Well one reason the carriers have much, much more area to cover. Japan is about 145,840 square miles, while Florida (where I live) is alone over 1/3 of that at 54,252 Square Miles. California alone is 3537441 square miles.
So the US carriers have to have much, much more infrastructure to cover. And infrastructure costs money, which comes from, you guessed it, the customer.
"The Washington Post makes things out to be less than above board:"
Turns out if you read the article, this is IN NO WAY the Washington Post's view. The Slashdot summary implies that the Washington Post "NEWS" paper is making this statement. This is not from the news section, but an opinion piece written from an interested party, printed in full.
"I also wonder how much energy it would use to do such a thing compared to the energy expended launching the payload using a conventional solid/liquid fuel rocket."
I don't know the numbers, but the bulk of a conventional rocket fuel us used up getting the last bit of fuel to near orbit. So the for example, the first 100kg of fuel is used lifting the last 10kg of fuel.
With this ring type of accelerator, there is no basically no fuel onboard to used to enter orbit, so you don't need the resulting mass to accellerate is 100x smaller. Look how big the Saturn 5 was just to lift a basically small payload. Most of the lifting was lifting the fuel to do the lifting.;-)
Most adult butterflies sip nectar from flowers through their proboscis which acts like a straw like tongue. A few species of jungle butterfly feed on tree sap or rotting organic material, for example, fruit.
Slashdot Mirror
If a scientist is evaluating subjects (often well) outside their sphere of study, how does that make their opinion any better than anyone elses?
"And while 84% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that."
So "all" the non-climate related scientists evaluated the GW claims and read the papers and make their own opinions?
OR
Do they rather simply believe what they're taught in school?
Well one reason the carriers have much, much more area to cover. Japan is about 145,840 square miles, while Florida (where I live) is alone over 1/3 of that at 54,252 Square Miles. California alone is 3537441 square miles.
So the US carriers have to have much, much more infrastructure to cover. And infrastructure costs money, which comes from, you guessed it, the customer.
"The Washington Post makes things out to be less than above board:"
Turns out if you read the article, this is IN NO WAY the Washington Post's view. The Slashdot summary implies that the Washington Post "NEWS" paper is making this statement. This is not from the news section, but an opinion piece written from an interested party, printed in full.
"I also wonder how much energy it would use to do such a thing compared to the energy expended launching the payload using a conventional solid/liquid fuel rocket."
;-)
I don't know the numbers, but the bulk of a conventional rocket fuel us used up getting the last bit of fuel to near orbit. So the for example, the first 100kg of fuel is used lifting the last 10kg of fuel.
With this ring type of accelerator, there is no basically no fuel onboard to used to enter orbit, so you don't need the resulting mass to accellerate is 100x smaller. Look how big the Saturn 5 was just to lift a basically small payload. Most of the lifting was lifting the fuel to do the lifting.
Butterflys do eat.
Most adult butterflies sip nectar from flowers through their proboscis which acts like a straw like tongue. A few species of jungle butterfly feed on tree sap or rotting organic material, for example, fruit.
I live in orange county, FL (Orlando actually)
We DON'T HAVE TOUCH SCREEN VOTING.
We have paper optical mark voting. Saw a co-workers ballot today. Same as the past 10 years.
Connect a line with a fat sharpie marker.