Not necessarily... Factor in the time value of money. In a reusable system all the R&D is front loaded (the really expensive part of the program) and the maintenance is in later (inflated from time inflation) costs.
In the disposable program, (and I question the neccesary use of that word, why can't we re-use large chunks of the rocket?) The much lower R&D costs are also up front, and the higher operating costs are paid for with later inflated (cheaper) dollars.
and there is nothing inherent to space operations which justifies the poor record of the shuttle
Are you on crack? For homework, go calculate the difference in kinetic energy between the shuttle at cruising speed and an airplane. Higher kinetic energy levels automatically increase risk, as the slightest misstep could cause the release of all that kinetic energy into heat, death, etc.
Come on!
Like alot of great ideas, a great technology does not mean success. There are so many other factors that have *nothing* to do with the technological greatness of the invention. Sad. I hope this survives and makes it to market, because this could *really* revolutionize information systems. There is no talk of manufacturing costs... any info anyone?
Hasn't anyone ever played C & C on large maps? CONSERVE the resources close to home and exploit those that are harder to protect and defend, before everyone has a chance to use them. That makes your home resources veeeery valuable in the end-game when money is tight, and denies your opponents access to the resources you used in the beginning. So, yeah, lets keep importing oil until we HAVE to use ours.
None of those programs put a man into space. That is the difference in budget there. All of those programs are single-purpose jobs. The shuttle was DESIGNED from the get-go to be a multi-purpose platform. The shuttle does FAR more hard-science on any mission than cargo delivery.
Before I got on another 747 I would want to know if it was a design flaw or pilot error or what. So to me that makes a bit of sense, but I agree with your sentiment. There is inherent risk in any great endeavor.
No, your kind of thinking is the heart of the problem. Exclusionary thinking (NASA is not a freight service etc) is not productive. Why can they not serve multiple purposes? The space station is ALL ABOUT hard science.
Uh, ObviousGuy, you are "ObviouslyIgnorant"... If I own a paper, I sure as hell can refuse to let the KKK advertise. What the first amendment guarantees is that the GOVERNMENT (and AOL aint that...yet) cannot enact a law to restrict the KKK's right (or the spammer's) to TRY to do the said advertising.
I hate the attitude that seeps through the commentary on this article. "Big Bad Intel actually waits until market forces indicates it would be profitable to do something different." Like it is Intel's duty to charge ahead in the processor industry tossing out new technologies as fast as they can produce them. This would be folly for any business. To do that would be akin to bitching about Ford not producing a flying car... it is possible, but the market probably does not support it now. I get the overwhelming sense that alot of posters (by far not the majority, but alot) think that taking a profit from one's labors is morally corrupt!
Yeah, I am a Mech Eng, and I wound up in the IT industry, doing a bit of everything. Programming, administrative (took some business courses too) and just a general goto person when problems come up nobody knows how to approach. The accedited engineering programs are all about that... Problem solving with a specialized bent to whatever field you want to end up in. More important than the "how to DO something" is "How to generally approach solving ANY problem" For example being able to pick out the important stuff and identify goals and solution paths... these are the things that engineering gets you. Cannot say firsthand on the MIS degrees, but in my experience, those guys make great administrators (if you want to be an administrator all your life). The few MIS grads I have intereacted with were not really into "owning" problems, but looking to get them off their plates and onto someone else's.
Slashdot Mirror
For someone so hung up on the meaning of words... Just what does "derivated" mean?
TROLL
Not necessarily... Factor in the time value of money. In a reusable system all the R&D is front loaded (the really expensive part of the program) and the maintenance is in later (inflated from time inflation) costs.
In the disposable program, (and I question the neccesary use of that word, why can't we re-use large chunks of the rocket?) The much lower R&D costs are also up front, and the higher operating costs are paid for with later inflated (cheaper) dollars.
Are you on crack? For homework, go calculate the difference in kinetic energy between the shuttle at cruising speed and an airplane. Higher kinetic energy levels automatically increase risk, as the slightest misstep could cause the release of all that kinetic energy into heat, death, etc. Come on!
Like alot of great ideas, a great technology does not mean success. There are so many other factors that have *nothing* to do with the technological greatness of the invention. Sad. I hope this survives and makes it to market, because this could *really* revolutionize information systems. There is no talk of manufacturing costs... any info anyone?
Hasn't anyone ever played C & C on large maps? CONSERVE the resources close to home and exploit those that are harder to protect and defend, before everyone has a chance to use them. That makes your home resources veeeery valuable in the end-game when money is tight, and denies your opponents access to the resources you used in the beginning. So, yeah, lets keep importing oil until we HAVE to use ours.
Every shuttle is pretty much a custom, unique job. In the big picture, the costs of facility set-up would be miniscule.
Xeons ARE up to 3GHz
Larry Niven... or any from that universe?
Your math doesn't work there fellah.
And that "junk science" as you call it will give us a cure for cancer one day.
Dumbass troll
None of those programs put a man into space. That is the difference in budget there. All of those programs are single-purpose jobs. The shuttle was DESIGNED from the get-go to be a multi-purpose platform. The shuttle does FAR more hard-science on any mission than cargo delivery.
Before I got on another 747 I would want to know if it was a design flaw or pilot error or what. So to me that makes a bit of sense, but I agree with your sentiment. There is inherent risk in any great endeavor.
No, your kind of thinking is the heart of the problem. Exclusionary thinking (NASA is not a freight service etc) is not productive. Why can they not serve multiple purposes? The space station is ALL ABOUT hard science.
Uh, ObviousGuy, you are "ObviouslyIgnorant"... If I own a paper, I sure as hell can refuse to let the KKK advertise. What the first amendment guarantees is that the GOVERNMENT (and AOL aint that...yet) cannot enact a law to restrict the KKK's right (or the spammer's) to TRY to do the said advertising.
Why not go pee up a rope big guy!
But will Joe Pesci be in this one? They need the funny littleguy!
That guy has some really nice boobs. If I had boobs like that, I would never do anything but lay in bed and play with myself!
This smacks of BS. I cannot find confirmation anywhere, care to back up your assertion? (King's Death)
I hate the attitude that seeps through the commentary on this article. "Big Bad Intel actually waits until market forces indicates it would be profitable to do something different." Like it is Intel's duty to charge ahead in the processor industry tossing out new technologies as fast as they can produce them. This would be folly for any business. To do that would be akin to bitching about Ford not producing a flying car... it is possible, but the market probably does not support it now. I get the overwhelming sense that alot of posters (by far not the majority, but alot) think that taking a profit from one's labors is morally corrupt!
Yeah, I am a Mech Eng, and I wound up in the IT industry, doing a bit of everything. Programming, administrative (took some business courses too) and just a general goto person when problems come up nobody knows how to approach. The accedited engineering programs are all about that... Problem solving with a specialized bent to whatever field you want to end up in. More important than the "how to DO something" is "How to generally approach solving ANY problem" For example being able to pick out the important stuff and identify goals and solution paths... these are the things that engineering gets you. Cannot say firsthand on the MIS degrees, but in my experience, those guys make great administrators (if you want to be an administrator all your life). The few MIS grads I have intereacted with were not really into "owning" problems, but looking to get them off their plates and onto someone else's.
Gnight all