The attack on the minivan was no fucking mistake.. they repeatedly said that there was no weapons, and that they were trying to evac the wounded. They radioed in for permission to kill people who are evacing the wounded for fuck sake. What's wrong with you?
Uh Crazyhorse One-Eight request permission to uh engage. Picking up the wounded? Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage. Come on, let us shoot! Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight. They're taking him. Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight. This is Bushmaster Seven, go ahead. Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo trunk picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage. Fuck. This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. Engage. One-Eight engage. Clear. Come on!
Gunfire.
So just in-case anyone is wondering what this is about, a helicopter just shot a bunch of people, a van arrives to evac one of the guys who is wounded and crawling away. The helicopter radios this in and asks for permission to engage and the authorization is given to engage. This is blatant, sanctioned, firing on wounded and the people trying to evac them. In no way is this acceptable under the rules of engagement.
That's because the US treats Russia like a "little brother" and doesn't ask them to seriously contribute in any way that matters. Russia responds by saying "this isn't a partnership, you pay."
Yeah, agreed. And what's worse is that they've been working on a safe, simple, soon replacement for launching humans to LEO since before the Columbia "accident" in 2003. During the Columbia investigation retiring the fleet immediately was seriously considered, because it was recognized that if the shuttle kept flying there would be no motivation to get a replacement going soon. What started out as a kludge to use existing infrastructure to get humans to space evolved through 3 engineering revisions to the Ares I abomination - which is neither safe, nor simple, nor soon. And now we're in the mess we're in because NASA just can't be trusted to do what needs to be done.
The ground operations staff increases with reusability instead of decreasing since you have to inspect and repair your reusable spacecraft; this is what killed the shuttle economically. These engines operate so close to the edge of the envelope you have to trade efficiency for maintenance time, and you just can't afford to lose efficiency.
Yeah, and you're proving my point. The Shuttle is not the pinnacle of reusable launch vehicle technology, it's 1970s technology, and NASA has absolutely no motivation to reduce costs.
Sure, a gas and go reusable horizontal takeoff and landing vehicle. I'm partial to two stage to orbit designs, a hydrocarbon lower stage with a liquid hydrogen upper stage, others would argue for a single stage to orbit design - but I've yet to see their numbers close for a manned vehicle. The advancement needed here would be just engine reusability. The cost reduction comes from the massive decrease in the size of the standing army required for ground operations.
Airbreathing engines like what you described would be good for the first stage, but not much good on the second stage.. but they won't be available for at least a decade, in my opinion. And there's so many other great technologies in the works that you may want to incorporate into a generation of vehicles a little further out, they just need to be demonstrated. For example, some MHD reentry enhancement would be nice.
Reusable missiles obviously don't make sense. Reusable launch vehicles obviously do make sense. The problem is that people seem to think missiles make good launch vehicles.
The dispute that is going on at SpaceX amounts to "Hey NASA, what do you want?" and NASA saying "Hey SpaceX, what should we want?" etc. It's your typical government leaderless program.
When you're in low earth orbit you're half way to anywhere. NASA could do a beyond earth orbit mission right now if they'd just swallow their pride and plan it around using the Soyuz to take astronauts to their deep space vehicle on orbit that they launch there using existing boosters. Instead they've poured $9 billion down the money pit of Ares to develop yet more costly launch capability. But, for some reason, having international partners on the critical path of an international mission is just too ego shaking for NASA.. the next best thing is to pay 3 to 4 times as much as Soyuz for taxi services from US commercial suppliers (and that's assuming the Soyuz flights couldn't be gotten for free with suitable recognition of Russia as an international partner). In fact, it's starting to look like the commercial suppliers that NASA is trying to engage to provide them with flights on a cheap per-seat basis will actually be demanding large upfront development costs.. in the $billions range.. all of them except SpaceX, who are happy to develop crew carrying capability under the COTS-D option for about a third of that.
One should judge the success or failure of a program by how well it has achieved the goals it was built to achieve. By that most sensible metric, the Shuttle is a colossal failure. Not only has the Shuttle failed to reduce the cost of launch, it has also failed in its military and flight rate goals. Only someone who is too young to remember the promise of the Shuttle would ever suggest that it has been a "success", let alone wildly so.
Worse yet, Shuttle has set back the goal of a reusable launch vehicle for decades. Whenever anyone suggests that an RLV may be the best way of reducing the costs to space (an obviously true argument, imagine throwing away a 747 after every flight), skeptics need only point to the Space Shuttle.
hehe, government employees wail the most when they lose their jobs. The rest of us just say "oh well, I guess that's the economy" and go get another one. Job security, it's one of those things that was important in the 60s, like NASA.
and hopefully it won't just be government astronauts who get to go. Back when the shuttle was seen as a way to reduce the cost of getting into space, and NASA launched commercial satellites, a few ordinary engineers got to go to space. Of course, Challenger changed all that. And the Launch Services Purchase Act proved that the best way to reduce the cost of launch is to cut NASA out of the picture all together. So hopefully, when the job of taking humans to space has suitably placed NASA in an oversight only role, we'll see ordinary people flying to space again to do economically valuable work. Then the market takes over and everything changes.
That said, NASA will still be flying their own astronauts. If there's any sense left in them, they'll be flying to beyond low earth orbit.
Actually it does, the robot isn't the problem, it's the corner locating algorithm that is slow. So yes, throwing more cpu power at it will make it faster, and that still (for now) obeys Moore's law.
Yep, and it's worse than that. But eliminating the patentability of genes they've made it profitable to do secret research and never publish the results. In fact, one might say that's the point of patents.. to make public disclosure still profitable.
You're not really this ignorant are you? Ok, I'm a researcher, I want to find out the genetic cause of some untreatable disease.. because I want the disease to be treated. Who's going to pay for my lab time? Who's going to pay me to do it? Previously, I could go to industry and say "ok, here's my credentials, you get the patents, deal?" and that's where the funding could come from. Now, I have to go get a government grant. Fine. So I get my grant and I public my results. Everyone says "well done". No drug companies target the genes I discovered for treatments. After all, that'd start a race and no drug company can afford to get into a race. Ok, so what do I do instead? Seeing as I want the disease to be treated.. I'm not just after notoriety.. well, I guess I could keep the results secret. I could go to the drug company and sell them the results of my research and then the drug company could rely on an NDA to avoid a race. Congratulations, you've just made scientific research a commodity. Drug companies will no longer fund research that results in public disclosure, they'll fund research that results in secret results that are never published.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, like there's any skill to online poker. You might as well be playing dice.
There's no mistake.. *watch the video*.
uh huh.. I imagine kids these days don't get pumped up about anything, except maybe about how guilty they should feel about using energy.
Watch the whole video ya cunt.
Honestly, I'd be blowing up my own people too as I'd see them as coward collaborators who refuse to resist the occupation forces.
For you fucking gen-Ys out there, go rent Red Dawn.
Who gives a shit if it's a flying dinosaur they're shooting from.. they're shooting civilians you fucking retard.
The attack on the minivan was no fucking mistake.. they repeatedly said that there was no weapons, and that they were trying to evac the wounded. They radioed in for permission to kill people who are evacing the wounded for fuck sake. What's wrong with you?
Yes, and then they fired on a van trying to evac a wounded man with no weapons in sight and two children in it.
Watch the whole video you fucking apologist.
Uh Crazyhorse One-Eight request permission to uh engage.
Picking up the wounded?
Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage.
Come on, let us shoot!
Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight.
They're taking him.
Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight.
This is Bushmaster Seven, go ahead.
Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo trunk picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage.
Fuck.
This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. Engage.
One-Eight engage. Clear.
Come on!
Gunfire.
So just in-case anyone is wondering what this is about, a helicopter just shot a bunch of people, a van arrives to evac one of the guys who is wounded and crawling away. The helicopter radios this in and asks for permission to engage and the authorization is given to engage. This is blatant, sanctioned, firing on wounded and the people trying to evac them. In no way is this acceptable under the rules of engagement.
Fucking cunts.
That's because the US treats Russia like a "little brother" and doesn't ask them to seriously contribute in any way that matters. Russia responds by saying "this isn't a partnership, you pay."
Yeah, agreed. And what's worse is that they've been working on a safe, simple, soon replacement for launching humans to LEO since before the Columbia "accident" in 2003. During the Columbia investigation retiring the fleet immediately was seriously considered, because it was recognized that if the shuttle kept flying there would be no motivation to get a replacement going soon. What started out as a kludge to use existing infrastructure to get humans to space evolved through 3 engineering revisions to the Ares I abomination - which is neither safe, nor simple, nor soon. And now we're in the mess we're in because NASA just can't be trusted to do what needs to be done.
The ground operations staff increases with reusability instead of decreasing since you have to inspect and repair your reusable spacecraft; this is what killed the shuttle economically. These engines operate so close to the edge of the envelope you have to trade efficiency for maintenance time, and you just can't afford to lose efficiency.
Yeah, and you're proving my point. The Shuttle is not the pinnacle of reusable launch vehicle technology, it's 1970s technology, and NASA has absolutely no motivation to reduce costs.
Sure, a gas and go reusable horizontal takeoff and landing vehicle. I'm partial to two stage to orbit designs, a hydrocarbon lower stage with a liquid hydrogen upper stage, others would argue for a single stage to orbit design - but I've yet to see their numbers close for a manned vehicle. The advancement needed here would be just engine reusability. The cost reduction comes from the massive decrease in the size of the standing army required for ground operations.
Airbreathing engines like what you described would be good for the first stage, but not much good on the second stage.. but they won't be available for at least a decade, in my opinion. And there's so many other great technologies in the works that you may want to incorporate into a generation of vehicles a little further out, they just need to be demonstrated. For example, some MHD reentry enhancement would be nice.
So far, missiles are the best launch vehicles by far.
It should be obvious that a missile is not the pinnacle of launch vehicle technology. Innovation in this market is rare.
Reusable missiles obviously don't make sense. Reusable launch vehicles obviously do make sense. The problem is that people seem to think missiles make good launch vehicles.
The dispute that is going on at SpaceX amounts to "Hey NASA, what do you want?" and NASA saying "Hey SpaceX, what should we want?" etc. It's your typical government leaderless program.
When you're in low earth orbit you're half way to anywhere. NASA could do a beyond earth orbit mission right now if they'd just swallow their pride and plan it around using the Soyuz to take astronauts to their deep space vehicle on orbit that they launch there using existing boosters. Instead they've poured $9 billion down the money pit of Ares to develop yet more costly launch capability. But, for some reason, having international partners on the critical path of an international mission is just too ego shaking for NASA.. the next best thing is to pay 3 to 4 times as much as Soyuz for taxi services from US commercial suppliers (and that's assuming the Soyuz flights couldn't be gotten for free with suitable recognition of Russia as an international partner). In fact, it's starting to look like the commercial suppliers that NASA is trying to engage to provide them with flights on a cheap per-seat basis will actually be demanding large upfront development costs.. in the $billions range.. all of them except SpaceX, who are happy to develop crew carrying capability under the COTS-D option for about a third of that.
One should judge the success or failure of a program by how well it has achieved the goals it was built to achieve. By that most sensible metric, the Shuttle is a colossal failure. Not only has the Shuttle failed to reduce the cost of launch, it has also failed in its military and flight rate goals. Only someone who is too young to remember the promise of the Shuttle would ever suggest that it has been a "success", let alone wildly so.
Worse yet, Shuttle has set back the goal of a reusable launch vehicle for decades. Whenever anyone suggests that an RLV may be the best way of reducing the costs to space (an obviously true argument, imagine throwing away a 747 after every flight), skeptics need only point to the Space Shuttle.
hehe, government employees wail the most when they lose their jobs. The rest of us just say "oh well, I guess that's the economy" and go get another one. Job security, it's one of those things that was important in the 60s, like NASA.
and hopefully it won't just be government astronauts who get to go. Back when the shuttle was seen as a way to reduce the cost of getting into space, and NASA launched commercial satellites, a few ordinary engineers got to go to space. Of course, Challenger changed all that. And the Launch Services Purchase Act proved that the best way to reduce the cost of launch is to cut NASA out of the picture all together. So hopefully, when the job of taking humans to space has suitably placed NASA in an oversight only role, we'll see ordinary people flying to space again to do economically valuable work. Then the market takes over and everything changes.
That said, NASA will still be flying their own astronauts. If there's any sense left in them, they'll be flying to beyond low earth orbit.
Actually it does, the robot isn't the problem, it's the corner locating algorithm that is slow. So yes, throwing more cpu power at it will make it faster, and that still (for now) obeys Moore's law.
That ok, at some point Planeshift's 1998 graphics will start to appear quaint rather than just ugly and your expectation of reality will go away ;)
Yep, and it's worse than that. But eliminating the patentability of genes they've made it profitable to do secret research and never publish the results. In fact, one might say that's the point of patents.. to make public disclosure still profitable.
You're not really this ignorant are you? Ok, I'm a researcher, I want to find out the genetic cause of some untreatable disease.. because I want the disease to be treated. Who's going to pay for my lab time? Who's going to pay me to do it? Previously, I could go to industry and say "ok, here's my credentials, you get the patents, deal?" and that's where the funding could come from. Now, I have to go get a government grant. Fine. So I get my grant and I public my results. Everyone says "well done". No drug companies target the genes I discovered for treatments. After all, that'd start a race and no drug company can afford to get into a race. Ok, so what do I do instead? Seeing as I want the disease to be treated.. I'm not just after notoriety.. well, I guess I could keep the results secret. I could go to the drug company and sell them the results of my research and then the drug company could rely on an NDA to avoid a race. Congratulations, you've just made scientific research a commodity. Drug companies will no longer fund research that results in public disclosure, they'll fund research that results in secret results that are never published.
They actually *invent* that products, so there's no precedent here.