Except Boeing would not be paying that fuel cost. It's customers would.
Yep. And the customers are very, very sensitive to lifetime fuel costs and very, very serious about reducing them. Fuel is an airlines number one non labor cost, so any saving translates directly to the bottom line.
when you figure the per passenger flight hour rate of the extra fuel for that, it's about $0.0005.
Which certainly sounds like a small number... until you multiply it by the number of passengers on an average plane, the number of flight hours per plane per day, and the number of planes in the fleet. It adds up pretty fast. There's a reason why the pocket on the back of the seat in front of you is no longer stuffed with free magazines. Cutting a pound here, cutting a pound there, it adds up to a huge sum considered on an annual basis across an entire airline. (Seriously Slashdot, you may be good at math, but you suck at accounting.)
But for a given question, what grounds are there to privilege the viewpoints of those whose expertise is not in a field of direct relevance to that question? On questions concerning nuclear weapons, for example, why should Stephen Hawking's viewpoint be held as equivalent to a nuclear physicist's viewpoint? For that matter, why should his viewpoint be held as superior to the viewpoint of anyone else who is not a nuclear physicist?
Certainly on nuclear physics topics, I'd probably tend to listen to the nuclear physicist over Stephen Hawking...
But why should I listen to either Stephen Hawking or Dr Krauss or any other nuclear physicist on questions regarding nuclear weapons? How does being knowledgeable about the physics make him an expert on non-physics topics?
Why would you think those injuries to the brain, which pretty much has no effect on the progress of development, would affect the progress of her development?
That's material aimed at a mass audience (and is usually doctors, not scientists), which isn't the decision makers that Dr Krauss thinks should be ringing him up for advice on a regular basis.
Also, one would note that the stereotype of the "mad scientist" far predates the post WWII era he laments as being a golden age (even though it wasn't).
"Perhaps this is because the best scientists today are not directly responsible for the very weapons that threaten our safety, and are therefore no longer the high priests of destruction, to be consulted as oracles as they were after World War II."
More likely it's because people finally figured out that being a scientist doesn't make you an authority on non-scientific topics. (Not to mention that the golden era he laments, like all such golden eras, never really existed.)
Nice try, but no. Beijing isn't that big of a manufacturing center (relatively speaking) - most of the pollution comes from IC engines and (especially important this time of year) the decentralized system of coal powered hot water plants that provides most of the cities heating.
There really hasn't been much in the way of American development of kerolox engines lately.
Quite the contrary - there's been considerable work related to a revived F-1, and both NASA and the USAF have been looking at new hydrocarbon engines in order to get away from the Russian RD-180.
Inefficiency isn't necessarily related to cost (and the fuel costs for space launches are pretty much lost in the rounding errors anyhow), but efficiency *is* directly related to performance.
Don't wanna run a completely isolated hydraulic system and include a zillion new single points of failure? Hmm how bout using the fuel as the hyd fluid. How bout pressurize the hydraulic "fluid" using the main turbopump.
Not so much. You've eliminated the turbopump (trading that for a modest increase in fuel system complexity), but pretty much all the rest of the hydraulic system failure modes are still there.
The vacuum model uses radiative cooling. I'm sure a fat cat modern contractor would try for regenerative just to boost the contract cost / profit
A 'modern' contractor would probably use regenerative because it's a very efficient means of cooling, and modestly boosts engine performance by preheating the fluid (fuel or oxidizer) used for combustion.
One educated in the history of rocketry will know that regenerative cooling far predates the 'modern' contractor - and was chosen even when expensive and difficult. Someone intelligent would ponder on why that might be. Confronted with reality, the dogmatic simply ignores this and repeats his magic catchphrase like a cargo cultist.
I hope they can stay on task with the whole "simplify and add lightness" thing. The X and XX sound a little more like something you'd see from the incumbents rather than startups
No, they sound more like something you'd see from someone who wants/needs a certain level of performance and has the budget to go after it rather than fitting together a solution on the cheap. The dogmatic may prefer they stick with his mantra, but SpaceX seems to be made of pragmatists rather than dogmatics.
Maybe the standard/. car example is the Merlin is as minimal as can possibly be made that'll work, like a 60s muscle car engine or a race car engine
Spot on. Which means it's horribly inefficient compared to more modern designs, along with being heavier, with less efficient lubrication and cooling, and lower performing. It's the engine of the classic car enthusiast and the biased who believe that everything was better in some imaginary golden age. To everyone else, it's a quaint anachronism.
The Doomsday clock isn't predicting the end of the world, it's symbolic and reflects a highly politicized, opinionated, and subjective view of the state of potentially many topics that pose a serious risk to our civilization.
There, fixed that for you.
Seriously, the state of clock is set by a small number of people and the setting based on their personal opinions. It's not formal, it's not scientific, it's nothing but an editorial piece.
From a tank of compressed air. (Seriously, how is this even a question?)
they'd better have a puncture repair kit too
Presumably they will, but the walls of a module of this type are pretty thick (think car tire, not party balloon), there's multiples layers, and additional micrometeorite and debris shielding on top of that.
1. MIT's investigation is not about just and unjust actions - it is more about the fact that they did not actively stop the justice department from going after Schwartz. JSTOR aggressively responded to the prosecutorial threat and declined to pursue charges, whereas MIT did not. If MIT too had strongly declined, then, the prosecutor would have very little grounds to prosecute Aaron.
You seem to be suffering from the common delusion that anyone but the prosecutor has any say as to whether prosecution goes forward or not.
After watching US going after Assange, Lulsec and others and basically meting out punishments in decades to computer hackers, a person who is facing 35 yrs in the slammer wont exactly be happy. Especially because no one recently has managed to get out of such charges. So now 26 Aaron had a choice. Fight for 3-4 yrs in the courts and then spend 15-20 yrs in the slammer or hug the grim reaper.
You left out a third option - don't do the crime.
Finally, if ignorance is your excuse - learn to keep your rants to your head. Unfortunately, the world has too many of you
Advice you should repeat in front of a mirror three or four times a day until it sinks in.
That it's not a flight ready engine is a stone cold fact.
Deliberately misreading that in order to fabricate something from whole cloth, that's childish. Calling me petty for correcting that fabrication... well, that's beyond childish.
Grow the fuck up and learn to deal with facts. Or piss off back to the Barney and My Little Pony message boards with the other kindergarteners. I don't care which.
No shit Sherlock. When you get a clue about the 'net though, you'll realize there are many more limitations on bandwidth and latency than the host computer - which was the point of both myself and the original poster.
You're very unlikely to be allowed to run servers off of it and when has the biggest obstacle to a startup been "dang, i have to wait 5 seconds instead of 1 to download this massive thing"?
I was thinking the same thing. Plus, if your business plan is so sensitive to speed and performance... why doesn't the speed and performance at the user end (where Google Fiber isn't) matter as well? They (the "startups" and their supporters) don't seem to have actually though this through very well.
The XE' engine tested in 1968-1969 was pretty much a flight ready engine
In other words - it wasn't a flight ready engine and had never been tested in a flight ready configuration.
The real frustrating aspect is that...
... people keep treating something that wasn't flight ready as if it was - and keep acting as though it would have been flight ready on schedule and on budget in precisely the way virtually no other program ever was.
The NERVA test engine is on display at Johnson Space Center, as I understand it.
So? That's about as relevant as having a LEGO Millennium Falcon on display at Johnson Space Center. NERVA isn't a flight ready engine, it isn't even close to being a flight ready engine. It's a technology demonstrator.
But the real problem is, nuclear thermal propulsion is a solution in search of a problem - a billion dollar engine doesn't make any sense without a multi--tens-of-billions of dollars spacecraft sitting on top of it. And we aren't going to build any of those in the near future.
An intelligent person might try to find a reason for the disconnect.
Yes, an intelligent person would seek to find reasons why his beliefs diverge from reality. But you are no such person.
The music industry excels at this - targeting the new generation of kids for whom everything is new, whilst also exploiting the teenage needs to be cool/fit in with peers, and the movie industry reboots franchises so often that it becomes ridiculous - look at the incredible hulk movies.
That would explain why the movies not aimed at that demographic fails... except they don't. That would explain all the movies that aren't reboots... except it doesn't. Etc... etc...
As would be expected of someone not so intelligent, you can't tell the difference between bias and reality.
tldr; you're making shit up thinking it makes you match your self perceived notion of being 'intelligent'. It doesn't. Quite the opposite in fact.
This is the reason that indie music, games and movies can often break through and become a runaway success.
They can, but I'm not sure I'd say often.
People are tired of the dross that big entertainment keeps churning out.
That claim keeps being repeated endlessly... but somehow, those the make the claim fail to notice how disconnected it is from reality. People keep flocking in droves to what the soi-disant tastemakers of Slashdot pronounce to be 'dross'.
The intelligent person would notice the disconnect. The dogmatic just screws his blinders on tighter and repeats the claim.
The high velocity at the muzzle is an advantage if you add a scram jet to the launch vehicle.
Only if you've screwed something up very, very badly in your design and end up with muzzle velocity far below anything useful. Otherwise, you transit the atmosphere too fast for scramjets to be anything but dead weight. Even assuming you can get the scramjet to function in what are essentially re-entry conditions (a huge assumption at best) their weight far exceeds any useful performance.
Plus you can always build the thing on top of a big mountain for extra credit.
There's not a mountain in the world high enough to make a significant difference when it comes to drag and heating. Even Mt Everest saves you barely 6% from sea level. (Now you're just parroting generations of SF writers who haven't done the math or spent even a second thinking about the engineering and issues either.)
The idea is feasible. The real problem is that it's so simple that every two bit dictator in the world could build one in a jiffy if the technology was well developed.
No, the real problem is that like air-launch, the idea seems so simple in concept and has been treated as if it were near term technology for so long, that people take it as a given. In reality, there's huge problems that become exceedingly obvious once you stop parroting and start actually thinking.
I can pretty much guarantee you that original artwork from those days will be worth a fortune in the future, pretty much like certain collectible games and retro computers are now.
Certainly - if it's the right original artwork. The other 99.9999999% won't be worth a bucket of warm spit.
And collectibles? They move in waves. Beanie Babies were hot once. So were Magic cards. But anyone who invested in them thinking they'd be rich in the future... they're pretty much screwed now. You can make a ton of money if you're lucky enough to get in on the ground floor and time the wave *just right*, but the odds aren't in your favor.
You can't reliably orbit the moon at low altitude without a large supply of fuel to keep reboosting your orbiter. Because of mascons, the moon's gravitational field is very "lumpy" (has regions of higher and lower gravity) and thus such orbits are unstable.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. And the customers are very, very sensitive to lifetime fuel costs and very, very serious about reducing them. Fuel is an airlines number one non labor cost, so any saving translates directly to the bottom line.
Which certainly sounds like a small number... until you multiply it by the number of passengers on an average plane, the number of flight hours per plane per day, and the number of planes in the fleet. It adds up pretty fast. There's a reason why the pocket on the back of the seat in front of you is no longer stuffed with free magazines. Cutting a pound here, cutting a pound there, it adds up to a huge sum considered on an annual basis across an entire airline. (Seriously Slashdot, you may be good at math, but you suck at accounting.)
Is such utter cluelessness, ignorance, idiocy, etc... natural talent or did you take a degree somewhere?
When you take your fellow Europeans to task for doing the same thing in reverse, get back to me.
Until then, you're just howling because now it's *your* turn in the barrel and you somehow think that's unfair.
Certainly on nuclear physics topics, I'd probably tend to listen to the nuclear physicist over Stephen Hawking...
But why should I listen to either Stephen Hawking or Dr Krauss or any other nuclear physicist on questions regarding nuclear weapons? How does being knowledgeable about the physics make him an expert on non-physics topics?
Why would you think those injuries to the brain, which pretty much has no effect on the progress of development, would affect the progress of her development?
That's material aimed at a mass audience (and is usually doctors, not scientists), which isn't the decision makers that Dr Krauss thinks should be ringing him up for advice on a regular basis.
Also, one would note that the stereotype of the "mad scientist" far predates the post WWII era he laments as being a golden age (even though it wasn't).
"Perhaps this is because the best scientists today are not directly responsible for the very weapons that threaten our safety, and are therefore no longer the high priests of destruction, to be consulted as oracles as they were after World War II."
More likely it's because people finally figured out that being a scientist doesn't make you an authority on non-scientific topics. (Not to mention that the golden era he laments, like all such golden eras, never really existed.)
Nice try, but no. Beijing isn't that big of a manufacturing center (relatively speaking) - most of the pollution comes from IC engines and (especially important this time of year) the decentralized system of coal powered hot water plants that provides most of the cities heating.
Quite the contrary - there's been considerable work related to a revived F-1, and both NASA and the USAF have been looking at new hydrocarbon engines in order to get away from the Russian RD-180.
Inefficiency isn't necessarily related to cost (and the fuel costs for space launches are pretty much lost in the rounding errors anyhow), but efficiency *is* directly related to performance.
Not so much. You've eliminated the turbopump (trading that for a modest increase in fuel system complexity), but pretty much all the rest of the hydraulic system failure modes are still there.
A 'modern' contractor would probably use regenerative because it's a very efficient means of cooling, and modestly boosts engine performance by preheating the fluid (fuel or oxidizer) used for combustion.
One educated in the history of rocketry will know that regenerative cooling far predates the 'modern' contractor - and was chosen even when expensive and difficult. Someone intelligent would ponder on why that might be. Confronted with reality, the dogmatic simply ignores this and repeats his magic catchphrase like a cargo cultist.
No, they sound more like something you'd see from someone who wants/needs a certain level of performance and has the budget to go after it rather than fitting together a solution on the cheap. The dogmatic may prefer they stick with his mantra, but SpaceX seems to be made of pragmatists rather than dogmatics.
Spot on. Which means it's horribly inefficient compared to more modern designs, along with being heavier, with less efficient lubrication and cooling, and lower performing. It's the engine of the classic car enthusiast and the biased who believe that everything was better in some imaginary golden age. To everyone else, it's a quaint anachronism.
There, fixed that for you.
Seriously, the state of clock is set by a small number of people and the setting based on their personal opinions. It's not formal, it's not scientific, it's nothing but an editorial piece.
From a tank of compressed air. (Seriously, how is this even a question?)
Presumably they will, but the walls of a module of this type are pretty thick (think car tire, not party balloon), there's multiples layers, and additional micrometeorite and debris shielding on top of that.
You seem to be suffering from the common delusion that anyone but the prosecutor has any say as to whether prosecution goes forward or not.
You left out a third option - don't do the crime.
Advice you should repeat in front of a mirror three or four times a day until it sinks in.
That it's not a flight ready engine is a stone cold fact.
Deliberately misreading that in order to fabricate something from whole cloth, that's childish. Calling me petty for correcting that fabrication... well, that's beyond childish.
Grow the fuck up and learn to deal with facts. Or piss off back to the Barney and My Little Pony message boards with the other kindergarteners. I don't care which.
No shit Sherlock. When you get a clue about the 'net though, you'll realize there are many more limitations on bandwidth and latency than the host computer - which was the point of both myself and the original poster.
I was thinking the same thing. Plus, if your business plan is so sensitive to speed and performance... why doesn't the speed and performance at the user end (where Google Fiber isn't) matter as well? They (the "startups" and their supporters) don't seem to have actually though this through very well.
Had I said it was a model, you'd have point. Had I said it wasn't a nuclear rocket engine, you'd have a point.
You fail, badly, at reading comprehension.
In other words - it wasn't a flight ready engine and had never been tested in a flight ready configuration.
... people keep treating something that wasn't flight ready as if it was - and keep acting as though it would have been flight ready on schedule and on budget in precisely the way virtually no other program ever was.
So? That's about as relevant as having a LEGO Millennium Falcon on display at Johnson Space Center. NERVA isn't a flight ready engine, it isn't even close to being a flight ready engine. It's a technology demonstrator.
But the real problem is, nuclear thermal propulsion is a solution in search of a problem - a billion dollar engine doesn't make any sense without a multi--tens-of-billions of dollars spacecraft sitting on top of it. And we aren't going to build any of those in the near future.
Yes, an intelligent person would seek to find reasons why his beliefs diverge from reality. But you are no such person.
That would explain why the movies not aimed at that demographic fails... except they don't. That would explain all the movies that aren't reboots... except it doesn't. Etc... etc...
As would be expected of someone not so intelligent, you can't tell the difference between bias and reality.
tldr; you're making shit up thinking it makes you match your self perceived notion of being 'intelligent'. It doesn't. Quite the opposite in fact.
They can, but I'm not sure I'd say often.
That claim keeps being repeated endlessly... but somehow, those the make the claim fail to notice how disconnected it is from reality. People keep flocking in droves to what the soi-disant tastemakers of Slashdot pronounce to be 'dross'.
The intelligent person would notice the disconnect. The dogmatic just screws his blinders on tighter and repeats the claim.
Only if you've screwed something up very, very badly in your design and end up with muzzle velocity far below anything useful. Otherwise, you transit the atmosphere too fast for scramjets to be anything but dead weight. Even assuming you can get the scramjet to function in what are essentially re-entry conditions (a huge assumption at best) their weight far exceeds any useful performance.
There's not a mountain in the world high enough to make a significant difference when it comes to drag and heating. Even Mt Everest saves you barely 6% from sea level. (Now you're just parroting generations of SF writers who haven't done the math or spent even a second thinking about the engineering and issues either.)
No, the real problem is that like air-launch, the idea seems so simple in concept and has been treated as if it were near term technology for so long, that people take it as a given. In reality, there's huge problems that become exceedingly obvious once you stop parroting and start actually thinking.
Certainly - if it's the right original artwork. The other 99.9999999% won't be worth a bucket of warm spit.
And collectibles? They move in waves. Beanie Babies were hot once. So were Magic cards. But anyone who invested in them thinking they'd be rich in the future... they're pretty much screwed now. You can make a ton of money if you're lucky enough to get in on the ground floor and time the wave *just right*, but the odds aren't in your favor.
You can't reliably orbit the moon at low altitude without a large supply of fuel to keep reboosting your orbiter. Because of mascons, the moon's gravitational field is very "lumpy" (has regions of higher and lower gravity) and thus such orbits are unstable.