Building major combattants out of carbon fiber & epoxy may well expose these ships to fire hasards (however this will be more related to the epoxy that binds the fibers than the carbon fibers themselves. Carbon fibers burn relatively cleanly, epoxies, on the other hand put out fumes that will incapacitate & blind crewmembers that are trying to control the damage). Having carbon structural members burn through & fail is of little import if everyone is already dead due to the smoke.
Your example of HMS Sheffield is in any case incorrect and is covered in the sci.military.navy FAQ:
There are many misconceptions and incorrect stories regarding the use of aluminum in warship construction.
One common story is that HMS Sheffield, a destroyer sunk during the 1982 Falkland War, was lost because her alleged aluminum superstructure made her more vulnerable to damage. This story is completely untrue, because Sheffield's superstructure was not aluminum. Like all ships of her class, her hull and superstructure were entirely steel. Aluminum played no role in her loss.
Two Royal Navy warships lost during the Falklands War did have aluminum superstructures, and their loss is incorrectly attributed to this feature. Ardent was hit by seven 500- and 1000-pound bombs, plus at least two more bombs which failed to detonate, and sank some six hours after the attack. Any warship of her size, regardless of aluminum or steel construction, would likely be sunk by this many bombs, so aluminum cannot be blamed here. Antelope, another aluminum-superstructure ship, was struck by two bombs, which lodged in the ship but failed to explode. Later, while one of the bombs was being defused, it exploded, blowing a major hole in the hull and starting a large fire. The fire eventually reached the magazines, causing these to explode. Again, an aluminum superstructure appears to have little connection to the ship's loss, which was caused by the explosion of the bomb and the magazines.
A related story claims the US Navy and Royal Navy abanonded aluminum superstructures, in favor of steel, as a result of the Falklands war. Since aluminum superstructures played little or no role in the Falkands losses, this story is obviously untrue. The Royal Navy's switch to steel appears to be a result of a 1977 fire in the frigate Amazon. In the US Navy, the switch from aluminum to steel superstructures was a result of the 1975 collision between the carrier John F. Kennedy and the cruiser Belknap. The collision caused major fires aboard the cruiser, and her aluminum superstructure essentially melted; she was reduced to a badly burnt hulk. This incident lead to a decision to adopt steel superstructures in the next new warship class, the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class destroyers. This decision had been made prior to the Falkands War.
From the pictures of the test device in the FCC application , it appears that the bottom of the "coke can" has a slot that contains the SIM card. It also looks like the "can" was assembled from two pieces.Coka-cola Corp may change the packaging to make it less visible than in the test device, but it may be possible to find winners by looking at the bottom.
If you want to have any credibility at all in a discussion, you need to use examples that are pertinant and not demonstratably incorrect. I'll concede that you were trying to be pertinant, but your examples are clearly incorrect. In other words, dont piss on my leg & try to convince me that it is raining.
Yet again, your example has no basis in fact. The US was not "making it hard for Japan to survive", it was refusing to sell them goods which were necessary to continue it's agression in Manchuria. Had Japan been dependant on foreign foodstuffs (as was England) & the US had blockaded the importation of said foodstuffs (as Germany attempted to do to England) you would have had a point. Using England vs Germany as an example, you might have had a point.
I have no use for your excuses. Go to the library & read a book (no, comic books do not count) on the causes of WWII & become enlightened.
So, because FDR refused to sell the japonese govt scrap iron from detroit & oil from california until they stopped their aggresion in manchuria, it somehow became theirs?
Talk about out of contact with reality. Somebody please mod this thread down as offtopic and overrated...
First off: Your numbers on deaths in space are bullshit: Soyuz 1 April 23, 1967 Komarov died during reentry Soyuz 11 June 30, 1971 Patsayev, Dobrovolsky & Volkov died during descent
Secondly, WHO IS GOING TO FINANCE IT? Russia? Fat chance, russia just doesn't have the money to do ANY development anymore. For over a decade, close to half of Russia's space program has been financed by NASA! Every single module the Russians furnished to ISS was delivered late and only after Nasa coughed up the funding to finish their construction (the later modules were financed in majority with US money).
The only reason Nasa was financing the russians was so that the tons of money they sunk into Freedom/Alpha/RAlpha/ISS would have a result & not end up as a gigantic boondoggle. There is no way in hell that the burocrats at Nasa will allow a signuificant slice of their budget to be siphoned off & no american politician is going to finance russian pork.
In the linked site, they "include a waranty, providing indemnity for losses and damages to assets in case that the Ollivier Hail Suppression System(R) does not function properly".
In other words, you're replacing your insurance policies with their warranty. Depending on the reliability of their financial resources & how much these sound cannons cost, this could actually save money for Nissan even if it doesn't work (as I assume).
Thanks for the link, I've always wondered why you could call sparkling wines Champage in the the USA but not elsewhere.
France added an amendment to the treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 that forced every country that signed it to acknowledge only champagne that comes from the champagne region in France may be called champagne.
However, I've got a bone to pick with the CNN article.
Wines from Champagne may have been known from roman times, but not the sparkling wines we have come to know as "Champagne". Champagne was rather known as a producer of poor wines like the rest of northern Gaul. Back then, every area then was warm enough to grow grapes produced wine. The good wines all came from futher south where it was sunny enough for the grapes to produce wine that tasted better than horse piss.
It was only after a catholic monk named "Dom Perignon" invented what has come to be called "Methode champegnoise" in the late 1600s that the bubbly came into being. Dom Perignon came up with the method to be able to sell the wine from his abbey which had few takers up to then. If you ever get the chance to taste regular white wine from champagne that hasn't undergone the secondary fermentation, you'll understand why. Wines from champagne are STILL poor to middling unless changed into "Champagne".
Not always. Some wines have enough sugar left over after the primary fermentation, so no sugar is needed. I don't know how often they need to add sugar as the winegrowers I have talked to have different stories. Most say that the other guys always have to add sugar while they rarely/never need to...
Due to a French court decision a few years back, it is now illegal (in europe & other countries that respect "l'Appelation d'Origine Controlle" or AOC that you see on most european wines) for wines grown outside of the region of champagne that use the secondary fermentation process to say so on the bottle. According to the Champagne winegrowers association the mere mention of the use of "methode champenoise" even if it is in small print on the back lable was enough to confuse the public into thinking that it came from Champagne (& was thus protected by the AOC).
This happened around the time Rambus was trying to litigate the rest of the world into submission instead of producing a better product & letting the market decide. Draw your own conclusions, but this was when I stopped buying champagne.
Another thing that turned me off champagne is that 90% of the champagne that is produced is what is called a "Vin d'Assemblage" or fabricated wine. Most wines are the product of a single year & region. This is why you can see both the origin (AOC again) & the year on the bottle. However, this is not usually the case for champagnes. Just before the wine is ready for the secondary fermentation it is tasted. To eliminate the differences in taste from year to year, wine fom different years (& often sugar) is added so that the champagne will have a predictable taste.
So, unless it is an exceptional year, wine from champagne does not have a date on the bottle. As they are fabricated wines, they age badly & must be dunken young.
Champagnes that DO have a date (Called Milesime in french) ARE exceptional. Unforunately they also sport a price tag to match. You can leave these bottles in a wine cellar & they get better & better -- to a point as really old champagnes loose their C02.
There are a lot of really excellent sparkling wines out there that are cheaper than most champagnes. My personal favorite is the Vouvray Petillant from the Loire valley region in France. These are not fabricated wines, so some years are better than others, but in 1990 I put a case of 12 bottles away to be opened on new years eve 2001. There were other "champagnes" served that night, including some very expensive bottles but none was as fine as the Vouvrays & the case of 12 was cheaper than a single bottle of the good "Real Champagne".
This is insightful? Absurdly funny maybe, but insightful?!?
When Noriega's troops were kidnapping & beating US citizens (resulting in a number of deaths), yeah I'd call that being an enemy of the US. When the link from Noriega's Govt to drug running was established, they were confronted & they refused to stop, I'd also call that being an enemy of the US.
I don't buy Iraq's financing of 9/11 either, but IMHO that's only a very minor public justification for invading Iraq. More pertinant was their continual disrespect for the the terms of the cease-fire in GW1 in which it was clear that non-respect of the terms would entail their dismemberment.
Are you aware that the KKK has financed both republicans & democrats? Both parties should be banned as they're demonstratably corrupt, right? NOT!
You never hear your version of reality in the media (other than in the checkout line) because they are too busy looking over their shoulders for the "Black Helicopters"...
The warplan devised in the 20's for the defeat of Japan...
Even though the so called secret plans are only supposition on the UK MOD's part, the USA certainly has plans for invading just about every country on earth. This is not due to sinister intent, just responsable planning. The world is a strange and dangereous place where allies of today can quickly turn into deadly ennemies (Japan of the 30's, Iran in the 70's, Panema in the 80's, etc). The price of being unprepared is just too high in this day & age.
Because it's just more efficient to brake using the atmosphere & use the systems we have developped (except for accidents like the shuttle breakup).
Until we have extra-terrestrial sources, every kilo of fuel & oxidiser needed to slow down would have to be lofted from the earth. You can't just add more as this will add more mass to be lifted, which will need more F+O, etc, not to mention the mass penalty for things like tanking & insulation.
If you take another look at the picture in the article you'll see that the HUD is NOT integrated into the helmet, but just screwed/glued onto an existing helmet. Thats why you have that little arm that drops down over the outside of the windscreen. The system will not be able to be integrated into the inside of a helmet until they can find a manufacturer that is willing to redesign a helmet & expanded the foam to take into account the thickness/ridgidity of the HUD composants.
That little arm looks like a nice whistle & really fragile as the arm has to pop up when the windshield is opened.
Until someone integrates a HUD INSIDE the helmet, as windnoise & robustesse are my major product selection criteria (after security of course), they can keep it.
The collision produced two bodies of molten rock. After cooling, both bodies exgassed water & other volitiles. The Earth is massive enough to keep most of it's volitiles. The moon isn't.
Lunar hydrogen is probably hydrated compounds in the lunar regolith. The most commonly accepted origin for the hydrates is from cold trapping of the solar wind (as I have stated elsewhere).
Nobody seriously believed that there would be sheets of ice at the lunar poles anyway. When Clementine confirmed the presence of hydrogen at the lunar poles the most commonly accepted source was as hydrates in the lunar regolith.
There are only sources for the hydrogen according to recent theory: - Cometary impacts - Cold trapping of the solar wind (this paper details just this scenario: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/FTI/POSTERS/hhs_space2000.pdf)
Cometary impacts were always a looong shot.
A side note to those who have been saying "Hydrogen is light, we'll just transport some from the earth to the moon". - Hydrogen is only RELATIVELY light compared to Earths atmosphere. - Tanks that can contain large amounts of hydrogen at 0atm are HEAVY. - We need TONS of hydrogen in order to expand our presence in space. - Every Kilo of Hydrogen+Tankage that you bring with you from Earth is a kilo that cannot be used for other essentials that we cannot find/make in space. Thinks like food, tools, fuel, etc. - The two major uses of lunar hydrogen would be water (for drinking, bathing, cleaning, etc) & as rocket fuel.
Once the technique is widely spread, it's utility for authenticity will plummet as anyone including document forgers will be able to reproduce it.it's only useful as long as it stays a rare curiosity. By becoming popular it would make itself useless.
Right & you probably claim that the when you ran over granny the other day that it was her own fault for not running fast enough.
I've got a clue for you: NOBODY's security is perfect, all security is relative. That is why there are things called LAWS to protect the weak. If it is easy for a con artist to screw your 80 year old granny out of her life's savings does that make it any less wrong?
The 15/1 weight difference between rockets & jets is a direct cite from a post by henry spencer in sci.space.tech. You want a specific cite, ask henry.
Can you get to orbit in them?
Can you get to orbit in a scramjet? No. that wasn't the point. The development costs for rockets have already been spent. Billions are needed before we see the first operational scramjet (with a paying customer). Scramjets cannot replace rockets as I said initially (you never answered that btw). If we can find the ressources to spend billions on improving our acces to space we need to spend it responsably & not piss it away on dreams.
What, you mean the guidance problem of having all your thrust at the very bottom of the vehicle, which is basically a requirement for rockets?
No, I meant the guidance & other reliability problems will not go away through use of scramjets. Do you contend that systems failures will dissapear because scramjets are used? If not then stop using systems failures to try & prove that rocket engines are the root cause.
Nice links. None of them give proof of a real-world scramjet showing positive thrust, though. You tried to point out that scramjets are 3X more efficient than rockets. I point out that these are not proofs until achieved outside a lab. Funny, it's been days since the test, no news on results... Wanna bet that once again, no net positive thrust?
Eh? They have to accelerate constantly the whole time? Can't slow down, can't cruise, can't do anything except go faster? Do explain to me where you learned this.
Simple enough: Using rockets 90% of orbital velocity is acquired outside the atmosphere. Orbital rockets throttle back while still in the atmosphere in order to avoid melting. Orbital scramjets cannot cannot accelerate in space. Orbital scramjets must therefore accelerate to >mach25 in the atmosphere. Orbital Scramjets must be made of unobtanuim.
Whether or not scramjets can throttle is not the point. Its that rockets can accelerate where scramjets cannot & that scramjets have materiel limits imposed on them that rockets do not.
I prefer exchanging tons of oxidiser for unobtainium. It has been proven to work.
You're the one proposing limits pal, not me.
Exactly my point. You propose spending billions to "solve" reliability problems in rockets by using scramjets made out of unobtainium. I'd prefer spending the money on something with a reasonable chance of being useful and feasible. DC-X before Nasa sandbagged it or Rotary, (RIP).
If you believe in what you're saying then you leave the quotes out. As I do not, I'll leave them in.
We've agreed that the the post you originally replied to was factually false.
Lets pull out your first post on this thread ok?: Others have already pointed out the factual error involved here, so I'll simply point out the philosophical one: It's not so much that teh law doesn't apply to the US Military (which isn't to say that it always does), so much as that we work to ensure that the law is crafted in a way that allows us to do the things we want to do.
1) there is a philosophical error 2) we (clearly the US) make sure that "our" viewpoint gets imposed
further on: Isn't being a superpower great?:)
3) We can do this because we we are a superpower.
I adressed 3 repeatedly in my previous posts. You pointed out that 2 is irrelevant in the last paragraph of your latest post.
1 stands alone unsupported. If you want to justify 1 by stating that "well yeah, I'm always right except when I'm wrong" while refusing to give any instances in which you are not mistaken, then the only debate in which you have any relevance is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
In light of this, I concede that there was no "philisophical error", but only because it's philisophically irrelevant. I'm done here.
Sorry, you're mistaken all counts. - Good rocket engines weigh about 1/15 as much as jet engines with similar sea-level thrust & scramjets weigh even more than jets. - Terrier-Orion sounding rockets (from surplus military stocks) can be obtained on a university budget. The dev costs on scramjets are easily in the billions. - RL-10's as used on the DC-X were reusable immediately after refueling -- no repairs needed. - Finally, who cares how much is tanking. Fuel costs are negligable compared to the rest.
Hmph, barely working says a proponent of scramjets. Ha, pull the other one... Please tell me how the rocket engines were responsible for the failure of the previous scramjet tests? (hint: they weren't. Scramjets will be subject to the same guidance problems).
As was pointed out != as has been proven. Please point me to your real-world proofs or stop presenting "I hope" as "It has been proven".
Henry Spencer convinced me : I think a rocket would be simpler and cheaper, and would need only a fraction of the development work. Note that nobody has ever demonstrated actual thrust (exceeding drag) from a scramjet in flight.
Before stating that scramjets can accelerate to mach25 in the atmosphere you are going to have to solve the materiels problem. Rockets generally need to throttle back shortly after takeoff until after leaving the atmosphere to avoid the problem, scramjets by definition cannot. Using unobtanium is against the rules & will be grounds for disqualification. Until then, kindly refrain from proposing theoretical yet unachievable limits.
Reread the parent "oh...". You've based your "philosophical error" solely on: we work to ensure that the law is crafted in a way that allows us to do the things we want to do.
As this assertion is false (as explained previously), so is your conclusion unless you come up with another justification. You cannot refute "Internation law doesn't apply to the US Military" logically by stating falsehoods.
Again, I get your point: "USG sneaky/nasty", do you get mine now?
"Donuts on a rope" is the characterisation given to the contrail of a secret US program thought to use pulsed detonation to achieve high mach.
"shock waves in the stream of a jet engine" are better known as shock diamonds and are the results of shock waves producing visible artifacts in the flaming exhaust of aircraft using afterburners.
Finally, as has already been stated in another post, the SR-71's engines fonction in both ramjet & turbojet modes. The inlet cone slows the air down to subsonic speeds so that it can be used in the ramjet part of the engine profile -- using hypersonic air is the definition of scramjet.
Oh I did understand your point, I just don't agree with it.
You believe that the USA forced the rest of the world into adopting a flawed treaty. Having lived for 20 years in the USA & 20 ouside it, I believe this position to be a USA-centric position. As I stated in my original reply, the geneva convention has always been a consensus between nations on the limits of warfare. The USA may not have wanted a total ban on blinding lasers, but neither did the any of the other nations which have adopted the convention. Laser designators (which can blind) are too useful for any nation to abandon.
If the "flawed" character of the geneva convention being the fault of the USA is no longer an issue, your "philosophical error" is groundless (on this point at least).
Not neccesarily. Not having to bring any oxidiser gains you nothing if scramjet engines mass magnitudes more than rocket engines (as they do at present). Scramjets need something else to get to >mach 1, then peter out at less than Mach 10 when orbit needs >Mach25. By using scramjets you're replacing one system (rockets) with 3 (???+scramjet+rockets).
As an analogy imagine this: Currently your car uses one engine to do 0-60mph. Use of scramjets is like somebody offering to add a 700lb, $3000 solar powered motor to your car so that from 10-30mph you can use solar power instead of gasoline.
Rockets are working technology & the most efficient power source known to man. Scramjets are in their infancy and development costs are unknown.
Slashdot Mirror
Your example of HMS Sheffield is in any case incorrect and is covered in the sci.military.navy FAQ:
There are many misconceptions and incorrect stories regarding the use of aluminum in warship construction.
One common story is that HMS Sheffield, a destroyer sunk during the 1982 Falkland War, was lost because her alleged aluminum superstructure made her more vulnerable to damage. This story is completely untrue, because Sheffield's superstructure was not aluminum. Like all ships of her class, her hull and superstructure were entirely steel. Aluminum played no role in her loss.
Two Royal Navy warships lost during the Falklands War did have aluminum superstructures, and their loss is incorrectly attributed to this feature. Ardent was hit by seven 500- and 1000-pound bombs, plus at least two more bombs which failed to detonate, and sank some six hours after the attack. Any warship of her size, regardless of aluminum or steel construction, would likely be sunk by this many bombs, so aluminum cannot be blamed here. Antelope, another aluminum-superstructure ship, was struck by two bombs, which lodged in the ship but failed to explode. Later, while one of the bombs was being defused, it exploded, blowing a major hole in the hull and starting a large fire. The fire eventually reached the magazines, causing these to explode. Again, an aluminum superstructure appears to have little connection to the ship's loss, which was caused by the explosion of the bomb and the magazines.
A related story claims the US Navy and Royal Navy abanonded aluminum superstructures, in favor of steel, as a result of the Falklands war. Since aluminum superstructures played little or no role in the Falkands losses, this story is obviously untrue. The Royal Navy's switch to steel appears to be a result of a 1977 fire in the frigate Amazon. In the US Navy, the switch from aluminum to steel superstructures was a result of the 1975 collision between the carrier John F. Kennedy and the cruiser Belknap. The collision caused major fires aboard the cruiser, and her aluminum superstructure essentially melted; she was reduced to a badly burnt hulk. This incident lead to a decision to adopt steel superstructures in the next new warship class, the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class destroyers. This decision had been made prior to the Falkands War.
From the pictures of the test device in the FCC application , it appears that the bottom of the "coke can" has a slot that contains the SIM card. It also looks like the "can" was assembled from two pieces.Coka-cola Corp may change the packaging to make it less visible than in the test device, but it may be possible to find winners by looking at the bottom.
If you want to have any credibility at all in a discussion, you need to use examples that are pertinant and not demonstratably incorrect. I'll concede that you were trying to be pertinant, but your examples are clearly incorrect. In other words, dont piss on my leg & try to convince me that it is raining.
Yet again, your example has no basis in fact. The US was not "making it hard for Japan to survive", it was refusing to sell them goods which were necessary to continue it's agression in Manchuria. Had Japan been dependant on foreign foodstuffs (as was England) & the US had blockaded the importation of said foodstuffs (as Germany attempted to do to England) you would have had a point. Using England vs Germany as an example, you might have had a point.
I have no use for your excuses. Go to the library & read a book (no, comic books do not count) on the causes of WWII & become enlightened.
We were taking THEIR oil?
So, because FDR refused to sell the japonese govt scrap iron from detroit & oil from california until they stopped their aggresion in manchuria, it somehow became theirs?
Talk about out of contact with reality. Somebody please mod this thread down as offtopic and overrated...
First off:
Your numbers on deaths in space are bullshit:
Soyuz 1 April 23, 1967 Komarov died during reentry
Soyuz 11 June 30, 1971 Patsayev, Dobrovolsky & Volkov died during descent
Secondly, WHO IS GOING TO FINANCE IT? Russia? Fat chance, russia just doesn't have the money to do ANY development anymore. For over a decade, close to half of Russia's space program has been financed by NASA! Every single module the Russians furnished to ISS was delivered late and only after Nasa coughed up the funding to finish their construction (the later modules were financed in majority with US money).
The only reason Nasa was financing the russians was so that the tons of money they sunk into Freedom/Alpha/RAlpha/ISS would have a result & not end up as a gigantic boondoggle. There is no way in hell that the burocrats at Nasa will allow a signuificant slice of their budget to be siphoned off & no american politician is going to finance russian pork.
In the linked site, they "include a waranty, providing indemnity for losses and damages to assets in case that the Ollivier Hail Suppression System(R) does not function properly".
In other words, you're replacing your insurance policies with their warranty. Depending on the reliability of their financial resources & how much these sound cannons cost, this could actually save money for Nissan even if it doesn't work (as I assume).
Thanks for the link, I've always wondered why you could call sparkling wines Champage in the the USA but not elsewhere.
France added an amendment to the treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 that forced every country that signed it to acknowledge only champagne that comes from the champagne region in France may be called champagne.
However, I've got a bone to pick with the CNN article.
Wines from Champagne may have been known from roman times, but not the sparkling wines we have come to know as "Champagne". Champagne was rather known as a producer of poor wines like the rest of northern Gaul. Back then, every area then was warm enough to grow grapes produced wine. The good wines all came from futher south where it was sunny enough for the grapes to produce wine that tasted better than horse piss.
It was only after a catholic monk named "Dom Perignon" invented what has come to be called "Methode champegnoise" in the late 1600s that the bubbly came into being. Dom Perignon came up with the method to be able to sell the wine from his abbey which had few takers up to then. If you ever get the chance to taste regular white wine from champagne that hasn't undergone the secondary fermentation, you'll understand why. Wines from champagne are STILL poor to middling unless changed into "Champagne".
Not always. Some wines have enough sugar left over after the primary fermentation, so no sugar is needed. I don't know how often they need to add sugar as the winegrowers I have talked to have different stories. Most say that the other guys always have to add sugar while they rarely/never need to...
Due to a French court decision a few years back, it is now illegal (in europe & other countries that respect "l'Appelation d'Origine Controlle" or AOC that you see on most european wines) for wines grown outside of the region of champagne that use the secondary fermentation process to say so on the bottle. According to the Champagne winegrowers association the mere mention of the use of "methode champenoise" even if it is in small print on the back lable was enough to confuse the public into thinking that it came from Champagne (& was thus protected by the AOC).
This happened around the time Rambus was trying to litigate the rest of the world into submission instead of producing a better product & letting the market decide. Draw your own conclusions, but this was when I stopped buying champagne.
Another thing that turned me off champagne is that 90% of the champagne that is produced is what is called a "Vin d'Assemblage" or fabricated wine. Most wines are the product of a single year & region. This is why you can see both the origin (AOC again) & the year on the bottle. However, this is not usually the case for champagnes. Just before the wine is ready for the secondary fermentation it is tasted. To eliminate the differences in taste from year to year, wine fom different years (& often sugar) is added so that the champagne will have a predictable taste.
So, unless it is an exceptional year, wine from champagne does not have a date on the bottle. As they are fabricated wines, they age badly & must be dunken young.
Champagnes that DO have a date (Called Milesime in french) ARE exceptional. Unforunately they also sport a price tag to match. You can leave these bottles in a wine cellar & they get better & better -- to a point as really old champagnes loose their C02.
There are a lot of really excellent sparkling wines out there that are cheaper than most champagnes. My personal favorite is the Vouvray Petillant from the Loire valley region in France. These are not fabricated wines, so some years are better than others, but in 1990 I put a case of 12 bottles away to be opened on new years eve 2001. There were other "champagnes" served that night, including some very expensive bottles but none was as fine as the Vouvrays & the case of 12 was cheaper than a single bottle of the good "Real Champagne".
This is insightful? Absurdly funny maybe, but insightful?!?
When Noriega's troops were kidnapping & beating US citizens (resulting in a number of deaths), yeah I'd call that being an enemy of the US. When the link from Noriega's Govt to drug running was established, they were confronted & they refused to stop, I'd also call that being an enemy of the US.
I don't buy Iraq's financing of 9/11 either, but IMHO that's only a very minor public justification for invading Iraq. More pertinant was their continual disrespect for the the terms of the cease-fire in GW1 in which it was clear that non-respect of the terms would entail their dismemberment.
Are you aware that the KKK has financed both republicans & democrats? Both parties should be banned as they're demonstratably corrupt, right? NOT!
You never hear your version of reality in the media (other than in the checkout line) because they are too busy looking over their shoulders for the "Black Helicopters"...
The warplan devised in the 20's for the defeat of Japan...
Even though the so called secret plans are only supposition on the UK MOD's part, the USA certainly has plans for invading just about every country on earth. This is not due to sinister intent, just responsable planning. The world is a strange and dangereous place where allies of today can quickly turn into deadly ennemies (Japan of the 30's, Iran in the 70's, Panema in the 80's, etc). The price of being unprepared is just too high in this day & age.
Because it's just more efficient to brake using the atmosphere & use the systems we have developped (except for accidents like the shuttle breakup).
Until we have extra-terrestrial sources, every kilo of fuel & oxidiser needed to slow down would have to be lofted from the earth. You can't just add more as this will add more mass to be lifted, which will need more F+O, etc, not to mention the mass penalty for things like tanking & insulation.
Mark you're mistaken...
If you take another look at the picture in the article you'll see that the HUD is NOT integrated into the helmet, but just screwed/glued onto an existing helmet. Thats why you have that little arm that drops down over the outside of the windscreen. The system will not be able to be integrated into the inside of a helmet until they can find a manufacturer that is willing to redesign a helmet & expanded the foam to take into account the thickness/ridgidity of the HUD composants.
That little arm looks like a nice whistle & really fragile as the arm has to pop up when the windshield is opened.
Until someone integrates a HUD INSIDE the helmet, as windnoise & robustesse are my major product selection criteria (after security of course), they can keep it.
The collision produced two bodies of molten rock. After cooling, both bodies exgassed water & other volitiles. The Earth is massive enough to keep most of it's volitiles. The moon isn't.
Lunar hydrogen is probably hydrated compounds in the lunar regolith. The most commonly accepted origin for the hydrates is from cold trapping of the solar wind (as I have stated elsewhere).
Pat
Nobody seriously believed that there would be sheets of ice at the lunar poles anyway. When Clementine confirmed the presence of hydrogen at the lunar poles the most commonly accepted source was as hydrates in the lunar regolith.
0 .pdf)
There are only sources for the hydrogen according to recent theory:
- Cometary impacts
- Cold trapping of the solar wind (this paper details just this scenario: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/FTI/POSTERS/hhs_space200
Cometary impacts were always a looong shot.
A side note to those who have been saying "Hydrogen is light, we'll just transport some from the earth to the moon".
- Hydrogen is only RELATIVELY light compared to Earths atmosphere.
- Tanks that can contain large amounts of hydrogen at 0atm are HEAVY.
- We need TONS of hydrogen in order to expand our presence in space.
- Every Kilo of Hydrogen+Tankage that you bring with you from Earth is a kilo that cannot be used for other essentials that we cannot find/make in space. Thinks like food, tools, fuel, etc.
- The two major uses of lunar hydrogen would be water (for drinking, bathing, cleaning, etc) & as rocket fuel.
Pat
Once the technique is widely spread, it's utility for authenticity will plummet as anyone including document forgers will be able to reproduce it.it's only useful as long as it stays a rare curiosity. By becoming popular it would make itself useless.
Right & you probably claim that the when you ran over granny the other day that it was her own fault for not running fast enough.
I've got a clue for you: NOBODY's security is perfect, all security is relative. That is why there are things called LAWS to protect the weak. If it is easy for a con artist to screw your 80 year old granny out of her life's savings does that make it any less wrong?
What a maroon...
Damn... No Mod points.
MOD THE PARENT OF THIS POST UP AS INSIGHTFUL/FUNNY.
Riding around at the speeds the AC claims and saying it's tha bike's fault is the dumbest thing I've heard in months.
Can you get to orbit in them?
Can you get to orbit in a scramjet? No. that wasn't the point. The development costs for rockets have already been spent. Billions are needed before we see the first operational scramjet (with a paying customer). Scramjets cannot replace rockets as I said initially (you never answered that btw). If we can find the ressources to spend billions on improving our acces to space we need to spend it responsably & not piss it away on dreams.
What, you mean the guidance problem of having all your thrust at the very bottom of the vehicle, which is basically a requirement for rockets?
No, I meant the guidance & other reliability problems will not go away through use of scramjets. Do you contend that systems failures will dissapear because scramjets are used? If not then stop using systems failures to try & prove that rocket engines are the root cause.
Nice links. None of them give proof of a real-world scramjet showing positive thrust, though. You tried to point out that scramjets are 3X more efficient than rockets. I point out that these are not proofs until achieved outside a lab. Funny, it's been days since the test, no news on results... Wanna bet that once again, no net positive thrust?
Eh? They have to accelerate constantly the whole time? Can't slow down, can't cruise, can't do anything except go faster? Do explain to me where you learned this.
Simple enough: Using rockets 90% of orbital velocity is acquired outside the atmosphere. Orbital rockets throttle back while still in the atmosphere in order to avoid melting. Orbital scramjets cannot cannot accelerate in space. Orbital scramjets must therefore accelerate to >mach25 in the atmosphere. Orbital Scramjets must be made of unobtanuim.
Whether or not scramjets can throttle is not the point. Its that rockets can accelerate where scramjets cannot & that scramjets have materiel limits imposed on them that rockets do not.
I prefer exchanging tons of oxidiser for unobtainium. It has been proven to work.
You're the one proposing limits pal, not me.
Exactly my point. You propose spending billions to "solve" reliability problems in rockets by using scramjets made out of unobtainium. I'd prefer spending the money on something with a reasonable chance of being useful and feasible. DC-X before Nasa sandbagged it or Rotary, (RIP).
We've agreed that the the post you originally replied to was factually false.
Lets pull out your first post on this thread ok?:
Others have already pointed out the factual error involved here, so I'll simply point out the philosophical one: It's not so much that teh law doesn't apply to the US Military (which isn't to say that it always does), so much as that we work to ensure that the law is crafted in a way that allows us to do the things we want to do.
1) there is a philosophical error
2) we (clearly the US) make sure that "our" viewpoint gets imposed
further on: :)
Isn't being a superpower great?
3) We can do this because we we are a superpower.
I adressed 3 repeatedly in my previous posts. You pointed out that 2 is irrelevant in the last paragraph of your latest post.
1 stands alone unsupported. If you want to justify 1 by stating that "well yeah, I'm always right except when I'm wrong" while refusing to give any instances in which you are not mistaken, then the only debate in which you have any relevance is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
In light of this, I concede that there was no "philisophical error", but only because it's philisophically irrelevant. I'm done here.
- Good rocket engines weigh about 1/15 as much as jet engines with similar sea-level thrust & scramjets weigh even more than jets.
- Terrier-Orion sounding rockets (from surplus military stocks) can be obtained on a university budget. The dev costs on scramjets are easily in the billions.
- RL-10's as used on the DC-X were reusable immediately after refueling -- no repairs needed.
- Finally, who cares how much is tanking. Fuel costs are negligable compared to the rest.
Hmph, barely working says a proponent of scramjets. Ha, pull the other one... Please tell me how the rocket engines were responsible for the failure of the previous scramjet tests? (hint: they weren't. Scramjets will be subject to the same guidance problems).
As was pointed out != as has been proven. Please point me to your real-world proofs or stop presenting "I hope" as "It has been proven".
Henry Spencer convinced me : I think a rocket would be simpler and cheaper, and would need only a fraction of the development work. Note that nobody has ever demonstrated actual thrust (exceeding drag) from a scramjet in flight.
Before stating that scramjets can accelerate to mach25 in the atmosphere you are going to have to solve the materiels problem. Rockets generally need to throttle back shortly after takeoff until after leaving the atmosphere to avoid the problem, scramjets by definition cannot. Using unobtanium is against the rules & will be grounds for disqualification. Until then, kindly refrain from proposing theoretical yet unachievable limits.
As this assertion is false (as explained previously), so is your conclusion unless you come up with another justification. You cannot refute "Internation law doesn't apply to the US Military" logically by stating falsehoods.
Again, I get your point: "USG sneaky/nasty", do you get mine now?
"Donuts on a rope" is the characterisation given to the contrail of a secret US program thought to use pulsed detonation to achieve high mach.
"shock waves in the stream of a jet engine" are better known as shock diamonds and are the results of shock waves producing visible artifacts in the flaming exhaust of aircraft using afterburners.
Finally, as has already been stated in another post, the SR-71's engines fonction in both ramjet & turbojet modes. The inlet cone slows the air down to subsonic speeds so that it can be used in the ramjet part of the engine profile -- using hypersonic air is the definition of scramjet.
You believe that the USA forced the rest of the world into adopting a flawed treaty. Having lived for 20 years in the USA & 20 ouside it, I believe this position to be a USA-centric position. As I stated in my original reply, the geneva convention has always been a consensus between nations on the limits of warfare. The USA may not have wanted a total ban on blinding lasers, but neither did the any of the other nations which have adopted the convention. Laser designators (which can blind) are too useful for any nation to abandon.
If the "flawed" character of the geneva convention being the fault of the USA is no longer an issue, your "philosophical error" is groundless (on this point at least).
Not neccesarily. Not having to bring any oxidiser gains you nothing if scramjet engines mass magnitudes more than rocket engines (as they do at present). Scramjets need something else to get to >mach 1, then peter out at less than Mach 10 when orbit needs >Mach25. By using scramjets you're replacing one system (rockets) with 3 (???+scramjet+rockets).
As an analogy imagine this: Currently your car uses one engine to do 0-60mph. Use of scramjets is like somebody offering to add a 700lb, $3000 solar powered motor to your car so that from 10-30mph you can use solar power instead of gasoline.
Rockets are working technology & the most efficient power source known to man. Scramjets are in their infancy and development costs are unknown.