Out of all of this you neglected to refute the fact that my wife would be adding 30% or more time to her already 8-10 hour trip to her parents every weekend by traveling to town to get the car, or are you saying that there will be day car rental shops within 5 minutes of everyone's house? I was assuming that the public transportation would have a stop right at our house. But then a 15km travel into the city (You did say upto 20km away) to get the car rental, then 15km back to the apt to get the laundry, etc. not counting the time it takes to return the car that night.
I assume you don't have children? As I said, your proposal would be find for someone without a family, but is very questionable for a family.
Petroleum Products Yielded from One Barrel of Crude Oil in California. So where does the other 49 states fit into that "cute chart"? They don't. The chart is inclusive of California, and exclusive of all other states/territories in the world. If you want a chart on your own state/country you have to do your own research, or find someone who has done his/her own research.
OTOH, I don't think _you_ realise just how well a co-ordinated, comprehensive public transport system can work. Particularly when you're only limiting yourself to relatively high-density urban areas.
I'm not limiting myself to relatively high-density urban areas. I explained that below.
How frequently ? To where ? What stops you using public transport ? What would allow you to ?
These questions were answered in my original post. Please read the whole post before responding so you don't ask questions that I have already answered.
So once a week she grabs a short term rental car and drives over there.
Not practical. Get 2 kids together, pay for public transportation for her and 2 kids to go the 15KM into town where the rental place is, then pay for the rental for 1 day of the rental car, drive back the 15KM to our house to pick up 4-5 baskets of laundry, then drive 90KM to parents house. Watch the kids, do laundry, visit with her parents, etc. Then ~8-10 hours later, drive back to our apartment, drop off the laundry, drive the 15KM to the car rental place, drop off car, get public transportation back to home, and get kids to bed.
How much extra time does that use up each week? That doesn't even count things like dance class, music class, girl scouts, etc.
Instead of having to strap your children into the back of a car for ~4-5 hours and concentrate on driving, you can interact with them for 2-3 hours and arrive at your destination earlier, less stressed and having possibly spent the time getting there doing something useful rather that sitting in a car doing nothing.
Not really nothing. It *is* a 4 hour drive, (No one drives the speed limit) and that works out to 2 movies and lunch. Since we do the round tripe drive once every 2 months at most, it's not an issue for them to watch TV for the drive. We also time it so they'll sleep a good portion of the drive (Leave at their bedtime the night before instead of driving during the day, etc)
(Bonus, this will almost certainly be cheaper than actually owning and running multiple cars.)
Cheaper is not always better. There are a *very* large number of instances where not having a car is a bad thing. Children need to be picked up at a friends house early because of illness/lonelyness, etc.
Invest in decent public transport. There should be no _need_ for anyone living within 10-20km of the centre of any reasonably large city (few hundred thousand people and up) to own a car. I don't think you understand how big the United States actually is, and how spread out people are here. I live within this 10-20 KM os the center of a city, but routinely have to travel. Weekly my wife drives to her mother's house, which is about 60 miles away. Every other month we visit my parents house, which is 250 miles away.
This is all within the confines of *upstate* NY.
I am *not* making those trips with 2 young children on any form of public transportation.
But isn't a leaky tank exactly what they said they were concerned about? I don't understand how you could know that it would be completely destroyed unless you knew the layout of the satellite and how it would be oriented during re-entry. It is conceivable that something could act as a heat shield - like, say, a really big optics assembly... right?
A leaky tank on the groun != leaky tank during reentry. A tank with a leak in it during reentry will burn off the hydrazine in short order.
Gravity. It's closer to earth than the Chinese satellite was, so the effects of gravity are greater. Also the effects of the extremely thin atmosphere also slow it down and allow gravity to affect it.
And you know this how exactly ?
Physics. The satellite wasn't designed for re-entry (In fact, it's very likely it was designed for breakup during reentry for various security issues) and as such wouldn't have the heat shielding required to protect those parts of the propulsion system from the heat of reentry.
Your assurances that no hydrazine can survive to poison people on the ground are worthless as a hydrazine tank from Challenger made it with some hydrazine still in it.
I'll assume you didn't mean Challenger but instead meant Columbia. Lots of people are using Columbia as an example, so I'll just answer them all here. Columbia was protected from re-entry by heat tiles. Columbia completed a large portion of it's reentry intact, thus started to break up much later, slower, and closer to the ground than this satellite would.
The biggest thing is that Columbia was designed for reentry. This satellite and the hydrazine tank are not.
I am not a rocket scientist and neither are you, but I have been told by a satellite guy that the hydrazine has to last for the entire duration of the satellite's mission, and so the tank is extremely well insulated. It may survive re-entry with at least some content. If you want to dig up another satellite guy with a contrary opinion, go right ahead. It's a moot point, though, since neither of us is going to find a guy willing to talk about this particular classified satellite.
Insulated != Protected against re-entry. It was protected against the cold of space, not the heat of re-entry. I wear a raincoat to protect against getting wet in the rain, that doesn't mean I won't get wet if I jump in the ocean. Even if the tank were covered by the tiles that protect the space shuttle (which BTW is one of the reasons the Shuttle Hydrazine tank survived reentry, other reasons are it was on a stable deorbit, was protected by the shuttle itself, and the shuttle didn't break up until much later in reentry than this satellite would have.) then the hoses and the piping to the other parts of the satellite would have burned away, and opened up the tank for hydrazine to "leak" out.
As I said in an earlier post, Hydrazine may be dangerous, but it's also highly reactive and has a low boiling point (114C). During reentry the temperature would get so high that the hydrazine would boil, and rupture the hoses and piping system, not to mention rupture the tank it's stored in. Once that happens, since it's so reactive, it would burn up in a matter of seconds.
No Hydrazine would make it to the surface of the earth in that form.
This was a known, failed satellite that was coming down in an unknown, possibly populated area. It still had a full load of hydrazine, which is poisonous. The satellite was already in a low orbit, and any debris from the missile impact would deorbit in a short period of time.
This is a cover story and nothing more. The hydrazine has a low boiling point (114C). The high temperatures from the satellite rentry would have boiled the hydrazine and caused fuel tank rupture LONG before the satellite hit the ground.
The reasons the military shot this down are simple:
#1: To remind China we can do it, and we're so sure we can do it we have no problems being put on the spot about doing it. #2: This was a spy satellite, as such it has a lot of very secret very advanced tech, which since it *IS* a spy satellite often flies over land we don't control. The military did not want anything to be recovered by another country. The US has recovered satellites from the former Soviet Union, so we know how much can survive.
*I* googled Gloom Wing Moth and I got his post, your post, this post and the post you're going to make in reply to it. Google is faster than real time today.
You could pay $400 for an HDDVD player that lasts 3 years, then replace it with a $200 HDDVD player 3 years down the road that will last 3 years, for a total of $600.
This of course assumes that the $400 HDDVD player will do what you need (Akin to the $40 blender not doing what your friend needed).
On the other hand a man with two clocks who averages them can know better than a man with one clock.
I don't know about that. I'd rather have a clock that said 3:15 when it was actually 3:10, than 2 clocks that said 2:20 and 1:45 when it was actually 3:10.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -- Gandhi
He's wrong. An eye for an eye makes the whole world lack depth perception, and a smaller subset of the world blind. (Those with the gene's to not learn from their mistakes).
November? The mince pies, xmas cake, and xmas puddings, were on the shelf in the local Tesco at the end of September this year.
We weren't going to tell you, but I feel I have to let you in on the secret. We allow you to thing that you're having a "Thanksgiving" early just so you don't see our true reasons.
You're actually just our food tasters checking for poison. Never can be too safe.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of all of this you neglected to refute the fact that my wife would be adding 30% or more time to her already 8-10 hour trip to her parents every weekend by traveling to town to get the car, or are you saying that there will be day car rental shops within 5 minutes of everyone's house? I was assuming that the public transportation would have a stop right at our house. But then a 15km travel into the city (You did say upto 20km away) to get the car rental, then 15km back to the apt to get the laundry, etc. not counting the time it takes to return the car that night.
I assume you don't have children? As I said, your proposal would be find for someone without a family, but is very questionable for a family.
Given physical access to a device, it is very likely that any access control device can be bypassed.
Yes, but these are Montanians we're talking about here.OTOH, I don't think _you_ realise just how well a co-ordinated, comprehensive public transport system can work. Particularly when you're only limiting yourself to relatively high-density urban areas.
I'm not limiting myself to relatively high-density urban areas. I explained that below.How frequently ? To where ? What stops you using public transport ? What would allow you to ?
These questions were answered in my original post. Please read the whole post before responding so you don't ask questions that I have already answered.So once a week she grabs a short term rental car and drives over there.
Not practical. Get 2 kids together, pay for public transportation for her and 2 kids to go the 15KM into town where the rental place is, then pay for the rental for 1 day of the rental car, drive back the 15KM to our house to pick up 4-5 baskets of laundry, then drive 90KM to parents house. Watch the kids, do laundry, visit with her parents, etc. Then ~8-10 hours later, drive back to our apartment, drop off the laundry, drive the 15KM to the car rental place, drop off car, get public transportation back to home, and get kids to bed.How much extra time does that use up each week? That doesn't even count things like dance class, music class, girl scouts, etc.
Instead of having to strap your children into the back of a car for ~4-5 hours and concentrate on driving, you can interact with them for 2-3 hours and arrive at your destination earlier, less stressed and having possibly spent the time getting there doing something useful rather that sitting in a car doing nothing.
Not really nothing. It *is* a 4 hour drive, (No one drives the speed limit) and that works out to 2 movies and lunch. Since we do the round tripe drive once every 2 months at most, it's not an issue for them to watch TV for the drive. We also time it so they'll sleep a good portion of the drive (Leave at their bedtime the night before instead of driving during the day, etc)(Bonus, this will almost certainly be cheaper than actually owning and running multiple cars.)
Cheaper is not always better. There are a *very* large number of instances where not having a car is a bad thing. Children need to be picked up at a friends house early because of illness/lonelyness, etc.This is all within the confines of *upstate* NY.
I am *not* making those trips with 2 young children on any form of public transportation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZiIk5gN3eM
Yeah, would suck for the security guy though.
But isn't a leaky tank exactly what they said they were concerned about? I don't understand how you could know that it would be completely destroyed unless you knew the layout of the satellite and how it would be oriented during re-entry. It is conceivable that something could act as a heat shield - like, say, a really big optics assembly... right?
A leaky tank on the groun != leaky tank during reentry. A tank with a leak in it during reentry will burn off the hydrazine in short order.
Some one correct me please.
Gravity. It's closer to earth than the Chinese satellite was, so the effects of gravity are greater. Also the effects of the extremely thin atmosphere also slow it down and allow gravity to affect it.
And you know this how exactly ?
Physics. The satellite wasn't designed for re-entry (In fact, it's very likely it was designed for breakup during reentry for various security issues) and as such wouldn't have the heat shielding required to protect those parts of the propulsion system from the heat of reentry.
Your assurances that no hydrazine can survive to poison people on the ground are worthless as a hydrazine tank from Challenger made it with some hydrazine still in it.
I'll assume you didn't mean Challenger but instead meant Columbia. Lots of people are using Columbia as an example, so I'll just answer them all here. Columbia was protected from re-entry by heat tiles. Columbia completed a large portion of it's reentry intact, thus started to break up much later, slower, and closer to the ground than this satellite would.
The biggest thing is that Columbia was designed for reentry. This satellite and the hydrazine tank are not.
I am not a rocket scientist and neither are you, but I have been told by a satellite guy that the hydrazine has to last for the entire duration of the satellite's mission, and so the tank is extremely well insulated. It may survive re-entry with at least some content. If you want to dig up another satellite guy with a contrary opinion, go right ahead. It's a moot point, though, since neither of us is going to find a guy willing to talk about this particular classified satellite.
Insulated != Protected against re-entry. It was protected against the cold of space, not the heat of re-entry. I wear a raincoat to protect against getting wet in the rain, that doesn't mean I won't get wet if I jump in the ocean. Even if the tank were covered by the tiles that protect the space shuttle (which BTW is one of the reasons the Shuttle Hydrazine tank survived reentry, other reasons are it was on a stable deorbit, was protected by the shuttle itself, and the shuttle didn't break up until much later in reentry than this satellite would have.) then the hoses and the piping to the other parts of the satellite would have burned away, and opened up the tank for hydrazine to "leak" out.
As I said in an earlier post, Hydrazine may be dangerous, but it's also highly reactive and has a low boiling point (114C). During reentry the temperature would get so high that the hydrazine would boil, and rupture the hoses and piping system, not to mention rupture the tank it's stored in. Once that happens, since it's so reactive, it would burn up in a matter of seconds.
No Hydrazine would make it to the surface of the earth in that form.
This was a known, failed satellite that was coming down in an unknown, possibly populated area. It still had a full load of hydrazine, which is poisonous. The satellite was already in a low orbit, and any debris from the missile impact would deorbit in a short period of time.
This is a cover story and nothing more. The hydrazine has a low boiling point (114C). The high temperatures from the satellite rentry would have boiled the hydrazine and caused fuel tank rupture LONG before the satellite hit the ground.
The reasons the military shot this down are simple:
#1: To remind China we can do it, and we're so sure we can do it we have no problems being put on the spot about doing it.
#2: This was a spy satellite, as such it has a lot of very secret very advanced tech, which since it *IS* a spy satellite often flies over land we don't control. The military did not want anything to be recovered by another country. The US has recovered satellites from the former Soviet Union, so we know how much can survive.
Do you fear the Rick Roll?
Plastic? Man, you had me right up until that part. I wanted Lacra sheets. =/
*I* googled Gloom Wing Moth and I got his post, your post, this post and the post you're going to make in reply to it. Google is faster than real time today.
So far the list of things she'd rather have over a real ring is; a car, house, a dog, kids, vacations.
I read that as Vacinations. =/
This goes the other way as well.
You could pay $400 for an HDDVD player that lasts 3 years, then replace it with a $200 HDDVD player 3 years down the road that will last 3 years, for a total of $600.
This of course assumes that the $400 HDDVD player will do what you need (Akin to the $40 blender not doing what your friend needed).
On the other hand a man with two clocks who averages them can know better than a man with one clock.
I don't know about that. I'd rather have a clock that said 3:15 when it was actually 3:10, than 2 clocks that said 2:20 and 1:45 when it was actually 3:10.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -- Gandhi
He's wrong. An eye for an eye makes the whole world lack depth perception, and a smaller subset of the world blind. (Those with the gene's to not learn from their mistakes).
I guess you never heard about the Mexican Mafia then...
Are they the ones who come around and cut your lawn and pick your veggies without a smile?
Clearly you are Pro-Teen-Mothers. Or Pro-Stretchmarks-on-sixteen-year-olds?
Not sure which way you want to go.
How about Anti-you-having-a-say-over-your-own-life-pro-do-what-MY-morals-require-and-screw-your-opinion?
Most Secure CD-Keys ever:
1112-1111111111
1113-1111111111
1114-1111111111
(etc)
November? The mince pies, xmas cake, and xmas puddings, were on the shelf in the local Tesco at the end of September this year.
We weren't going to tell you, but I feel I have to let you in on the secret. We allow you to thing that you're having a "Thanksgiving" early just so you don't see our true reasons.
You're actually just our food tasters checking for poison. Never can be too safe.
Seriously. Are you deliberately inflamatory here? Or just a moron?
Here is what he said:
tried to enforce
So redo your reply, actually replying to what he said, not what you wish he said.