impact isnt the only danger. they also have to be sufficiently angled such the the asteroid wont capture the exhaust and add it to its own mass. the inefficiancy only adds to the amount of mass lost by the tug and potentially captured by the asteroid
firstly, you arent going to be burning anything close to 1g of rocket fuel.
secondly, if your propellent has enough reaction force to move your ship (which it must), and your ship has enough heft to have any impact on the object (which it must), then that exhaust can and will be sufficient to have an effect on the object, both by direct collision and by potentially being captured by it and adding to its mass.
you are far too arbitrarily dismissive and insulting when you yourself fail to consider the scale of the things involved. go back to school? only if the teachers are smarter than you.
"The closer your tractor ship to the asteroid, the more propellant you must use pushing in useless directions. The farther you put it, the more efficient the use of fuel but the amount of time you must pull to get the same delta P increases as the square of the distance to avoid the tractor escaping." (courtesy of Shavano, a few posts higher up)
in other words, the closer you are, the better your attraction but the more you have to angle away (wasting more and mroe fuel, exponentially). the farther you are, the more efficient your fuel use, but the weaker your attraction (exponentially)
it defintely would. if the target object captures any significant portion of the exhaust, then you not only have to deal with the decreasing mass of the tug, but the inversely increasing mass of the target.
practical application however kills it. the time scale required is huge. time to travel to it, and time to affect the change. to shorten the time scale, the mass/fuel required, already quite large, becomes huge.
that then requires even more fuel, from wasting a portion of the reaction thrust.
and so far we havent even considered that the object will gravitationally attract the exhaust matter anyway, and should it capture any of it, it increases its own graviational force, both requiring more force to negate its pull, and constantly reducing the effectiveness of the tug trying to do its thing (tug losing mass, target is gaining it...)
astrophysicist. scientist. ie, theory. and theory always works in its ivory tower.
but in the real world practical application tears theory to shreds. actual practical application requires an engineer. and the engineers say that gravity tug is going to need two things: -lots of mass. the less mass, the longer it takes for it to work. -lots of fuel. and while the fuel can help with the mass thing, as you spend fuel, youre mass will decrease, so it wont negate it completely.
and then there's one other thing: the particles of the thruster exhaust that impact the target object will move it via impact, and if the distance between the two objects is sufficiently small or the gravity tug itself has insufficient mass, these impacts will impart a greater force than that of the gravitaional attraction.
So it's great how smart he is, I think he's really cool too....but i'll go with the engineers on this one over the astrophysicist.
Why a good manager should be more than just a manager. Just hiring someone with people skills isnt enough. IMO the position should be handled more as Project Lead or Supervisor. something to indicate that he is still expected to be able to get in there and know what is going on. to be the Project Manager you should be the among the best in the shop at whatever the project is, not just "the guy with the best people skills, and/or least talent, who will be missed the least, so they're shoving you out of the way of the real workers".
there's plenty of smart people who also wouldnt work if they didnt have to.
where does this automatic assumption that smart people, hard working people, would still do what they always do? that is an extremely simplistic and foolish assumption.
they work hard, they do great things, not just because they want to, not just to be good people...but because they alternatives are: -Alternative A: starving in the street -Alternative B: working at some body-with-a-pulse job well beneath their capabilities to avoid Alternative A
Faced with those alternatives people are motivated to better themselves, to do things they like, to work harder. When you remove those consequences fromt he equation you would be absolutely shocked by how fast people choose the lazy, non-contributing, but not starving either option.
This notion has always been, and always will be compeltely impractical and completely ignorant of basic human nature
you tell people that they'll recieve an amount of money sufficient to not starve and they dont have to do anything for, and the overwhelming majority of the people getting will do exactly that: nothing.
working in a steel mill is hard, hot, sweaty labor. collecting garbage or maintaining sewer lines or pumping septic tanks is filthy nasty work. i could go on..but the point is there are vast swathes of work that simply would not get done.
the motivation equation is a lot different when the choice changes from "work or starve" into "workifyouwantto...or dont".
it implies that much road wear....if you know nothing about road design. even cars arent the biggest car of road wear. the two main cause is big trucks and weather.
a road, like any engineered thing, is designed around its maximums. to safely carry the biggest vehicle it will have to carry. for the majority of roads this means trucks, other than residential streets and ones signed to prohibit truck traffic.
most trucks, even with their multiple axles , have a far larger weight foot print than cars. on most roads they cause most of the vehicular wear and tear. reason being has to do with elasticity. a typical road within its design lifespan and designed to handle trucks is not significantly impacted by cars, because the impact of the car's weight is below the elastic limit of the road. think of a spring.....a spring can bend a certain amount and return to its original shape....but go too far, and it doesnt. because the road was designed to be capable of handling trucks, and last a long time, provide a smooth ride, and resist hte weather....most passenger cars are below the elasticity limit of the road, and so actually have very little impact, wear and tear, on it.
reason being is the road is actually even designed so that your typical truck is at worst "at" the limit if not below it, since after all if the truck is going to irrevocably damage it by driving over it, its not a very useful road, now is it?
a lot of wear and tear comes from the weather. freezing (ice cracking) in winter, loosening asphalt/expanding concrete in the summer heat, etc. though even these are taken into account, because they change the properties of the road away fromt eh ideal as cars drive over it.
one of the major sources of wear and tear ive seen is the "bad spot". all the road bed is great, they poured it well...the inspectors were checking for depth and mixture etc....but there's that one spot where the aggregate wasnt quite as designed...the one weak spot that got missed (since htey can't check 100% of a road surface, they check like every 10-20ft, etc). that weak spot becomes a crack, or pot hole. and then traffic widens that...and it spreads.
that's actually where msot wear comes from, even though cars and weather contribute to it, its original controlling factor is simply what we would call "quality control" from when it was originally laid down.
no, that is an experiment to show how domestication and selection for domesticated traits changes an animal. it has nothing to do with the idea that dogs came from foxes. which they didnt.
except that doesnt have any selection pressure towards domestication. a wild wolf cub can be extremely dangerous as it matures. by being around humans constantly, yes, it certainly does lose a large degree of its fear of man. but it still has those instincts towards wolf social behaviours, particularly determining place within the pack (and that includes challenging its human provider for position). simply raising a pup you found isnt sufficient, and the odds of any random wild pup having the uncommon traits towards lower aggression and more juvenile/subservient behaviour are very low. the bondig of a wild wolf is hard to determine and train. it might bond with the person who raised it, and see him as its pack, and still see all other people as threats and/or food.
extremely fearful wolves are less likely to approach lone humans let alone villages, though the pack behaviour can also be different (going along with the pack for a hunt, overcome the fear instinct). so wolves that approach people have overcome this fear somehow. they are by nature bolder. if they are more aggressive, they are more likely to attack a person or persons. but such wolves are more likely to be killed or hunted down. this can cause a selection pressure towards two things: wolves that more fearful/wary of people, and wolves that while bolder are less aggressive. and you can actually see in nature the first case: most wolves in the wild, most animals at all, leave people alone and even tend to avoid them. the 2nd case, the one that probably led to dogs, would have, isntead of attacking people, learned that people leave edible refuse behind. after cleaning a deer for instance far from the village, the wolves can come eat the bits typically left behind, even the bones. there's even the midden heap of the village, typically on the edge or even outside it. people may not eat bones, but wolves can crack them and get the marrow.
it's not a mystery. Dogs ARE wolves. gray wolves specifically.
the gray wolf as a species is one of the most historically successful of all animals, having at one time ranged across the entire planet, on every landmass, not just the cold northern reaches. one of the few single species that has done so besides humans. and also therefore came into constant contact with humans.
the genetic tests have been done and known for years. canines within the same family can crossbreed (hence some coyote hybridization, but the coyote itself could be a descendent of hte gray wolf), but dogs are subspecies of the gray wolf. dogs and wolves are like the races of man in terms of genetics. they are the same species even if the local populations look rather different.
the "wild dogs" you speak of fall into 2 types:
-most are properly called feral dogs; they are descendents of dogs that left human society. Dingos are the ultimate example, and the only one considered by science to be truly "wild" rather than feral. but it still descended from the wolf via domestication that is has since evolved sufficiently to erase
-there are a few species called "dog" that are NOT descended from any breed of dog, and thus not descended from wolves. they are also not related in any way to the domestic dog. they simply got called "dog". --the Dhole is most closely related to the Jackel family. --the african cape hunting dog is a distinct canine lineage, seperate from foxes and wolves and jackals. like the Maned Wolf (also a distinct lineage unrelated to any other) it is essentially the only surviving member of its lineage, the rest having gone extinct millions of years ago. 2nd largest canine in the world, nearly the size of the gray wolf. --Bush dog is another seperate lineage, closest genetic relative is the Maned Wolf, though the link is very slim, given the large difference between the two, and the fact both are their own lineages. they are simply closer tied to each other, than to the rest of canines --Short-eared dog: a very early offshoot of the fox lineage, splitting off before the actual foxes came to be
51.5% to 48.5% barely even counts as a majority, especially when more than a third of all the voters stayed home and didnt vote.
you also fail to understand what the word representative means. your rep isnt supposed to rep me, and my rep isnt supposed to rep you. my guy is beholden to me, not you. your opinion should not matter to him. (the sad reality is my opinion does either, its the parties opinion that does...and one more reason we need to nuke the parties)
quote from the federal government email sent out an hour ago to reassure workers: "...will experience about a nine percent budget cut across all programs—starting now, and with no ability to adjust which accounts those cuts come from. "
Reminds me of one of my favorite movies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_to_the_Bottom_of_the_Sea Yes, I know, the plot is typical 50's non-science (using a nuclear missile to amputate the Van Allen belts from earth because they caught fire....). But i still like it.
you have got to be the same AC that keeps saying the same thing.
and once again i say it: even though he is the President, and head of the executive branch, there are certain people and certaint hings the President CANNOT order people to do or to decide in a certain way. There are some he can, but some people have certain jobs or responsibilities that require they act independently, and for the POTUS to tell them what to do compromises the integrity of the position and/or is illegal to do.
For ex, the courtsmartial of Bradley Manning....it is a court of law, and therefore for the POTUS to direct them to any particular finding or verdict, even though its run by military officers and Obama is the CiC. It is ILLEGAL.
As for your examples, the POTUS has absolutely ZERO power to tell teh Supreme Court what to do. So that example is BS.
It's also illegal to issue any Executive Order that is outside the powers granted him by law.
As for the AG, there are quire literally a million things teh AG can spend his time on. Telling him to ignore one set of things to focus on another is quite within his power, especially if those things are alrady of questionable nature and the President is in the process of trying to change them. Believe it or not, establishing priorities and changing policies and submitting changes of laws to Congress is well within the POTUS power.
I'm not a big supporter of the pres, but I am however awake to the realities of the position, and unlike you, not using everytime he sneezes as an excuse to attack him.
this is precisely why George Washington himself warned the new country against political parties.
it's precisely why I believe anyone wishing to run for President should be required to permanently and irrevocably sever all ties with all political parties, to the extent they may not even accept their support, nor can the parties offer any support, in the campaigns. I'm talking real draconian, NCAA style draconian rules (like they have against "boosters"). If this us vs them style congressional sessions are going to continue then we need men in the white house who are dedicated, proven leaders and unbeholden to any one. i'd also say they cannot have held office as a member of a political party in the past 5 years.
course even better would be to simply nuke the two parties into non-existence and get rid of all this allinclusive labeling with automatic you-have-to-b-against-this-and-for-this automatic platforming.
everyone is to blame, includng the ordinary citizens who saw the extreme dysfunction of the last Congress, and yet voted all the same people back into office anyway.
in fact i'd go so far as to say most of the blame falls on those voters. after all, a tiger cannot change his stripes, so electing the tiger who just ate someone back into office simply because he swore not to eat someone again....well that's just a very foolish thing to do.
yet, foolish as it was, the entire country did it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
time is the enemy of gravity tugs. gravity tugs need a lot of time to even work.
impact isnt the only danger. they also have to be sufficiently angled such the the asteroid wont capture the exhaust and add it to its own mass.
the inefficiancy only adds to the amount of mass lost by the tug and potentially captured by the asteroid
firstly, you arent going to be burning anything close to 1g of rocket fuel.
secondly, if your propellent has enough reaction force to move your ship (which it must), and your ship has enough heft to have any impact on the object (which it must), then that exhaust can and will be sufficient to have an effect on the object, both by direct collision and by potentially being captured by it and adding to its mass.
you are far too arbitrarily dismissive and insulting when you yourself fail to consider the scale of the things involved.
go back to school? only if the teachers are smarter than you.
and the point you people often miss is:
"The closer your tractor ship to the asteroid, the more propellant you must use pushing in useless directions. The farther you put it, the more efficient the use of fuel but the amount of time you must pull to get the same delta P increases as the square of the distance to avoid the tractor escaping." (courtesy of Shavano, a few posts higher up)
in other words, the closer you are, the better your attraction but the more you have to angle away (wasting more and mroe fuel, exponentially). the farther you are, the more efficient your fuel use, but the weaker your attraction (exponentially)
it defintely would. if the target object captures any significant portion of the exhaust, then you not only have to deal with the decreasing mass of the tug, but the inversely increasing mass of the target.
practical application however kills it.
the time scale required is huge. time to travel to it, and time to affect the change.
to shorten the time scale, the mass/fuel required, already quite large, becomes huge.
that then requires even more fuel, from wasting a portion of the reaction thrust.
and so far we havent even considered that the object will gravitationally attract the exhaust matter anyway, and should it capture any of it, it increases its own graviational force, both requiring more force to negate its pull, and constantly reducing the effectiveness of the tug trying to do its thing (tug losing mass, target is gaining it...)
astrophysicist. scientist. ie, theory. and theory always works in its ivory tower.
but in the real world practical application tears theory to shreds.
actual practical application requires an engineer. and the engineers say that gravity tug is going to need two things:
-lots of mass. the less mass, the longer it takes for it to work.
-lots of fuel. and while the fuel can help with the mass thing, as you spend fuel, youre mass will decrease, so it wont negate it completely.
and then there's one other thing: the particles of the thruster exhaust that impact the target object will move it via impact, and if the distance between the two objects is sufficiently small or the gravity tug itself has insufficient mass, these impacts will impart a greater force than that of the gravitaional attraction.
So it's great how smart he is, I think he's really cool too....but i'll go with the engineers on this one over the astrophysicist.
Why a good manager should be more than just a manager. Just hiring someone with people skills isnt enough. IMO the position should be handled more as Project Lead or Supervisor. something to indicate that he is still expected to be able to get in there and know what is going on. to be the Project Manager you should be the among the best in the shop at whatever the project is, not just "the guy with the best people skills, and/or least talent, who will be missed the least, so they're shoving you out of the way of the real workers".
there's plenty of smart people who also wouldnt work if they didnt have to.
where does this automatic assumption that smart people, hard working people, would still do what they always do?
that is an extremely simplistic and foolish assumption.
they work hard, they do great things, not just because they want to, not just to be good people...but because they alternatives are:
-Alternative A: starving in the street
-Alternative B: working at some body-with-a-pulse job well beneath their capabilities to avoid Alternative A
Faced with those alternatives people are motivated to better themselves, to do things they like, to work harder.
When you remove those consequences fromt he equation you would be absolutely shocked by how fast people choose the lazy, non-contributing, but not starving either option.
This notion has always been, and always will be compeltely impractical and completely ignorant of basic human nature
the work will get done? what work? by whom?
you tell people that they'll recieve an amount of money sufficient to not starve and they dont have to do anything for, and the overwhelming majority of the people getting will do exactly that: nothing.
working in a steel mill is hard, hot, sweaty labor. collecting garbage or maintaining sewer lines or pumping septic tanks is filthy nasty work. i could go on..but the point is there are vast swathes of work that simply would not get done.
the motivation equation is a lot different when the choice changes from "work or starve" into "workifyouwantto...or dont".
meant to say trucks weather and inehrent flaws.
it implies that much road wear....if you know nothing about road design.
even cars arent the biggest car of road wear.
the two main cause is big trucks and weather.
a road, like any engineered thing, is designed around its maximums. to safely carry the biggest vehicle it will have to carry.
for the majority of roads this means trucks, other than residential streets and ones signed to prohibit truck traffic.
most trucks, even with their multiple axles , have a far larger weight foot print than cars. on most roads they cause most of the vehicular wear and tear. reason being has to do with elasticity. a typical road within its design lifespan and designed to handle trucks is not significantly impacted by cars, because the impact of the car's weight is below the elastic limit of the road. think of a spring.....a spring can bend a certain amount and return to its original shape....but go too far, and it doesnt. because the road was designed to be capable of handling trucks, and last a long time, provide a smooth ride, and resist hte weather....most passenger cars are below the elasticity limit of the road, and so actually have very little impact, wear and tear, on it.
reason being is the road is actually even designed so that your typical truck is at worst "at" the limit if not below it, since after all if the truck is going to irrevocably damage it by driving over it, its not a very useful road, now is it?
a lot of wear and tear comes from the weather. freezing (ice cracking) in winter, loosening asphalt/expanding concrete in the summer heat, etc. though even these are taken into account, because they change the properties of the road away fromt eh ideal as cars drive over it.
one of the major sources of wear and tear ive seen is the "bad spot". all the road bed is great, they poured it well...the inspectors were checking for depth and mixture etc....but there's that one spot where the aggregate wasnt quite as designed...the one weak spot that got missed (since htey can't check 100% of a road surface, they check like every 10-20ft, etc). that weak spot becomes a crack, or pot hole. and then traffic widens that...and it spreads.
that's actually where msot wear comes from, even though cars and weather contribute to it, its original controlling factor is simply what we would call "quality control" from when it was originally laid down.
its only illegal if you get caught.
(damnit we need an edit function!)
addendum:
the foxes are simply easier to handle and breed quicker than wolves.
no, that is an experiment to show how domestication and selection for domesticated traits changes an animal.
it has nothing to do with the idea that dogs came from foxes.
which they didnt.
except that doesnt have any selection pressure towards domestication. a wild wolf cub can be extremely dangerous as it matures. by being around humans constantly, yes, it certainly does lose a large degree of its fear of man. but it still has those instincts towards wolf social behaviours, particularly determining place within the pack (and that includes challenging its human provider for position). simply raising a pup you found isnt sufficient, and the odds of any random wild pup having the uncommon traits towards lower aggression and more juvenile/subservient behaviour are very low. the bondig of a wild wolf is hard to determine and train. it might bond with the person who raised it, and see him as its pack, and still see all other people as threats and/or food.
extremely fearful wolves are less likely to approach lone humans let alone villages, though the pack behaviour can also be different (going along with the pack for a hunt, overcome the fear instinct). so wolves that approach people have overcome this fear somehow. they are by nature bolder. if they are more aggressive, they are more likely to attack a person or persons. but such wolves are more likely to be killed or hunted down. this can cause a selection pressure towards two things: wolves that more fearful/wary of people, and wolves that while bolder are less aggressive. and you can actually see in nature the first case: most wolves in the wild, most animals at all, leave people alone and even tend to avoid them. the 2nd case, the one that probably led to dogs, would have, isntead of attacking people, learned that people leave edible refuse behind. after cleaning a deer for instance far from the village, the wolves can come eat the bits typically left behind, even the bones. there's even the midden heap of the village, typically on the edge or even outside it. people may not eat bones, but wolves can crack them and get the marrow.
so its actually very likely
it's not a mystery. Dogs ARE wolves. gray wolves specifically.
the gray wolf as a species is one of the most historically successful of all animals, having at one time ranged across the entire planet, on every landmass, not just the cold northern reaches. one of the few single species that has done so besides humans. and also therefore came into constant contact with humans.
the genetic tests have been done and known for years. canines within the same family can crossbreed (hence some coyote hybridization, but the coyote itself could be a descendent of hte gray wolf), but dogs are subspecies of the gray wolf. dogs and wolves are like the races of man in terms of genetics. they are the same species even if the local populations look rather different.
the "wild dogs" you speak of fall into 2 types:
-most are properly called feral dogs; they are descendents of dogs that left human society. Dingos are the ultimate example, and the only one considered by science to be truly "wild" rather than feral. but it still descended from the wolf via domestication that is has since evolved sufficiently to erase
-there are a few species called "dog" that are NOT descended from any breed of dog, and thus not descended from wolves. they are also not related in any way to the domestic dog. they simply got called "dog".
--the Dhole is most closely related to the Jackel family.
--the african cape hunting dog is a distinct canine lineage, seperate from foxes and wolves and jackals. like the Maned Wolf (also a distinct lineage unrelated to any other) it is essentially the only surviving member of its lineage, the rest having gone extinct millions of years ago. 2nd largest canine in the world, nearly the size of the gray wolf.
--Bush dog is another seperate lineage, closest genetic relative is the Maned Wolf, though the link is very slim, given the large difference between the two, and the fact both are their own lineages. they are simply closer tied to each other, than to the rest of canines
--Short-eared dog: a very early offshoot of the fox lineage, splitting off before the actual foxes came to be
51.5% to 48.5% barely even counts as a majority, especially when more than a third of all the voters stayed home and didnt vote.
you also fail to understand what the word representative means. your rep isnt supposed to rep me, and my rep isnt supposed to rep you. my guy is beholden to me, not you. your opinion should not matter to him. (the sad reality is my opinion does either, its the parties opinion that does...and one more reason we need to nuke the parties)
quote from the federal government email sent out an hour ago to reassure workers:
"...will experience about a nine percent budget cut across all programs—starting now, and with no ability to adjust which accounts those cuts come from. "
Reminds me of one of my favorite movies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_to_the_Bottom_of_the_Sea
Yes, I know, the plot is typical 50's non-science (using a nuclear missile to amputate the Van Allen belts from earth because they caught fire....). But i still like it.
you have got to be the same AC that keeps saying the same thing.
and once again i say it: even though he is the President, and head of the executive branch, there are certain people and certaint hings the President CANNOT order people to do or to decide in a certain way. There are some he can, but some people have certain jobs or responsibilities that require they act independently, and for the POTUS to tell them what to do compromises the integrity of the position and/or is illegal to do.
For ex, the courtsmartial of Bradley Manning....it is a court of law, and therefore for the POTUS to direct them to any particular finding or verdict, even though its run by military officers and Obama is the CiC. It is ILLEGAL.
As for your examples, the POTUS has absolutely ZERO power to tell teh Supreme Court what to do. So that example is BS.
It's also illegal to issue any Executive Order that is outside the powers granted him by law.
As for the AG, there are quire literally a million things teh AG can spend his time on. Telling him to ignore one set of things to focus on another is quite within his power, especially if those things are alrady of questionable nature and the President is in the process of trying to change them. Believe it or not, establishing priorities and changing policies and submitting changes of laws to Congress is well within the POTUS power.
I'm not a big supporter of the pres, but I am however awake to the realities of the position, and unlike you, not using everytime he sneezes as an excuse to attack him.
this is precisely why George Washington himself warned the new country against political parties.
it's precisely why I believe anyone wishing to run for President should be required to permanently and irrevocably sever all ties with all political parties, to the extent they may not even accept their support, nor can the parties offer any support, in the campaigns. I'm talking real draconian, NCAA style draconian rules (like they have against "boosters"). If this us vs them style congressional sessions are going to continue then we need men in the white house who are dedicated, proven leaders and unbeholden to any one. i'd also say they cannot have held office as a member of a political party in the past 5 years.
course even better would be to simply nuke the two parties into non-existence and get rid of all this allinclusive labeling with automatic you-have-to-b-against-this-and-for-this automatic platforming.
the congressman that ticked off his constituents of course.
sending down dr evil into the lava wouldnt have the desired effect.
everyone is to blame, includng the ordinary citizens who saw the extreme dysfunction of the last Congress, and yet voted all the same people back into office anyway.
in fact i'd go so far as to say most of the blame falls on those voters. after all, a tiger cannot change his stripes, so electing the tiger who just ate someone back into office simply because he swore not to eat someone again....well that's just a very foolish thing to do.
yet, foolish as it was, the entire country did it anyway.