Apply a GPL to the database, or some subset of it, and the technique now, and survive as a company based on the magnitude of your deployment and your customer service.
This would silence your detractors forever, and not impact your bottom line.
Sorry, guys, but calling out for a Wiki edit war on a message board, no matter how correct you are about the need for correction, is very, very bad form.
Though it solves the pulling-out problem, usually, a screw does not solve the shearing problem at all.
And screws are not necessarily harder to pull out because often they are over-driven which means that the wood surrounding the screw is not solid, but is now sawdust.
Oh, I am not arguing that it would be great, and I fervently wish we would spend every dollar spent on the military on exploration and science, but I think the radiation issue is nearly intractable until we become machines.
Fortunately, that might not be more than another century.
I think you underestimate the size of the problem you propose.
Space will never be cheap, except perhaps in terms of low-performance sub-orbital excursion rockets. Those will become cheap, but nothing that can reach orbit ever will.
I can see no reason whatsoever that a big five element SRB could not be very reliable and very cheap to operate.
Not cheap to produce, though, but that cost seems to have been overwhelmed by operating cost savings. Quite simply, a SRB requires much less support to prepare for launch.
Even back in Von Braun's day, we considered large SRBs for space exploration.
I think you fail to get it. A low performance engine cannot lift ANYTHING into space. No matter how cheap a reliable.
I suggest you peruse "Thrust Into Space" by Maxwell W. Hunter III if you want to see why laid out in terms for the non-aerospace engineer.
You need amazing thrust at a very high specific impulse.
You need to keep the engine and airframe as light as possible consistent with safely containing the fuel, resisting gravity and aerodynamic loads and transmitting the thrust to the payload.
These are not trivial problems at all.
Which is why you get designs like the Atlas I which was a huge inflated aluminum balloon.
Before you decide to get warm fuzzy feelings about coal, go examine the issue of mountain top removal, and the consequences to the environment of the tailings that are left behind.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Steve, you could make it right, you know.
Apply a GPL to the database, or some subset of it, and the technique now, and survive as a company based on the magnitude of your deployment and your customer service.
This would silence your detractors forever, and not impact your bottom line.
Too much of a coward to sign your name, and you call ME a loser? Hahahahaha!
AMEN.
Sorry, guys, but calling out for a Wiki edit war on a message board, no matter how correct you are about the need for correction, is very, very bad form.
Steve Jobs would therefore be a much better choice.
You cannot get enough from such a source to conduct a poisoning such as what happened in London. This is a TINY sample. Nothing like the right amount.
Wow, you just revealed yourself.
Not as an **AA plant, but as a human being born totally without a sense of humor.
Can't you tell the difference?
I suggest some therapy. Or maybe just some hashish.
When we go to an antiwar protest, we always play "Spot The Fed" as we look for the inevitable FBI/Homeland Security plant in the crowd.
Well, I think we need to play this game here on Slashdot!
Who here is the RIAA plant?
You *know* they are here! Just like we knew, before we actually confirmed it, that there were Feds at the protests.
When we go to an antiwar protest, we always play "Spot The Fed" as we look for the inevitable FBI/Homeland Security plant in the crowd.
Well, I think we need to play this game here on Slashdot!
Who here is the RIAA plant?
Who here is the Microsoft plant?
You *know* they are here! Just like we knew, before we actually confirmed it, that there were Feds at the protests.
No. You *totally* don't understand!
Even a screw fails under shearing stress.
Though it solves the pulling-out problem, usually, a screw does not solve the shearing problem at all.
And screws are not necessarily harder to pull out because often they are over-driven which means that the wood surrounding the screw is not solid, but is now sawdust.
And force Ballmer to stop doing it.
Which would account for not seeing it where expected...
Not any more. Not since January. It is an Apollo-derived J2X engine now.
My bad. I didn't follow the link.
But anything would be a new design.
Even the Delta and Atlas-derived proposals would be so different from the present launchers to have to undergo extensive testing.
But the concept of a Big Dumb Booster using solid rocket segments is not nutty, or unachievable, or even uneconomical.
Oh, I am not arguing that it would be great, and I fervently wish we would spend every dollar spent on the military on exploration and science, but I think the radiation issue is nearly intractable until we become machines.
Fortunately, that might not be more than another century.
These are not SSMEs, these are SSSRBs. VERY different animal.
I think you underestimate the size of the problem you propose.
Space will never be cheap, except perhaps in terms of low-performance sub-orbital excursion rockets. Those will become cheap, but nothing that can reach orbit ever will.
I can see no reason whatsoever that a big five element SRB could not be very reliable and very cheap to operate.
Not cheap to produce, though, but that cost seems to have been overwhelmed by operating cost savings. Quite simply, a SRB requires much less support to prepare for launch.
Even back in Von Braun's day, we considered large SRBs for space exploration.
I think you fail to get it. A low performance engine cannot lift ANYTHING into space. No matter how cheap a reliable.
I suggest you peruse "Thrust Into Space" by Maxwell W. Hunter III if you want to see why laid out in terms for the non-aerospace engineer.
You need amazing thrust at a very high specific impulse.
You need to keep the engine and airframe as light as possible consistent with safely containing the fuel, resisting gravity and aerodynamic loads and transmitting the thrust to the payload.
These are not trivial problems at all.
Which is why you get designs like the Atlas I which was a huge inflated aluminum balloon.
Like a top fuel dragster a SRB is designed to perform really well for a very short period of time.
If that is your mission profile, and it is, I can see no problem with that.
Exactly, and they are under orders to go to Mars. (Which I think is a goal we will never achieve due to space radiation issues.)
The Dec Rainbow machine had phone capabilities if I recall correctly.
I think I could now patent the spoon if I worded the damned thing correctly. The USPTO should be ashamed.
That is an excellent suggestion!
Before you decide to get warm fuzzy feelings about coal, go examine the issue of mountain top removal, and the consequences to the environment of the tailings that are left behind.