Maybe not but they've probably recorded every move you've made since you entered the parking lot and they can put you on their "undesirable customer" list if they have one.
So what? By trying to stop me they have put themselves on my "undesireable merchant" list (It's never actually happened, though. I don't live in a city.)
I'm not saying that the byproducts of combustion will be dangerous but just because it is composed of only nitrogen and oxygen does not automatically make it "environmentally friendly".
And none of those other fuels has better performance that H2/O2, so whats your point?
The solid/liquid decision and the choice of fuel is a complex engineering process involving much more than picking the one with the highest ISP.
BTW lithium-flourine-hydrogen tripropellent has an ISP of 542, versus 455 for hydrogen-oxygen. By your reasoning everyone should be using it, but in fact it has never been used.
There is a reason they don't use TNT as rocket fuel, you know.
Nitrogycerin mixed with nitrocellulose was used in the past, but theoretical ISP is not the only consideration. Which is my point.
So it doesn't matter how much energy you can get out of this new compound. It will only spit out oxygen, nitrogen and nitrous oxides, all far more massive than the hydrogen and water vapour you get from rockets in use at the moment.
Many of the "rockets in use at the moment" use fuels other than hydrogen and oxygen and many are solid fuel.
Most modern solid-fuel rockets use pretty much the same fuel as the shuttle SRBs. It's cheap, stable and reliable but it does produce a lot of goop and the ISP could be better. If this stuff is stable it might make an excellent replacement for ammonium perchlorate oxidizer.
They shouldn't even need to bother doing that. They'd be better off if they get with the program: Slap their user space on top of the Linux kernel (which already has all the ARM drivers).
Thereby making it almost trivially easy to produce a binary-compatible clone.
I would worry that the operation of a magnetic catapult (or, for that matter, railgun artillery) would send out a huge, unmaskable burst of radio noise that announces to the world "Here I am! Railgun here! Come and blow me up!".
The machine operates at relatively low frequencies inside the steel hull. I don't think it will be a serious problem.
You wouldn't want the motor core and its attached forty tons or so of aircraft shifting around due to the wind or the maneuvering of the ship. With the armature unenergized reluctance might not hold it.
EMP is no hazard to elctrical machinery and high power electronics (besides, it'll all be inside the steel ship). It damages low power systems such as controls and computers and is particularly dangerous to radio and radar systems since they must connect to unshielded antennas and handle weak signals.
If you get hit by an EMP pulse big enough to damage switching devices capable of handling 135MW your decks will be melting.
Most people never ask you any questions. Only the dumb ones ask dumb ones. You forget the sensible but boring ones. You are confounding the left tail of the distribution with the middle.
Slashdot Mirror
> Whatever is the driving cost in space travel, it is not the cost of the fuel.
No, it's the cost of the rocket. And cryogenic turbopumps are very expensive.
So what? By trying to stop me they have put themselves on my "undesireable merchant" list (It's never actually happened, though. I don't live in a city.)
Why don't you just shop elsewhere?
No, but it makes it PR friendly.
Thank you for the correction.
> Wikipedia is contradicting itself?
No. There are extinguishable solid-fuel rockets. The shuttle SRBs are not among them.
The solid/liquid decision and the choice of fuel is a complex engineering process involving much more than picking the one with the highest ISP.
BTW lithium-flourine-hydrogen tripropellent has an ISP of 542, versus 455 for hydrogen-oxygen. By your reasoning everyone should be using it, but in fact it has never been used.
Nitrogycerin mixed with nitrocellulose was used in the past, but theoretical ISP is not the only consideration. Which is my point.
Many of the "rockets in use at the moment" use fuels other than hydrogen and oxygen and many are solid fuel.
> Solid rocket fuels are notoriously inefficient compared to liquid fuels.
They are also notoriously simple and inexpensive.
The spacecraft is clamped down until all engines are up to full power.
Most modern solid-fuel rockets use pretty much the same fuel as the shuttle SRBs. It's cheap, stable and reliable but it does produce a lot of goop and the ISP could be better. If this stuff is stable it might make an excellent replacement for ammonium perchlorate oxidizer.
I agree that it wouldn't work from Earth but from the Moon it would work fine with a small insertion burn. Might also work from Mars.
Thereby making it almost trivially easy to produce a binary-compatible clone.
...devices and running on many others."
Eh. Debian has fully supported ARM for years.
The machine operates at relatively low frequencies inside the steel hull. I don't think it will be a serious problem.
You wouldn't want the motor core and its attached forty tons or so of aircraft shifting around due to the wind or the maneuvering of the ship. With the armature unenergized reluctance might not hold it.
EMP is no hazard to elctrical machinery and high power electronics (besides, it'll all be inside the steel ship). It damages low power systems such as controls and computers and is particularly dangerous to radio and radar systems since they must connect to unshielded antennas and handle weak signals.
If you get hit by an EMP pulse big enough to damage switching devices capable of handling 135MW your decks will be melting.
> Theres a reason the US Marines still use them.
Yes. Because they plan to operate out of short fields.
> Drones are more fragile?
I think that they may have in mind drones (and other aircraft) that, unlike Navy fighters, were not designed to withstand catapult launching.
They can't, but the system stores energy in flywheels, not capacitors.
> EM = Electrician's Mate, think Electrical Engineer
The "Mates" are skilled technicians, not engineers.
> How do you put field current into the, um, rotor?
You don't. It uses permanent magnets.
Actually, it's a linear synchronous motor.
Much easier.
They are producing steam for the generators that produce electricity for the engines.
The Navy has been using large electrical machines on shipboard for over 100 years. I think they know how to keep seawater out of them.
Most people never ask you any questions. Only the dumb ones ask dumb ones. You forget the sensible but boring ones. You are confounding the left tail of the distribution with the middle.