Since everything else you wrote here has been debunked
Not one thing I wrote has has been debunked. Some folks think they have, but that's because they are ignorant idiots lacking reading comprehension and mistakenly believing that cutting and pasting is an adequate substitute.
Unless you mulch - grass clippings kills lawns. Mulching is not the same as leaving clippings on the lawn. Nitrates do contribute to algal blooms.
I'll take on this line.
You try and fail - because you don't even address the point you quote. You don't even bother to read it, let along think, but just regurgitate crap you read off the web somewhere with about as much understanding as the coffee cup beside my keyboard. Yes, nitrates are a component of fertilizer... But not all nitrates are fertilizers. (Nor are all phosphates.)
If you don't fertilize your lawn, the grass will be less thick, grows slower and be a little paler. At that point the clippings provide enough nutrients provided you don't kill everything with herbicides and pesticides.
Um, no. They won't. They'll accumulate and choke out your grass while providing haven for fungus and moss which will further weaken your lawn.
Aside from that, the cause of algae blooms is NOT nitrogen.
I'm also a bit curious about the "harmless nitrates" that will be washed into the ground every time it rains.
Nitrate is also known as a fertilizer.
Actually, you have that backwards - fertilizer is also known as 'nitrate'. Not all nitrates are fertilizer however.
laying down fertilizer on their lawn, and shipping cut grass to landfills - leaving grass where it is provides the new grass with its own fertilizer.
Kinda, sorta. Mostly leaving cut grass where it is leaves you with a lawn choked with decaying grass. It takes a fairly thick layer to actually compost.
writing that nitrates can be worse than NOx (NO, NO2 and others)
What's wrong with writing the truth? Nitrates are poisonous in quantity, and even below toxic levels can cause algal and bacterial blooms in water and soil - blooms which can and do crowd out other organisms from the ecosystem.
The Titanium is not consumed in this process (merely a catalyst) so it might very well be worth it in the long run..
Assuming the catalyst isn't poisoned by reaction byproducts, or removed by weathering, or sealed under oil etc., or otherwise rendered inactive by environmental effects.
in a land where ignorance and laziness are applauded (nascar, etc), is this an attempt to make learning and knowledge "popular"?
Someone who doesn't bother to properly capitalize and seemingly prefers bias and stereotyping himself... shouldn't complain about ignorance and laziness being applauded.
The only explanation is that when it is busy, they turn down the sensitivity to a ridiculously low level.
Or possibly the larger airports have newer and better machines, smarter than to "light up like a Christmas tree" when they detect small quantities of distributed metal. Metal detectors, like almost everything else, have benefited from better technology.
But it's easier to simply jump up and down and make accusations than to think isn't it?
But I think that anyone can clearly see the failure of logic in charging someone for a felony for placing a straw on the camels back, when there is in fact a bulging load there already.
No, I cannot see the failure of logic in charging someone with a crime they are responsible for.
I'd agree only if SpaceX was trying to do the exact same thing under the exact same conditions.
Which means you haven't a fucking clue about what you are talking about.
They are trying to make a new (derivative, yes, but new) device using an organization and modeling/design/support approach which is very different than that used by predecessors.
So what? That doesn't give them a pass on making basic engineering errors.
The current designers need to figure how to solve those issues in a way that works in the new environment.
Bullshit. They need to make their development environment match the real world - this isn't abstract programming, but rather is concrete engineering. These aren't weird problems or strange and subtle variations on old problems - but straightforward fuckups.
No one is happy about these failures, especially when some of the mistakes made are basic, but this is the real world.
The issue isn't whether or not people are unhappy - but that people keep blowing thicker smoke and erecting bigger mirrors to excuse the mistakes.
There's a big difference between "papers and studies" and bending metal.
True, but so what? They aren't building anything radically new. They aren't exploring some unknown field of engineering or flight regime. They aren't pushing the boundaries.
I do agree that three launch failures probably means there are serious problems somewhere.
Doubly so since the first two losses were due to what amount to failure to heed their Engineering 101 and Rocketry 101 classes.
But as noted in this thread, SpaceX is trying a new design that has yet to successfully launch. Failure is likely under those circumstances.
There are quite a few experts who believe NASA was just lucky with the moon shot. Your post brings this out.
There's a saying "luck is the residue of design"... What I was hoping to bring out is that the Apollo program had many more problems than the public believed (or was lead to believe - the computer and fuel gauge problems during the 11 landing were not publicly discussed for years). Another issue that believe believe that NASA somehow changed between the Apollo era and the loss of Challenger and Columbia, yet when we add in what we now know about Apollo the seeds of those accidents are clearly visible.
Also don't forget the open checkbook that space X does not have.
NASA didn't have an open checkbook either - starting in 1967 and continuing into 1969 NASA's budget was sharply trimmed. By July 1969 four landing missions had already been canceled and Saturn V production capped - Apollo went to the Moon running on budgetary fumes.
The failures we've seen are similar to the failures experience when the government space programs were taking off.
Which are failures we should not see! The experiences of those programs is widely documented. The first launch shouldn't have failed because either designing something to operate in a salt environment, or inspecting something that wasn't so designed very closely is basic engineering. The second launch shouldn't have failed because knowing your resonance modes is basic rocket engineering. Etc. Etc.
SpaceX doesn't get a pass because the early rocket programs failed - in fact, quite the opposite. SpaceX should be held to a higher standard because they aren't probing into a completely unknown field.
SpaceX's attempt isn't working so far, but if it fails, the end result is that only an eccentric rich guy and a few investors are out a large sum of money.
Along with the taxpayers, which via NASA, DARPA, and the USAF have invested considerable sums in SpaceX.
Starting from scratch? Right. There's not tons of basic engineering information available. There's not decades worth of papers and studies available. Etc... Etc...
Oh, wait. There is.
IOW, bullshit. 0 for 3 in their first three flights is an indication that there is a problem somewhere.
this certainly raises some questions about the likelihood of successful privatization of the Space industry.
The government failed quite a few times before they got anything up. Let's not write off private space travel because of three failures.
That's kinda like saying "well, early air travel was dangerous so if the first five Boeing 777 Dreamliners crash, they should get a pass". IOW, Bullshit.
Actually, there were multiple serious incidents... For example: Apollo 14 couldn't dock with the LM while extracting it from the S-IVB stage - so they (literally) rammed the CSM into the LM, exceeding the allowed force to force docking. During the landing, the LM lost the landing radar, rather than aborting the pilot continued the landing. While Apollo 16 was in orbit around the moon, and prior to separating the LM, it was discovered the wiring harness for the CSM propulsion system was seriously damaged. Mission rules required an abort of the landing and a return to Earth (so that the LM propulsion would be available as a backup) - but they waived that rule and proceeded with the mission anyhow. (Not to mention that the accident on 13 wouldn't have happened if they had investigated the faulty LOX tank rather than improvising an emptying procedure and using the equipment outside of it's design specs.)
Any ice built up on the skin would have either been broken up by vibration or melted by air friction during first stage flight. (And lacks the structural strength to prevent separation in the first place.) If there was ice built up in the interstage (where the stage separation systems are) thats actually a pretty serious design flaw.
Rocket engines don't have redundant systems (within a single engine) to start with except the controller which isn't very heavy or expensive. (Which with modern electronics isn't prone to failure anyhow.)
They've also going with an approach in their falcon 9 which alows them to lose engines and still accomplish the mission, enhancing reliability.
That's more marketing hype than anything else - a properly designed modern rocket engine should only shut down once every hundred thousand or so flights. I.E. this is an incident that is virtually unheard of. If they actually require this 'feature', that indicates the Merlin 1C is not up to modern standards.
(And of course the Falcon is hardly unique in this respect; any modern rocket will benefit similarly. What is interesting about the Falcon is that it exists outside of what I'll call the military-industrial complex, for lack of a better term.)
Hardly. A good chunk of their budget has come from USAF/NASA/DARPA contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't.
Not one thing I wrote has has been debunked. Some folks think they have, but that's because they are ignorant idiots lacking reading comprehension and mistakenly believing that cutting and pasting is an adequate substitute.
Unless you mulch - grass clippings kills lawns. Mulching is not the same as leaving clippings on the lawn. Nitrates do contribute to algal blooms.
You try and fail - because you don't even address the point you quote. You don't even bother to read it, let along think, but just regurgitate crap you read off the web somewhere with about as much understanding as the coffee cup beside my keyboard. Yes, nitrates are a component of fertilizer... But not all nitrates are fertilizers. (Nor are all phosphates.)
Um, no. They won't. They'll accumulate and choke out your grass while providing haven for fungus and moss which will further weaken your lawn.
We aren't discussing nitrogen - we are discussing nitrates. And yes, nitrates can contribute to algal blooms.
Actually, you have that backwards - fertilizer is also known as 'nitrate'. Not all nitrates are fertilizer however.
Kinda, sorta. Mostly leaving cut grass where it is leaves you with a lawn choked with decaying grass. It takes a fairly thick layer to actually compost.
What's wrong with writing the truth? Nitrates are poisonous in quantity, and even below toxic levels can cause algal and bacterial blooms in water and soil - blooms which can and do crowd out other organisms from the ecosystem.
Assuming the catalyst isn't poisoned by reaction byproducts, or removed by weathering, or sealed under oil etc., or otherwise rendered inactive by environmental effects.
Someone who doesn't bother to properly capitalize and seemingly prefers bias and stereotyping himself... shouldn't complain about ignorance and laziness being applauded.
Or possibly the larger airports have newer and better machines, smarter than to "light up like a Christmas tree" when they detect small quantities of distributed metal. Metal detectors, like almost everything else, have benefited from better technology.
But it's easier to simply jump up and down and make accusations than to think isn't it?
No, I cannot see the failure of logic in charging someone with a crime they are responsible for.
Which means you haven't a fucking clue about what you are talking about.
So what? That doesn't give them a pass on making basic engineering errors.
Bullshit. They need to make their development environment match the real world - this isn't abstract programming, but rather is concrete engineering. These aren't weird problems or strange and subtle variations on old problems - but straightforward fuckups.
The issue isn't whether or not people are unhappy - but that people keep blowing thicker smoke and erecting bigger mirrors to excuse the mistakes.
It greatly reduces the chances of finding life.
Learn to fucking read you ignorant jackass. I quote from the post I replied to:
No, not starting from scratch. Period.
True, but so what? They aren't building anything radically new. They aren't exploring some unknown field of engineering or flight regime. They aren't pushing the boundaries.
Doubly so since the first two losses were due to what amount to failure to heed their Engineering 101 and Rocketry 101 classes.
What wonderfully circular logic!
There's a saying "luck is the residue of design"... What I was hoping to bring out is that the Apollo program had many more problems than the public believed (or was lead to believe - the computer and fuel gauge problems during the 11 landing were not publicly discussed for years). Another issue that believe believe that NASA somehow changed between the Apollo era and the loss of Challenger and Columbia, yet when we add in what we now know about Apollo the seeds of those accidents are clearly visible.
NASA didn't have an open checkbook either - starting in 1967 and continuing into 1969 NASA's budget was sharply trimmed. By July 1969 four landing missions had already been canceled and Saturn V production capped - Apollo went to the Moon running on budgetary fumes.
Which are failures we should not see! The experiences of those programs is widely documented. The first launch shouldn't have failed because either designing something to operate in a salt environment, or inspecting something that wasn't so designed very closely is basic engineering. The second launch shouldn't have failed because knowing your resonance modes is basic rocket engineering. Etc. Etc.
SpaceX doesn't get a pass because the early rocket programs failed - in fact, quite the opposite. SpaceX should be held to a higher standard because they aren't probing into a completely unknown field.
Along with the taxpayers, which via NASA, DARPA, and the USAF have invested considerable sums in SpaceX.
Starting from scratch? Right. There's not tons of basic engineering information available. There's not decades worth of papers and studies available. Etc... Etc...
Oh, wait. There is.
IOW, bullshit. 0 for 3 in their first three flights is an indication that there is a problem somewhere.
That's kinda like saying "well, early air travel was dangerous so if the first five Boeing 777 Dreamliners crash, they should get a pass". IOW, Bullshit.
Actually, there were multiple serious incidents... For example: Apollo 14 couldn't dock with the LM while extracting it from the S-IVB stage - so they (literally) rammed the CSM into the LM, exceeding the allowed force to force docking. During the landing, the LM lost the landing radar, rather than aborting the pilot continued the landing. While Apollo 16 was in orbit around the moon, and prior to separating the LM, it was discovered the wiring harness for the CSM propulsion system was seriously damaged. Mission rules required an abort of the landing and a return to Earth (so that the LM propulsion would be available as a backup) - but they waived that rule and proceeded with the mission anyhow. (Not to mention that the accident on 13 wouldn't have happened if they had investigated the faulty LOX tank rather than improvising an emptying procedure and using the equipment outside of it's design specs.)
Any ice built up on the skin would have either been broken up by vibration or melted by air friction during first stage flight. (And lacks the structural strength to prevent separation in the first place.) If there was ice built up in the interstage (where the stage separation systems are) thats actually a pretty serious design flaw.
Well, binding does cost money...
Rocket engines don't have redundant systems (within a single engine) to start with except the controller which isn't very heavy or expensive. (Which with modern electronics isn't prone to failure anyhow.)
Didn't you print out a copy for yourself when you submitted it?
That's more marketing hype than anything else - a properly designed modern rocket engine should only shut down once every hundred thousand or so flights. I.E. this is an incident that is virtually unheard of. If they actually require this 'feature', that indicates the Merlin 1C is not up to modern standards.
That has to be among the biggest loads of self justifying crap I've ever read.
Hardly. A good chunk of their budget has come from USAF/NASA/DARPA contracts.