Same reason as a badminton shuttlecock doesn't, and the Soyuz and Apollo capsules don't. Keep the centre of mass low and the aerodynamics will keep it the right way up.
Talk to everyone in your team, every day. It will give you a far better idea of how things are going than progress reports and formal meetings ever will. The conversation doesn't have to be about the project, complain about the weather, whatever.
Believe time estimates, if you start trying to trim them to meet artificial dates your team will start multiplying the number they first thought of by a fudge factor and you still won't meet the date.
Nobody outside the team gets to talk to people inside without clearing it with you every single time. You're the manager, you have to know everything that is happening with the project, and you're the one who knows if the team member can spare the time to be disturbed.
You mean apart from the fact that one human geologist (or areologist if you prefer) on the surface could produce more science return in a couple of afternoons work than the two rovers have managed in the past 9 months?
That's an awful lot of rovers you need to pay for, launch and keep track of. Even spending an equivalent amount to a manned mission on a rover development programme will only get you a few test items to the Martian surface.
If you can get your launch costs way down low, and can put together a launch at short notice, it doesn't make sense to to repair or retrieve satellites at all.
Instead of spending 250 million for an ultra reliable satellite and 50 million for a launch, you spend 5 million on a fairly reliable satellite and one million on the launch and build a couple of spares. First one breaks, so what? A quick check that whatever went is OK on your spare and up it goes.
The researchers who get immediate access to the data are the ones who have already spent a decade or more of their lives working on the project. In return for their long-term commitment to the project they get the raw data first. After an agreed amount of time, which can vary from project to project but is meant to be long enough to analyse the numbers and write a paper on the subject, the data is made more widely available.
Most space missions including the Hubble Telescope work the same way. Apart from the occasional "pretty" picture used for publicity, the researchers who have planned a set of observations get the first chance to analyse and publish. Those who don't want to make the up-front commitment just have to be patient.
The custom bit of the seats is a padded liner that fits into the framework of the seat, the actual frames are all the same size. The station crew bring their custom seat liners up with them on the shuttle, then swap them with the ones for the old crew. Same happens when they swap out a Soyuz, the delivery crew move their seat liners from the new Soyuz to the old one, and the station crew move theirs from the old to the new
I forget the exact equations, but a google search on the sci.space.* newsgroups for "diffraction limit" will give the answer both for using Hubble to try and see manmade objects on the moon (They'd need to be more than 10m across) and for using spy satellites to read car number plates and newspaper headlines on earth (You can probably resolve things about 15cm across).
It works out that you'd need mirrors kilometres across for it to work. Cheaper to go there and have a look directly. Oh, and it's a limit of physics, not a cover up by intelligence organisations...
3.2.1: Unless otherwise specified, Hugo Awards are given for work in the field of science fiction or fantasy appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year.
With added emphasis by me...
Anthony
Re:Get your facts straight.
on
The Business
·
· Score: 1
And of course, both of him are Scots, not English.
Sounds like standard good journalistic practice. You run a story and try and get both sides to contribute before you publish. If someone declines to comment, you mention that to show you at least tried to give a balanced report.
Slashdot Mirror
Same reason as a badminton shuttlecock doesn't, and the Soyuz and Apollo capsules don't. Keep the centre of mass low and the aerodynamics will keep it the right way up.
You mean apart from the fact that one human geologist (or areologist if you prefer) on the surface could produce more science return in a couple of afternoons work than the two rovers have managed in the past 9 months?
That's an awful lot of rovers you need to pay for, launch and keep track of. Even spending an equivalent amount to a manned mission on a rover development programme will only get you a few test items to the Martian surface.
The USSR regularly vetoed in the early days of the UN, look at the record recently though and it's a very different picture.
If you can get your launch costs way down low, and can put together a launch at short notice, it doesn't make sense to to repair or retrieve satellites at all.
Instead of spending 250 million for an ultra reliable satellite and 50 million for a launch, you spend 5 million on a fairly reliable satellite and one million on the launch and build a couple of spares. First one breaks, so what? A quick check that whatever went is OK on your spare and up it goes.
The researchers who get immediate access to the data are the ones who have already spent a decade or more of their lives working on the project. In return for their long-term commitment to the project they get the raw data first. After an agreed amount of time, which can vary from project to project but is meant to be long enough to analyse the numbers and write a paper on the subject, the data is made more widely available.
Most space missions including the Hubble Telescope work the same way. Apart from the occasional "pretty" picture used for publicity, the researchers who have planned a set of observations get the first chance to analyse and publish. Those who don't want to make the up-front commitment just have to be patient.
The custom bit of the seats is a padded liner that fits into the framework of the seat, the actual frames are all the same size. The station crew bring their custom seat liners up with them on the shuttle, then swap them with the ones for the old crew. Same happens when they swap out a Soyuz, the delivery crew move their seat liners from the new Soyuz to the old one, and the station crew move theirs from the old to the new
Anthony
I forget the exact equations, but a google search on the sci.space.* newsgroups for "diffraction limit" will give the answer both for using Hubble to try and see manmade objects on the moon (They'd need to be more than 10m across) and for using spy satellites to read car number plates and newspaper headlines on earth (You can probably resolve things about 15cm across).
It works out that you'd need mirrors kilometres across for it to work. Cheaper to go there and have a look directly. Oh, and it's a limit of physics, not a cover up by intelligence organisations...
Anthony
If we are getting picky, Henry V's speech before Harfleur actually starts "Once more unto the breach". :-)
Anthony
Article 3 - Hugo Awards
...
Section 3.2: General.
3.2.1: Unless otherwise specified, Hugo Awards are given for work in the field of science fiction or fantasy appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year.
With added emphasis by me...
Anthony
And of course, both of him are Scots, not English.
Sounds like standard good journalistic practice. You run a story and try and get both sides to contribute before you publish. If someone declines to comment, you mention that to show you at least tried to give a balanced report.