All of the engines were started on the ground, at liftoff. Energiya was a mode 'modern' super heavy launch vehicle, as this approach is widely considered better these days.
If it's so widely considered "better", then why does practically no-one actually use it? Not that it's actually modern either - rather it was used during the very earliest days when starting inflight was a huge unknown, and then later dropped except for the R-7 and the earliest Atlases.
The "gray circles near the nose" are not windows that were painted over. They're inserts to block the nozzles for the RCS system (and thereby reduce drag for glide tests).
Actually - you're both wrong. They're just indentations in the skin that are painted grey - to simulate RC nozzles since the Enterprise was not equipped with an RCS system.
That "specially designed part in the back" is an aerodynamic faring used to reduce drag on the ferry flights and thus reduce fuel consumption in an already heavily burdened 747 carrier aircraft. They ALL have one of those that could have been fitted when called for.
Not quite correct. While they were designed to accept the fairing, they didn't all have a fairing. IIRC there were only three built. One, unique, for Enterprise, and two operational fairings. (Trivia - the fairing could be broken down and carried internally onboard the SCA.)
The main problem is that there are so many models of iStuff and e-stuff that it's impossible to standardize the process of recovering valuable parts of it.
Actually, there is - grind the stuff to powder, and separate all the interesting bits chemically.
There's two main problems with this process however... First, there's very little interesting bits in any given device, so unless you're a high volume operation it's impossible to recoup your capital costs. Second, overall it's an expensive process due to all the toxic chemicals and waste and the large amounts of energy required, so it's a very low margin operation.
How many online sites have made a big splash and then disappeared into the dustbin of history?
When Slashdot makes a big splash, that would be a valid question. Slashdot is, and always has been, a niche site that many people have never even heard of.
Why would you base it on that? Yahoo!'s stock symbol is YHOO.
That torrent of PR nightmares a few years ago, combined with Google's success, led to financial nose dive after nose dive.
Yet, looking at their annual financials (which you don't seem that have done) shows a healthy profit and margin.
I was one of the people predicting Yahoo!'s utter destruction, and I was far from the only one. It's honestly kind of natural for people in the know, to have trouble believing that anyone DOES use Yahoo for anything, anymore.
Or, in short, you don't actually know anything and can't actually be bothered to look up anything - you just parrot what you've heard elsewhere.
Could Bush have so easily called for the invasion of Iraq if the voters he depended upon had known they or their family members might be called upon to fight and die for it? It'd certainly have cost him a few votes.
It didn't seem to cause any problems in the 2004 election, so I'd say the draft or lack thereof is irrelevant.
As far as I can tell this would be a good thing. If everyone in an army is making decisions then they aren't as likely to engage in risky behavior or unnecessary violence.
A word already exists to describe that kind of army (even if the army doesn't exist yet) - losers.
The analogy is to how many have argued that the US has become more warlike as it has lost its draft, so that people favoring war are no longer in any serious risk of being called up.
Which is an abysmally clueless argument because the people called up in the draft aren't the people making the decisions.
Yahoo is stuck with lots of products that nobody wants anymore
That would explain why so many people continue to use their services.
Seriously, this idea that Yahoo has no customers is based on nothing. They have one of the biggest photo sharing sites in the world, one of the biggest hosts for discussion groups and mailing lists, one of the largest bases of email users, etc... etc...
Just because they aren't a darling of the tech set doesn't mean they're a tumbleweed filled wasteland.
We did receive News from abroad if that is what you are calling "Outsourcing", but it was not anything like what is happening now. I'm not sure how you can even draw a parallel. Let me give you a brief yet well known example.
When you get an example, get back to me, because the one you provided was laughably clueless. (Here's a free hint for you: Newspaper editors aren't entirely stupid, and they do know who they hire to write opinion pieces and who they hire to write news.)
When it came to Newspapers with interest, and later broadcasting media, they sent reporters that were trained in and practiced Journalism across the globe to get "News".
The very biggest papers did. The others either accepted what they could get from anyone on the scene*, or reprinted (pirated) what the larger papers were printing. The answer to both problems was the wire service (the earliest precursors of which got their start in the 1830's.), the small papers got quality writing and the larger papers got paid. Everyone was happy.
A story that may harm someone in certain positions may sometimes not make it to print.
That almost always depended on the political/editorial slant of the paper question. A Republican paper would never hesitate to print dirt on a Democratic office holder. A paper beholden to an owner who hated $BIG_FAMILY_IN_TOWN would almost certainly publish dirt on that family. Etc... etc...
News, up until very recent times had concerns for their Journalistic reputation and abilities.
True. But that didn't prevent them from printing stories from wire services or independent correspondents. But also keep in mind that the idea that news was independent, universal, and unbiased is a relatively recent one - it got started with the decline of newspapers and the rise of TV journalism.... I.E. just as the big corporations were starting to increase their control over all news sources. That's probably not an accident.
*Which is the origin of the term correspondent - because the papers corresponded with those individuals via letter.
How about bending and confining flames using electromagnetic waves and then weakening them? Would that help?
Not really. If you can get access to setup an electronic gadget, you can get access to get water on the flames or the seat of the fire. (Ultimately, onboard a submarine, access is the key issue in firefighting. ) If we need to redirect flames to allow safe passage (an unusual and unlikely event), we use a fog nozzle - which is not only very effective, but can with the twist of a valve switch to a stream of water for a direct attack.
Big fires, like the recent one onboard the USS Miami are very, very rare events. 99%+ percent of submarine fires are knocked down before they're of any size at all.
One application of this type of engineering is to serve as an ignition swith for a fusion energy plant.
Not really, as the ignition and heating systems for a tokomak in no way resembles the NIF (National Ignition Facility). Nor is such a system practical for a tokomak because you cannot get the spherical access required.
The NIF, despite massive amounts of greenwash, is a tool for studying fusion for nuclear weapons - not an energy production research project.
News has been outsourced for years. Read a newspaper and see for yourselves how many stories are AP, Reuters, AFP or syndicated from the NYT, WA Post or LAT. This trend was evident in the early nineties to anyone paying attention to the papers they read.
If you're calling it a 'trend' and saying it was "evident in the early nineties" - then, frankly, you're the one not paying attention. "Outsourcing" articles has been standard practice since at least the 1930's. (Nor is it really outsourcing in any useful sense, rather it's aggregating.)
I don't see a problem with it, as it allows local papers to get stories they otherwise wouldn't be able to cover.
And that fire was problematical because the ship was in the shipyard and normal services and access was disrupted. I.E. it's very unlikely the speakers (which only weaken the flame) would have been very useful. Not that there's room for the speakers anyhow.
And the dangers of chemical or gas based systems is why the main firefighting system is water.
That doesn't make any sense. Digital distribution is cheaper, which means you can have more competitors than you could with print distribution.
You're right - that doesn't make any sense. Distribution is the least of their costs. Production is the biggest, and digital does very little to cut those costs.
What's killing news is that digital means there are essentially no more scoops.
Scoops don't pay the bills. You've been watching too many old movies.
Longtime newspaper readers have already noticed a substantial drop in the quality of almost every big major newspaper in the country (except for maybe USA Today, which is the exception that proves the rule) over the past ten years or so.
Quite the opposite - you haven't noticed a drop in quality in USA Today because it was already pretty close to rock bottom.
"Research" in journalism has always been up against a deadline; but with 24-hour news, the pressure is on every journalist to report now, dammit, not in 4 hours' time when they might have some idea what they're talking about.
And the idea that it was any different back when major papers published as many six editions a day belongs in the same rubbish bin you consign "unbiased headlines" to. Today, if you're ten minutes late, your story hits the air or the web ten minutes late. Back then, if you were ten minutes late, the length of the typesetting/printing/distribution cycle meant that you would miss an entire edition - and be hours late in hitting the street.
Amazon would also have to hire more customer service reps. Delivery truck companies would need more mechanics for upkeep. Etc. etc. etc.
Again, not as many as are displaced. Not even remotely. One warehouse in a major metropolitan area can literally threaten thousands of jobs while only creating a few hundred.
There will be some other job for everyone out there...
You live in a fantasy world.
and if their current job is all they know how to do, well, that isn't Amazon's fault, and it isn't the fault of people that want to use same-day delivery from Amazon.
I never claimed it was Amazon's fault. I merely pointed out to the OP and to you that you're clueless idiots if you believe that an operation of the type proposed could produce as many jobs as it destroys.
He says if youâ(TM)re going to 'give up four billion dollars to avoid a one in seven chance of killing an astronaut, youâ(TM)re basically saying an astronautâ(TM)s life is worth twenty-eight billion dollars.'
Only if you ignore the other costs a disaster entails, e.g. fewer candidate astronauts, less qualified candidates
There's precisely zero evidence of this happening. Not in space flight, not in any other field that has significant risk and requires highly trained and/or experienced participants.
a perception of the program as being a failure which could end up in reduced funding
The problem here is less one of perception than one of political playing to the gallery.
Unmanned spaceflight --- particularly as automation is just starting to get really exciting --- can deliver results at a significantly reduced cost.
Even Steve Squyres (chief scientist for the Oppurtunity and Spirit rovers) admits that the work they did in three years could be done by a human being in just three *days*. We've nearly lost both rovers to dust accumulation on several occasions... when they had dust problems with the lunar rovers, they improvised a new fender from duct tape and spare maps. When Spirit got stuck, it stayed there. When the lunar rover got stuck, the astronauts were able to drive it out because they could directly observe conditions.
Yes, unmanned probes can deliver results cheaper... but you get what you pay for. You get those results slower and have far less flexibility.
This confused circular logic has been repeated on every RMS and GPL post in response to the unpleasant truth, and still someone has to write this unpleasant truth.
There, fixed that for you.
Sigh.
Sigh indeed. You don't seem to realize that the rest of the world has not drunk the kool-aid and see through the double standard and the smokescreen. You can't have it both ways.
Or parking goes away because instead of going to park, the car you rode in goes off to give someone else a ride. When you want to go somewhere else, you call a car that may or may not be the car you arrived in.
Hopefully, that's an optional thing because not all cars are interchangeable and many people use their cars as temporary or long term storage.
For example, we take my minivan to the lumberyard, but my wife's Aveo when we go out to eat. Many people keep child safety seats in their cars... and I'm constantly accompanied by my camera equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's so widely considered "better", then why does practically no-one actually use it? Not that it's actually modern either - rather it was used during the very earliest days when starting inflight was a huge unknown, and then later dropped except for the R-7 and the earliest Atlases.
Actually - you're both wrong. They're just indentations in the skin that are painted grey - to simulate RC nozzles since the Enterprise was not equipped with an RCS system.
Not quite correct. While they were designed to accept the fairing, they didn't all have a fairing. IIRC there were only three built. One, unique, for Enterprise, and two operational fairings. (Trivia - the fairing could be broken down and carried internally onboard the SCA.)
Actually, there is - grind the stuff to powder, and separate all the interesting bits chemically.
There's two main problems with this process however... First, there's very little interesting bits in any given device, so unless you're a high volume operation it's impossible to recoup your capital costs. Second, overall it's an expensive process due to all the toxic chemicals and waste and the large amounts of energy required, so it's a very low margin operation.
I don't. So your 'metric' is useless.
ROTFLMAO.
I found my bride on the front lawn of her best friend (who I knew via a local Star Trek fan club) playing a game of Monopoly.
When Slashdot makes a big splash, that would be a valid question. Slashdot is, and always has been, a niche site that many people have never even heard of.
Why would you base it on that? Yahoo!'s stock symbol is YHOO.
Yet, looking at their annual financials (which you don't seem that have done) shows a healthy profit and margin.
Or, in short, you don't actually know anything and can't actually be bothered to look up anything - you just parrot what you've heard elsewhere.
It didn't seem to cause any problems in the 2004 election, so I'd say the draft or lack thereof is irrelevant.
A word already exists to describe that kind of army (even if the army doesn't exist yet) - losers.
Which is an abysmally clueless argument because the people called up in the draft aren't the people making the decisions.
That would explain why so many people continue to use their services.
Seriously, this idea that Yahoo has no customers is based on nothing. They have one of the biggest photo sharing sites in the world, one of the biggest hosts for discussion groups and mailing lists, one of the largest bases of email users, etc... etc...
Just because they aren't a darling of the tech set doesn't mean they're a tumbleweed filled wasteland.
When you get an example, get back to me, because the one you provided was laughably clueless. (Here's a free hint for you: Newspaper editors aren't entirely stupid, and they do know who they hire to write opinion pieces and who they hire to write news.)
The very biggest papers did. The others either accepted what they could get from anyone on the scene*, or reprinted (pirated) what the larger papers were printing. The answer to both problems was the wire service (the earliest precursors of which got their start in the 1830's.), the small papers got quality writing and the larger papers got paid. Everyone was happy.
That almost always depended on the political/editorial slant of the paper question. A Republican paper would never hesitate to print dirt on a Democratic office holder. A paper beholden to an owner who hated $BIG_FAMILY_IN_TOWN would almost certainly publish dirt on that family. Etc... etc...
True. But that didn't prevent them from printing stories from wire services or independent correspondents. But also keep in mind that the idea that news was independent, universal, and unbiased is a relatively recent one - it got started with the decline of newspapers and the rise of TV journalism.... I.E. just as the big corporations were starting to increase their control over all news sources. That's probably not an accident.
*Which is the origin of the term correspondent - because the papers corresponded with those individuals via letter.
Not really. If you can get access to setup an electronic gadget, you can get access to get water on the flames or the seat of the fire. (Ultimately, onboard a submarine, access is the key issue in firefighting. ) If we need to redirect flames to allow safe passage (an unusual and unlikely event), we use a fog nozzle - which is not only very effective, but can with the twist of a valve switch to a stream of water for a direct attack.
Big fires, like the recent one onboard the USS Miami are very, very rare events. 99%+ percent of submarine fires are knocked down before they're of any size at all.
Not really, as the ignition and heating systems for a tokomak in no way resembles the NIF (National Ignition Facility). Nor is such a system practical for a tokomak because you cannot get the spherical access required.
The NIF, despite massive amounts of greenwash, is a tool for studying fusion for nuclear weapons - not an energy production research project.
If you're calling it a 'trend' and saying it was "evident in the early nineties" - then, frankly, you're the one not paying attention. "Outsourcing" articles has been standard practice since at least the 1930's. (Nor is it really outsourcing in any useful sense, rather it's aggregating.)
I don't see a problem with it, as it allows local papers to get stories they otherwise wouldn't be able to cover.
And that fire was problematical because the ship was in the shipyard and normal services and access was disrupted. I.E. it's very unlikely the speakers (which only weaken the flame) would have been very useful. Not that there's room for the speakers anyhow.
And the dangers of chemical or gas based systems is why the main firefighting system is water.
(Disclaimer: Former submarine crewman.)
You're right - that doesn't make any sense. Distribution is the least of their costs. Production is the biggest, and digital does very little to cut those costs.
Scoops don't pay the bills. You've been watching too many old movies.
Quite the opposite - you haven't noticed a drop in quality in USA Today because it was already pretty close to rock bottom.
And the idea that it was any different back when major papers published as many six editions a day belongs in the same rubbish bin you consign "unbiased headlines" to. Today, if you're ten minutes late, your story hits the air or the web ten minutes late. Back then, if you were ten minutes late, the length of the typesetting/printing/distribution cycle meant that you would miss an entire edition - and be hours late in hitting the street.
Your explanation just confirms what he said - you're an idiot who probably can't comprehend what they're printing in the paper anyhow.
Again, not as many as are displaced. Not even remotely. One warehouse in a major metropolitan area can literally threaten thousands of jobs while only creating a few hundred.
You live in a fantasy world.
I never claimed it was Amazon's fault. I merely pointed out to the OP and to you that you're clueless idiots if you believe that an operation of the type proposed could produce as many jobs as it destroys.
There's precisely zero evidence of this happening. Not in space flight, not in any other field that has significant risk and requires highly trained and/or experienced participants.
The problem here is less one of perception than one of political playing to the gallery.
Even Steve Squyres (chief scientist for the Oppurtunity and Spirit rovers) admits that the work they did in three years could be done by a human being in just three *days*. We've nearly lost both rovers to dust accumulation on several occasions... when they had dust problems with the lunar rovers, they improvised a new fender from duct tape and spare maps. When Spirit got stuck, it stayed there. When the lunar rover got stuck, the astronauts were able to drive it out because they could directly observe conditions.
Yes, unmanned probes can deliver results cheaper... but you get what you pay for. You get those results slower and have far less flexibility.
There, fixed that for you.
Sigh indeed. You don't seem to realize that the rest of the world has not drunk the kool-aid and see through the double standard and the smokescreen. You can't have it both ways.
Not nearly as many as would be displaced.
Hopefully, that's an optional thing because not all cars are interchangeable and many people use their cars as temporary or long term storage.
For example, we take my minivan to the lumberyard, but my wife's Aveo when we go out to eat. Many people keep child safety seats in their cars... and I'm constantly accompanied by my camera equipment.