a break in the line isnt all that catastrophic. It wont fall to earth or spontaneously combust. All that happens is you have a sever in the line. the balanced mass ratio will keep it from flying away, or falling to earth. It will remain mostly stationary.
The tether would be already equipped with thrusters every now and then to counteract natural wind and gravitational forces and the inevitable inaccuracy of the mass ratio that cause it to shift. These same thrusters can reposition the line after a break occurs, at which point an automated repair robot could patch it back together in moments. I doubt the system would even be down for a day.
Of course, damaging such a line to that extent is difficult because of the strength of the material involved. A plane hitting it would be destroyed, but it would barely scratch the line itself.
If you do some reading into the materials and idea involved, a space elevator is not only feasible, its downright the thing we should be focused on. From an engineering standpoint, once you've the got the material down (we do), and the mass production means ready (we do, just need to construct the plants to make it), its technically much simpler than building volatile fueled rocket launch ships and all their various specialized equipment and facilities, maintenance programs etc.
the closer to the equator you are, the less energy you need to expend to get into space as you can use the earth's rotational velocity to propel you up there. So you have less fuel or more cargo. Some commercial launches take this to its extreme and launch off converted oil platforms in the ocean, which are towed to the equator by tugboats.
Of course, there are other considerations. Nasa uses cape canaveral because not only is it very far south, its surrounded by water on 3 sides meaning launch mishaps are less likely to damage anything. And the water location means barges can deliver components too big for truck or rail to deliver, like booster engines and fuel tanks.
The weather is also a factor. Mojave is popular because the weather there is pretty boring and its sparse land.
yeah but britain is much smaller and its economically feasible to build nationwide mass transit systems.
The US relies on trucking and personal automotives for its economic basis because of the extreme expense it would take to build the massive mass transit systems such a large nation would need, to equate.
its more about r&d, as the other poster mentions. by building pilot plants, we can figure out how to make use of better energy sources, before the real fuel crunch happens.
Not all places receive a decent amount of sun. Efficiency will be based on number of sunny days per year, as well as having enough wide open space at a profitable land price.
So yeah, you won't see this in england any time soon for both of those reasons.
However, for developing desert nations, its not a half bad idea. Simple to build and maintain and makes use of something they have alot of - incessant sun.
Yeah because on mars, the laws of physics are drastically different! Cats live with dogs! Gravity pulls you up instead of down! The dirt is full of magical mystery pixies that make it behave unlike anything seen on earth!
Re:When can I move there?
on
Ice Lake on Mars
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Of course, motivating a government to pursue this goal results in enormous economic gains over the mid to long term. Look at apollo. The sheer amount of research and manufacturing buildup that had to happen to make it possible gave a huge boost to the US in every corner of the economy as it did so. Big govt money spurs research, factory construction, employment to man those factories etc... and don't forget the societal boost as you give your nation a purpose.
Of course, Senator Joe Doofus just sees that taxes will be raised a few dollars to see this accomplished and strikes it down.
Theres a science to predicting failures (mainly by analyzing known failure rates of components of components, with enough work, you can determine the failure of the system as a whole).
Anyway, the Saturn's predicted failure rate wasnt all that great. I think there was something like a 1 in 3 chance (read this long ago) something would go catastrophically wrong with them.
Yeah yeah, people wax poetic about them, but the saturn boosters were a generation older than the shuttles, and much less reliable. They werent used often enough to meet their predicted failure.
Turns out the SSME's on the shuttle itself are among the most reliable rocket motors ever fielded, on any craft, with virtually no problems, and have been continually updated over the past 30 years.
Aerodynamics are a HUGE concern during lift off! Ever launched a bottle rocket, seemingly straight up? But it never goes straight does it? Its quite difficult to launch something straight into the air, much less into orbit which requires maneuvering while in the atmosphere.
How would the EFT attach to the orbiter on top? Its got a tail that sticks out! It needs, obviously, extremely strong hardpoint attachments to the orbiter. Where would these go on top of it? This is the least efficient place due to the necessity of structural members that add significant weight.
The underlying enemy to anything space related is weight. Theres a reason why the space shuttle doesnt have jet engines and glides back to earth instead of powering through the atmosphere...
On professional archival quality paper, using professional quality ink, ink jet (particularly pigmented ink jet, though dyed is improving) is archival quality and will last longer than many lightjet-style prints, to say nothing of simple laserjet prints. Many museums and artists use epson 9600s and what not for their display prints. I know I do.
As for 'lower quality', thats entirely subjective, however, modern inkjet produces smaller drops than what most lightjet prints will achieve on their filmgrain like surfaces, therefore they tend to be a bit sharper. Of course this somewhat depends on the type of paper you're using.
certifying a rocket for manned travel is no trivial task. Besides needing to be ultra reliable, theres other issues at hand like vibration and sound to consider (dont want to shake people apart or deafen them). A rocket launch is the second loudest manmade event to occur. The first is the detonation of a nuclear weapon.
Theres more to lawyers than lawsuits and criminals. Contracts to be read/written, permit applications filed for building/renovating/improving, property management (a huge legal specialty) and a whole lot of other things that the business owner has no time for, so he pays the lawyer to make sure everything is done in a timely and legal manner.
And believe me, the same system exists in europe and in many ways its much more rigid and arcane with the rules to be followed about labor and property management.
But no, please, continue ranting and further demonstrate your lack of knowledge about running a business.
Modern processors do in fact, do this. They maintain statistics on the branches and go forward on the branch deemed most likely to be taken. Its based on a simple principal - if you've taken the same branch a few times before, you're likely to keep taking it from now on. Think of how loops work.
Granted, if the processor is wrong, it has to clear the pipeline and start anew (which is costly), but the benefits outweigh the negatives.
if you never leave or house, interact with other people or read the news.
most people have known a jim anchower or two in their lives. The "Leather clad nomads of australia" is from mad max and that ridiculous guy in skimpy leather underwear.
would be nonstick cookware, which is where most people's daily encounter with teflon is. Obviously the easiest route to ingestion would be food cooked on it, compared to wearing pants. Especially if you use a metal utinsel to stir the food and accidentally scratch the pan, releasing the teflon.
So why arent they protesting sellers of kitchenware?
its because 8 bits isnt enough to accurately capture a scene. Yes, working with 16 bits gives you more latitude to process with, but the reason for using it is wider gamut.
The human eye is especially sensitive to green, and gamuts chopped off at 8 bits tend to be noticably lacking when compared to an image that isnt.
Of course, if your display technology is poor, it wont matter. But for professional prints (and even average displays), the difference can be seen.
I'm a pro photographer
on
Are CRTs History?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I know a little something about displays;)
-They don't have a FIXED and lower resolution (and anything running at not-native res looks FUGLY, even with like ClearType and what not)
LCDs with decent electronics dont have much of a problem with this. I suppose if you buy no-name brand, it might.
-CRTs have a LOT more contrast
Not really. The contrast ratios for good LCDs are beyond what anyone needs. Black is black, white is white.
-CRTs don't have/get dead/stuck pixels
Neither do most LCDs these days... even my laptop with its rather average display has no dead pixels. This has stopped being an issue.
-CRTs have a good angle of view
As do most decent LCDs. Lower priced CRT's still have a slight edge in this regard vs. comparable lcd classes.
-CRTs don't have slow response delays (and LCD manufacturers that claim super low delays are using tricks to be able to claim those numbers)
I've been using LCDs for the better part of 8 years now and have *never* seen this.
-CRTs aren't limited to 18 (eek) or 24bit color, tend to have better color accuracy, wider gamut...
18 bit? What LCD doesnt display 24 bit? Further, there are LCD displays that can display the Adobe RGB gamut (Eizo makes a model of it now, more are to follow). Adobe RGB CRT's are very rare and expensive. CRT phosphors age and shift color frequently enough that you need to recalibrate every week or so. LCDs don't shift as much as the only thing they have that ages is a fairly stable backlight (I recalibrate monthly)
-Good CRTs have a long lifespan, not sure about LCDs
The backlight on an LCD is typically rated in the several 10s of thousands of hours. And while CRT's slowly degrade by flickering and blurring, LCDs do not.
I switched to LCDs several years ago. The color performance is more stable and images are much sharper.
The complaints I read about LCDs on here might've been valid 8-10 years ago. Today they are not.
Your eyes are capable of detecting thousands of shades of a single color.
24 bit color is not enough for serious graphics or photographic work, which is why many professionals work in 16 bit per channel. Most digital cameras today capture at 12 bit or higher.
Also that LCDs cannot display as many colors as CRT's is simply false. There are LCDs available today capable of displaying most of the Adobe RGB gamut, something which very few (and expensive) CRT's can do also.
Slashdot Mirror
a break in the line isnt all that catastrophic. It wont fall to earth or spontaneously combust. All that happens is you have a sever in the line. the balanced mass ratio will keep it from flying away, or falling to earth. It will remain mostly stationary.
The tether would be already equipped with thrusters every now and then to counteract natural wind and gravitational forces and the inevitable inaccuracy of the mass ratio that cause it to shift. These same thrusters can reposition the line after a break occurs, at which point an automated repair robot could patch it back together in moments. I doubt the system would even be down for a day.
Of course, damaging such a line to that extent is difficult because of the strength of the material involved. A plane hitting it would be destroyed, but it would barely scratch the line itself.
If you do some reading into the materials and idea involved, a space elevator is not only feasible, its downright the thing we should be focused on. From an engineering standpoint, once you've the got the material down (we do), and the mass production means ready (we do, just need to construct the plants to make it), its technically much simpler than building volatile fueled rocket launch ships and all their various specialized equipment and facilities, maintenance programs etc.
the closer to the equator you are, the less energy you need to expend to get into space as you can use the earth's rotational velocity to propel you up there. So you have less fuel or more cargo. Some commercial launches take this to its extreme and launch off converted oil platforms in the ocean, which are towed to the equator by tugboats.
Of course, there are other considerations. Nasa uses cape canaveral because not only is it very far south, its surrounded by water on 3 sides meaning launch mishaps are less likely to damage anything. And the water location means barges can deliver components too big for truck or rail to deliver, like booster engines and fuel tanks.
The weather is also a factor. Mojave is popular because the weather there is pretty boring and its sparse land.
yeah but britain is much smaller and its economically feasible to build nationwide mass transit systems.
The US relies on trucking and personal automotives for its economic basis because of the extreme expense it would take to build the massive mass transit systems such a large nation would need, to equate.
these initiatives arent uncommon.
its more about r&d, as the other poster mentions. by building pilot plants, we can figure out how to make use of better energy sources, before the real fuel crunch happens.
Not all places receive a decent amount of sun. Efficiency will be based on number of sunny days per year, as well as having enough wide open space at a profitable land price.
So yeah, you won't see this in england any time soon for both of those reasons.
However, for developing desert nations, its not a half bad idea. Simple to build and maintain and makes use of something they have alot of - incessant sun.
Yeah because on mars, the laws of physics are drastically different! Cats live with dogs! Gravity pulls you up instead of down! The dirt is full of magical mystery pixies that make it behave unlike anything seen on earth!
Of course, motivating a government to pursue this goal results in enormous economic gains over the mid to long term. Look at apollo. The sheer amount of research and manufacturing buildup that had to happen to make it possible gave a huge boost to the US in every corner of the economy as it did so. Big govt money spurs research, factory construction, employment to man those factories etc... and don't forget the societal boost as you give your nation a purpose.
Of course, Senator Joe Doofus just sees that taxes will be raised a few dollars to see this accomplished and strikes it down.
Yeah, because you know so much more than people with phds in geology.
Get a grip, man.
Theres a science to predicting failures (mainly by analyzing known failure rates of components of components, with enough work, you can determine the failure of the system as a whole).
Anyway, the Saturn's predicted failure rate wasnt all that great. I think there was something like a 1 in 3 chance (read this long ago) something would go catastrophically wrong with them.
Yeah yeah, people wax poetic about them, but the saturn boosters were a generation older than the shuttles, and much less reliable. They werent used often enough to meet their predicted failure.
Turns out the SSME's on the shuttle itself are among the most reliable rocket motors ever fielded, on any craft, with virtually no problems, and have been continually updated over the past 30 years.
Aerodynamics are a HUGE concern during lift off! Ever launched a bottle rocket, seemingly straight up? But it never goes straight does it? Its quite difficult to launch something straight into the air, much less into orbit which requires maneuvering while in the atmosphere.
How would the EFT attach to the orbiter on top? Its got a tail that sticks out! It needs, obviously, extremely strong hardpoint attachments to the orbiter. Where would these go on top of it? This is the least efficient place due to the necessity of structural members that add significant weight.
The underlying enemy to anything space related is weight. Theres a reason why the space shuttle doesnt have jet engines and glides back to earth instead of powering through the atmosphere...
And add extra weight (thus reducing payload)
Remember they stopped painting the EFT after the first couple of launches because of the weight savings.
Most spacecraft are certainly not 100% oxygen.
I suggest you look up "Apollo 1" as to why that is.
Space Shuttle, as an example, is 20% oxygen, 80% nitrogen, much like earth.
Then you should get a new doctor and report that one to the medical board.
Much, if not all, of your medical info is stored in databases already.
Then you've never seen an inkjet print done by a competent person. What are you using, copier paper?
But thats no surprise for slashdot.
On professional archival quality paper, using professional quality ink, ink jet (particularly pigmented ink jet, though dyed is improving) is archival quality and will last longer than many lightjet-style prints, to say nothing of simple laserjet prints. Many museums and artists use epson 9600s and what not for their display prints. I know I do.
As for 'lower quality', thats entirely subjective, however, modern inkjet produces smaller drops than what most lightjet prints will achieve on their filmgrain like surfaces, therefore they tend to be a bit sharper. Of course this somewhat depends on the type of paper you're using.
this isnt even new..canon and epson use separate ink tanks and print heads and have for years...
certifying a rocket for manned travel is no trivial task. Besides needing to be ultra reliable, theres other issues at hand like vibration and sound to consider (dont want to shake people apart or deafen them). A rocket launch is the second loudest manmade event to occur. The first is the detonation of a nuclear weapon.
Theres more to lawyers than lawsuits and criminals. Contracts to be read/written, permit applications filed for building/renovating/improving, property management (a huge legal specialty) and a whole lot of other things that the business owner has no time for, so he pays the lawyer to make sure everything is done in a timely and legal manner.
And believe me, the same system exists in europe and in many ways its much more rigid and arcane with the rules to be followed about labor and property management.
But no, please, continue ranting and further demonstrate your lack of knowledge about running a business.
Modern processors do in fact, do this. They maintain statistics on the branches and go forward on the branch deemed most likely to be taken. Its based on a simple principal - if you've taken the same branch a few times before, you're likely to keep taking it from now on. Think of how loops work.
Granted, if the processor is wrong, it has to clear the pipeline and start anew (which is costly), but the benefits outweigh the negatives.
if you never leave or house, interact with other people or read the news.
most people have known a jim anchower or two in their lives. The "Leather clad nomads of australia" is from mad max and that ridiculous guy in skimpy leather underwear.
would be nonstick cookware, which is where most people's daily encounter with teflon is. Obviously the easiest route to ingestion would be food cooked on it, compared to wearing pants. Especially if you use a metal utinsel to stir the food and accidentally scratch the pan, releasing the teflon.
So why arent they protesting sellers of kitchenware?
its because 8 bits isnt enough to accurately capture a scene. Yes, working with 16 bits gives you more latitude to process with, but the reason for using it is wider gamut.
The human eye is especially sensitive to green, and gamuts chopped off at 8 bits tend to be noticably lacking when compared to an image that isnt.
Of course, if your display technology is poor, it wont matter. But for professional prints (and even average displays), the difference can be seen.
I know a little something about displays ;)
-They don't have a FIXED and lower resolution (and anything running at not-native res looks FUGLY, even with like ClearType and what not)
LCDs with decent electronics dont have much of a problem with this. I suppose if you buy no-name brand, it might.
-CRTs have a LOT more contrast
Not really. The contrast ratios for good LCDs are beyond what anyone needs. Black is black, white is white.
-CRTs don't have/get dead/stuck pixels
Neither do most LCDs these days... even my laptop with its rather average display has no dead pixels. This has stopped being an issue.
-CRTs have a good angle of view
As do most decent LCDs. Lower priced CRT's still have a slight edge in this regard vs. comparable lcd classes.
-CRTs don't have slow response delays (and LCD manufacturers that claim super low delays are using tricks to be able to claim those numbers)
I've been using LCDs for the better part of 8 years now and have *never* seen this.
-CRTs aren't limited to 18 (eek) or 24bit color, tend to have better color accuracy, wider gamut...
18 bit? What LCD doesnt display 24 bit? Further, there are LCD displays that can display the Adobe RGB gamut (Eizo makes a model of it now, more are to follow). Adobe RGB CRT's are very rare and expensive. CRT phosphors age and shift color frequently enough that you need to recalibrate every week or so. LCDs don't shift as much as the only thing they have that ages is a fairly stable backlight (I recalibrate monthly)
-Good CRTs have a long lifespan, not sure about LCDs
The backlight on an LCD is typically rated in the several 10s of thousands of hours. And while CRT's slowly degrade by flickering and blurring, LCDs do not.
I switched to LCDs several years ago. The color performance is more stable and images are much sharper.
The complaints I read about LCDs on here might've been valid 8-10 years ago. Today they are not.
is only 8 bits per color channel, or 256 shades.
Your eyes are capable of detecting thousands of shades of a single color.
24 bit color is not enough for serious graphics or photographic work, which is why many professionals work in 16 bit per channel. Most digital cameras today capture at 12 bit or higher.
Also that LCDs cannot display as many colors as CRT's is simply false. There are LCDs available today capable of displaying most of the Adobe RGB gamut, something which very few (and expensive) CRT's can do also.
The other day some chucklehead brought a bag of burger king to a coffeeshop I was at. Then got pissy when the owner asked him to leave.
How much of an ingrate can some people be?