Incidentally, here's an interesting fact... After Jupiter, the only other planet with higher surface gravity than Earth is Neptune, and even there, gravity is only 12% stronger than on Earth.
Of course, this depends on what you call the "surface" of a gas giant...
Also, surface gravity is not the best measure of how hard it is to lift off a planet. All the gas giants have higher escape velocities and denser atmospheres.
Escape velocity on Mars is only a little more than double that of the moon, and less than half that of the Earth. Mars also has a fraction of the atmosphere of the Earth. So yes, it takes more than a firecracker, but a hell of a lot less than a Saturn V.
I think the problems relating to a prolonged human journey in space far overshadow the Mars liftoff problem.
Clearly you need less weight to allow something to slow down with friction than you need to boost it up (against both gravity and friction). Why are a car's breaks so much smaller than its engine?
If you're going to send the thing up to bring cargo down, it would be a waste not to send cargo up in it too.
I'm not sure that's true. If this shuttle doesn't need to lift anything to orbit, it can be very small and light. Every pound of payload you add requires something like 20 pounds of fuel.
Yep, that's what I was thinking. Somehow, people have this idea that such statements are trite and unrealistic, but comprehensible code is an achievable goal! People just don't try hard enough.
Expected payoff is misleading
on
Odds-on Science
·
· Score: 1
You have a good point that the entertainment value can't be ignored. However, the expected payoff of a lottery is a misleading statistic when it comes to deciding whether to play.
The fallacy of the "expected payoff" is that it is based on the assumption that you can play an unlimited number of times. If you find a one-in-ten-million lottery, and play the lottery a billion times, then yes, you can expect to win a hundred times. But if you buy just one ticket, or a thousand tickets, you can rest assured that you will not win, and your money will be wasted.
Nothing in this world is certain, but losing the lottery is about as close to certainty as you can get. Practically all lottery-playing people will go their whole lives without ever winning a substantial jackput.
Either we drop these security measures which makes us open to hijackings or we learn to live with some inconvenience until the system can be refined.
Yes sir, you just bought the false dichotomy that the US government is currently peddling. Contratulations on being a Good Citizen. I hope you have as much success with the War on Terrorism as you did with the War on Drugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, this depends on what you call the "surface" of a gas giant...
Also, surface gravity is not the best measure of how hard it is to lift off a planet. All the gas giants have higher escape velocities and denser atmospheres.
I think the problems relating to a prolonged human journey in space far overshadow the Mars liftoff problem.
I've never seen a "very large question" before.
Clearly you need less weight to allow something to slow down with friction than you need to boost it up (against both gravity and friction). Why are a car's breaks so much smaller than its engine?
Think more in terms of the "army corps of engineers" and it's a closer match.
Yep, that's what I was thinking. Somehow, people have this idea that such statements are trite and unrealistic, but comprehensible code is an achievable goal! People just don't try hard enough.
The fallacy of the "expected payoff" is that it is based on the assumption that you can play an unlimited number of times. If you find a one-in-ten-million lottery, and play the lottery a billion times, then yes, you can expect to win a hundred times. But if you buy just one ticket, or a thousand tickets, you can rest assured that you will not win, and your money will be wasted.
Nothing in this world is certain, but losing the lottery is about as close to certainty as you can get. Practically all lottery-playing people will go their whole lives without ever winning a substantial jackput.
Exactly. Tell that to the guy I just had this conversation with.
Most globes I have seen actually have the eccliptic horizontal, and the Earth's axis is tilted 23 degrees from that.
You need to take a look at a globe, my friend.
Dude, settle down. I'm not sure what your point is, but would it make you feel better if I tell you I believe you?
Not that I really care.
Yes, there we have it. The authoritative answer from an anonymous author.
One of the great modern myths is that we should strive toward a risk-free existence. I say, do not accept infringement. Freedom is risky.
Congratulations, you just got 5, Interesting for repeating exactly what was in the article summary.
But you do have a point... If they compress like crazy they could get a large number of pics. That falls into the "you get what you pay for" category.
No, 16MB at 2 megapixel is only about 25 pictures.
You can't be facetious retroactively.
It is indeed a free speech issue. The fact that the government is not controling speech only means it's not a constitutional issue.
Maybe this is lucky ten million?
They are not heating deep water.
Sorry, chief--you don't get to decide what a "moon" is for the rest of us.