times per second due to high rotational rate of the dense object. See pulsars.
My complaint is when you change calendars from month to week to day the torn page stays the same! I know I can tear better than that. The rip should at least change size...
Did you look at the calendar you quoted? Let's see for next year: (2012 Jun 04 11:04:20 Partial 140 0.370 02h07m Asia, Aus., Pacific, Americas 2012 Nov 28 14:34:07 Penumbral 145 -0.187 - Europe, e Africa, Asia, Aus.). Every 29 days... hmmm... nope. The moon circles the Earth that often but due to the (about 5 degree) tilt of the orbits it does not fall in the shadow that often. Also, if the moon is eclipsed, it is visible from an entire hemisphere. You may be thinking of a solar eclipse for visibility.
The sense of humor is a ubiquitous human trait, yet rare or non-existent in the rest of the animal kingdom.
I have known parrots with excellent senses of humor.
The sense of humor is a ubiquitous human trait, yet rare or non-existent in the rest of the animal kingdom. I have known parrots with excellent senses of humor.
In the video there is a gentleman looking through a periscope (1'08") in what I would interpret to be the bunker in case of explosion (with a couple of red covered kill switches?). Then shortly after (1'30"), while the rocket is still burning, it shows a large group of people watching from a relatively short distance away. What gives? Not that I wouldn't mind seeing something like that relatively close!
I use an iPad for display with a bluetooth footswitch for page turns. It is nice not to need a light for the music like you would for the e-ink.
And how proud we are of the new NHL Winnipeg Jets... We have waited for longer than 14 years for them to return.
The Sex in Space article is interesting but seems to read as if it is from the 1960's. Many monkey studies are quoted. I thought psychology had advanced beyond this point.
Nice interview with a charismatic guy. His opinion, not data. It may even be true. This link was not a study though!