Not exactly. Drag force is proportional to the frontal area (or, more generally, a "reference area") times the drag coefficient. (We'll ignore things like Reynolds number considerations for now) Two cars with equal Cds might have different figures for actual drag if their frontal areas are different.
So, it's not "easier" for larger cars to have a lower Cd, certainly not if you consider only passenger cars. Semi trucks with good fairings can have very good drag performance, but I don't have any particular data saying that their Cds are substantially lower than passenger cars. Their overall drag figure is, of course, much higher because of their large size.
I wasn't arguing the stupid patent, I was arguing that the fact that some people do stupid things with Flash doesn't diminish its validity as a medium for expression.
Clock radios are useful for people like me, because if my alarm sounds the same two days in a row, it's easier for me to ignore. So I use my hideously-multifunctional personal computer as an alarm clock, which I know will cause you to cry yourself to sleep for a week.
I want a device that does several things well so I don't look like FUCKING BATMAN.
And, since different people made those decisions at different times, multiple personality disorder doesn't even really apply.
Those decisions might have been good and expedient at the time. The thing is, when you make a policy decision at that level and it turns out to be a mistake, it's a BIG FUCKING MISTAKE.
I won't pretend to know why Saddam was deemed the lesser weevil, but it's not as cut and dried as you'd like to make it out to be.
Somebody trespassing, in my house, in the middle of the night, isn't trying to sell me Amway. They're up to no good, and they are in mortal peril.
Me, I prefer to rack the slide of a shotgun noisily first. That gives them plenty of incentive to leave. If they stay, after hearing that sound, they're pretty darn dumb.
Will I shoot first, and ask questions later? No. I will challenge from behind a weapon equipped with light. If the intruder then does anything other than comply with my orders, well, that was a pretty bad idea on their part.
Great. So we surrender, and sell our souls to the corporate gods. Tattoo their bar codes on our arms.
If that's what you call capitalism, I am an anti-capitalist. That system is unjust and wrong, and it will change. I, for one, won't take it lying down.
Ugh. Wrong sense on that statement. NObody's arguing that the system DOES NOT reward dirty business. It certainly DOES, and that is symptomatic of the problems Cringely is discussing.
I certainly wouldn't start a startup if the investors could shut it down tomorrow and walk away with the dough.
But they can. And I'm sure they won't tell me about it before they do it.
Before you sign ANYTHING, get a lawyer who is responsible to YOU to look over the papers the sharks are pushing on you. It doesn't matter how many zeros are on the check, if they can just fuck you out of it whenever they want to.
Columbia doesn't fly high-inclination orbits, for the same reason it doesn't go to ISS. Too heavy.
Yes, Shuttle can in fact do good science. It's also a good heavy lift vehicle. It's not, however, cost effective in either role. That's the meat of the argument.
Exploring happens if and only if people go places. Yes, you can do much useful science with a telescope, but EXPLORING requires humans to go somewhere and get dirty feet.
Yes. Now ask yourself why SpaceHab's funcitionality isn't aboard ISS. In case you're wondering, it's because ISS can not be crewed by more than three people until we have the ability to remove more than three people from ISS docked to the vessel. Why not? Because NASA has killed every program that could have done that mission. Why? Because the Shuttle is incredibly expensive.
Of course, Columbia isn't (well, wasn't) capable of getting to ISS's orbit. But the mismanagement of the ISS program has created the need to use sub-optimal tools to do the science missions.
Now, whether ISS is a Good Idea, or whether these science missions are Good Ideas, those are debates for a different time. My thinking is that space is for EXPLORING, not for doing science fair projects in.
Look, when a vehicle is in orbit, it has ENORMOUS kinetic energy, and a fair bit of potential energy. "Aerodynamic costs" (by which I assume you mean "drag") are totally irrelevant when you've got that kind of energy budget.
There are all sorts of reasons not to shoot cargo and passengers on the same vehicles. Drag on reentry is not one of them.
I've got a better idea. Let's put all the repair and rescue gear on a station, in space, and leave it there 'till we need it. Maybe we could call it the Space Station.
Schlepping every possible piece of repair and rescue gear into and out of orbit with each crew is silly.
Do you commute to work in a semi truck? No? Me either.
Cost is non-linear with reliability. Permit me to make up some numbers. If you can afford to lose one launch in twenty (95% reliability), rather than losing one launch in 1000, your launch system might cost 50-90% less.
Similarly, if you can put your crew on a vehicle with (say) a 2000 lb useful load, your cost per pound will be far less than on a vehicle with a 50,000 lb useful load (assuming the same reliability requirements).
So, if you put your heavy cargo on a big, cheap, disposable rocket, and put your crew on a small, reliable spacecraft (which may or may not be reusable), you can accomplish similar missions for way less money.
Slashdot Mirror
Where am I supposed to shit? If I can't shit on my environment (well, more properly, IN my environment), what am I supposed to do with my poop?
Not exactly. Drag force is proportional to the frontal area (or, more generally, a "reference area") times the drag coefficient. (We'll ignore things like Reynolds number considerations for now) Two cars with equal Cds might have different figures for actual drag if their frontal areas are different.
So, it's not "easier" for larger cars to have a lower Cd, certainly not if you consider only passenger cars. Semi trucks with good fairings can have very good drag performance, but I don't have any particular data saying that their Cds are substantially lower than passenger cars. Their overall drag figure is, of course, much higher because of their large size.
I wasn't arguing the stupid patent, I was arguing that the fact that some people do stupid things with Flash doesn't diminish its validity as a medium for expression.
No Homestar Runner? That'd be dreadful.
Give the guy a break. You'd grimace too if you'd just shit a skateboard.
You, sir, are a moron.
Clock radios are useful for people like me, because if my alarm sounds the same two days in a row, it's easier for me to ignore. So I use my hideously-multifunctional personal computer as an alarm clock, which I know will cause you to cry yourself to sleep for a week.
I want a device that does several things well so I don't look like FUCKING BATMAN.
On the other hand, N-GAGE is a piece of shit.
Well, we call it "English", and it doesn't seem to be THAT crappy. Inconsistent and unclear at times, but that's mostly operator error.
Or was that William Tindall in the 1560's? It's so hard for me to keep them straight.
Yeah, because Nintendo totally invented the mini-disc format.
What ARE you talking about?
I don't know, but you sure don't want to use question marks at the ends of your questions. Might confuse people.
If only you were right.
Nokia is responsible for this little UI abortion. Talk about utterly shitty design.
Schizophrenia!=multiple personality disorder.
And, since different people made those decisions at different times, multiple personality disorder doesn't even really apply.
Those decisions might have been good and expedient at the time. The thing is, when you make a policy decision at that level and it turns out to be a mistake, it's a BIG FUCKING MISTAKE.
I won't pretend to know why Saddam was deemed the lesser weevil, but it's not as cut and dried as you'd like to make it out to be.
Somebody trespassing, in my house, in the middle of the night, isn't trying to sell me Amway. They're up to no good, and they are in mortal peril.
Me, I prefer to rack the slide of a shotgun noisily first. That gives them plenty of incentive to leave. If they stay, after hearing that sound, they're pretty darn dumb.
Will I shoot first, and ask questions later? No. I will challenge from behind a weapon equipped with light. If the intruder then does anything other than comply with my orders, well, that was a pretty bad idea on their part.
Uh, good.
Great. So we surrender, and sell our souls to the corporate gods. Tattoo their bar codes on our arms.
If that's what you call capitalism, I am an anti-capitalist. That system is unjust and wrong, and it will change. I, for one, won't take it lying down.
Ugh. Wrong sense on that statement. NObody's arguing that the system DOES NOT reward dirty business. It certainly DOES, and that is symptomatic of the problems Cringely is discussing.
My bad.
Nobody's arguing that the system rewards dirty business. That doesn't mean it's right, that means the system is broken.
Just because they're "common and widely accepted" does not make them ethical or right.
I certainly wouldn't start a startup if the investors could shut it down tomorrow and walk away with the dough.
But they can. And I'm sure they won't tell me about it before they do it.
Before you sign ANYTHING, get a lawyer who is responsible to YOU to look over the papers the sharks are pushing on you. It doesn't matter how many zeros are on the check, if they can just fuck you out of it whenever they want to.
Columbia doesn't fly high-inclination orbits, for the same reason it doesn't go to ISS. Too heavy.
Yes, Shuttle can in fact do good science. It's also a good heavy lift vehicle. It's not, however, cost effective in either role. That's the meat of the argument.
Exploring happens if and only if people go places. Yes, you can do much useful science with a telescope, but EXPLORING requires humans to go somewhere and get dirty feet.
What? Shuttle is at almost full-throttle for most of the ascent burn.
Yes, you can shoot cargo hotter, but a) Shuttle can't do it and b) why the heck would you want to?
Yes. Now ask yourself why SpaceHab's funcitionality isn't aboard ISS. In case you're wondering, it's because ISS can not be crewed by more than three people until we have the ability to remove more than three people from ISS docked to the vessel. Why not? Because NASA has killed every program that could have done that mission. Why? Because the Shuttle is incredibly expensive.
Of course, Columbia isn't (well, wasn't) capable of getting to ISS's orbit. But the mismanagement of the ISS program has created the need to use sub-optimal tools to do the science missions.
Now, whether ISS is a Good Idea, or whether these science missions are Good Ideas, those are debates for a different time. My thinking is that space is for EXPLORING, not for doing science fair projects in.
You want to buy used Russian hardware? Are you mad?
Soyuz is NOT reusable. Period.
What aerodynamic cost?
Look, when a vehicle is in orbit, it has ENORMOUS kinetic energy, and a fair bit of potential energy. "Aerodynamic costs" (by which I assume you mean "drag") are totally irrelevant when you've got that kind of energy budget.
There are all sorts of reasons not to shoot cargo and passengers on the same vehicles. Drag on reentry is not one of them.
KSR's good, but if you're interested in an even more realistic treatment of the subject, try Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars". Great book.
I've got a better idea. Let's put all the repair and rescue gear on a station, in space, and leave it there 'till we need it. Maybe we could call it the Space Station.
Schlepping every possible piece of repair and rescue gear into and out of orbit with each crew is silly.
Do you commute to work in a semi truck? No? Me either.
Cost is non-linear with reliability. Permit me to make up some numbers. If you can afford to lose one launch in twenty (95% reliability), rather than losing one launch in 1000, your launch system might cost 50-90% less.
Similarly, if you can put your crew on a vehicle with (say) a 2000 lb useful load, your cost per pound will be far less than on a vehicle with a 50,000 lb useful load (assuming the same reliability requirements).
So, if you put your heavy cargo on a big, cheap, disposable rocket, and put your crew on a small, reliable spacecraft (which may or may not be reusable), you can accomplish similar missions for way less money.
It's about damn time NASA figured this out.