Well, adverts for PC's said "has 20MB of memory" meaning "has a 20MB HDD"./
Yeah, well, I can't say I remember such ads, but sure, maybe people did that. It was obviously wrong, and they've stopped doing that. What's the problem?
And it was powers-of-two megs.
Kind of shot yourself in the nuts with that one.
Huh? No. Even if your argument had made any sense, those disks were using power-of-ten sizing, at least mostly. Of course, the difference was smaller then, so you'd notice it less.
And when it comes to telecoms, it was all baud. Which WAS NOT 1 bit/sec. And powers-of-ten when it was used was accepted because you had 8 bits, a stop bit and a parity bit. 10 bit bytes.
No.
Well, yeah, baud isn't the same thing as bps, that's true. Everything anybody cared about was the bps number though, even though many people (wrongly) called that baud. Ie V.32bis (14.4 kbps, )(and those are actual "k"s - 1000) used 2400 baud.
And it's true that you could figure the transfer speed in bytes to be about 10:1. But that's completely unrelated to the question about power-of-2/10. I assure you that a kbaud also would have meant 1000 baud. (baud is deprecated, btw, mostly because people keep getting this wrong. "Symbols per second" is the new hotness.)
Please show me where hard drives use 10 bit bytes...
Exactly. The only thing that ever used the base-2 units was memory, because it actually made sense back when. (Since memory capsules come in base-2 sized units.) And the error was small.
* All the ethernet (and other networking)standard use real (base-10) megabits/gigabits.
* Disks, DVDs and tapes. Yes, they all do this. Because it makes sense.
* CPU frequency. I get 3.6 GHz, and those are real "G"s.
* Some of the stats on memory chips are even base-10, like the latency and clock rate, for example.
Also, at some point this needs to get fixed. The error gets bigger for every generation:
difference between:
Kib and KB: 2.4 %
MiB and MB: 4.9 %
GiB and GB: 7.3 %
TiB and TB: 10%
PiB and PB: 13%
...and so on. This has to stop. It makes it a royal PITA to use these sizes together with anything else.
It's useful to be able to figure how long it takes to transfer a 10 "TB" file across a 10Gb ethernet connection without having to know about the obscure 10% fudge factor.
Data on Flash memory (e.g. usb drives) has a tendancy to burn in. The longer it's in there the more it burns in. There's no real way to counter this. The only way to theoretically wipe it is to do several passes each a few weeks apart.
References please.
I don't mean that in a bad way, but I'd really like to see some hard data on the erasability of flash disks. I also think that a simple bunch of overwrites will do it, and that doing things like small-root-on-flash,-all-physical-disks-on-lvm-ove r-dm.drypt will do it, but I have't seen the paper published yet...
The current procedure in places where I've been is to keep sensitve disks in a safe (and in the inventory) until they're too old to be desirable by tech folks (or anyone else. We killed 2-, 4-, and 9-GB disk this year.), and then destroy them. Which insn't bad, but it can end up being a lot of (physcal) storage until the burn-date comes. Which is a risk in itself.
Everytime I hear of the milatary using these (and losing them, which they seem to do regularly), it pisses me off. They must have had an IT guy telling to never use that stuff, and to encrypt their data. For some reason the higher ups just seem to not get the point, and they still use it, and leave them behind in their rented cars.
When you hear about things like this ("disposed of" laptops etc), is when someone didn't follow their procedure for disposal. The military (all nations) is the frontrunner of these things. They have the right idea. Why spend lots of thought on ways to securely wipe disks when you can just destroy them securely with stuff like thermite or explosives, and be sure. The hardware cost is nothing compared to the labor (and, if you account for it, security) cost.
Lost/stolen laptops are harder problems though. Encryption is the only thing that helps there, but there are good tools for it these days.
The aluminum in the thermite burn up, that's right, but you still end up with
lots of molten aluminum from the casing s of the disks etc. (In addition to the
iron from the thermite.)
I know by itself thermite and similar methods have difficulty penetrating the outer case reliably, but I would think drill+thermite injection to fill the internal cavity of the system would be effective..
Takes too long to drill the disks and insert the thermite, while your spy plane is spiralling down.
And anyway, if the themite didn't fully destroy the disks, you weren't using enough of it. See?
I agree that there are sex divisions in the country, but you fail to take into account that it's a two way street. There are several activities that men are banned from because it's considered woman or family oriented. In fact most restaurants have "singles" (AKA men only) and "family" sections. The family sections are nearly always better equipped, larger, and cleaner than the men only areas.
What the hell kind of reasoning is that?
Are you saying that repression of women is (more) OK, because men are also repressed?
Two wrongs make a right?
... my other big pet-peeve (which again is done correctly on that NAD stereo system) is that most electronics these days REQUIRE the remote, the controls on the unit itself are so limited that you can't do anything without the remote... is a button REALLY that expensive?
The reason for that is that buttons (being moving parts) break often. And the part with the broken button gets returned to the store. A remote is a lot cheaper to both replace and ship than the thing the remote controls.
On a stereo, you have stuff like knobs and sliders which are even more prone to breakage than a standard button, so it gets even more attractive there.
Sun used to ship 21" screens back in the day (circa 1997) that had basically just a remote and a power button. Nowadays, screens have some kind of on-screen menu system (or are usb controllable), but the idea is the same: Fewer buttons -> fewer returns.
[...] but ugly vs pretty isn't really one of them. If it were, two of the most effective aircraft the US has built would never have seen the light of day: the F-117 Nighthawk stealth figher, and the A-10 Thunderbold II, AKA Warthog.
And the XB70 Valkyrie would have. The most beautiful plane that never was.
If it looks like the astronaut might damage some of the Thermal Protection System tiles down there, they'll just terminate the repair attempt and fly home as-is.
And if he does, he'll have to fill out a TPS report, right?
They don't have long range missles... best estimates I've heard put them in the 50-100 mile range.
They have longish range missiles. And unproven long-range ones.
If they even had SCUDs testing, we'd be there in a hot minute.
They certainly have scuds. The "No dong" (I kid you not, that's what they called it) is sort of an upgraded scud too (new engine, whole thing scaled up, but basic design still the same (same propellant, kerosene+RFNA), still have the jet vanes etc))
Hell, they exported scuds to yemen a couple years ago.
Scuds have tange of about 100km, the no-dongs about 1300 km (no-dong 1) to about 1500 km (no-dong 2)
Their real ICBM is called the Taepo-dong. They tried to launch a satellite using it in 1998, but it failed.
Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize
on
Win the X-Prize Cup
·
· Score: 1
If enough pizzas were in demand in a given location to fill the warhead, the delivery cost (assuming you don't have to pay for the missile) would only be 10-20$ per pizza.
According to her, he looked at her like she was completely insane.
And that, right there, is why the west won the cold war.
I know a lot of people in advertising, and I don't agree. In my experience ADs are mostly artists on their own time as well, and the writers have a lot in common with journalists (except, as they bitterly say, as opposed to journalists, they have to tell the truth.)
None of these guys to direct marketing though, they do print and large poster ads. There's a lot of really cool stuff being done with TV ads as well, think of the stuff on superbowl, the honda cog thing, etc.
They all seem to think direct markering is uncreative, low budget and sleazy. I'd add web ads in the same category, perhaps even worse.
(Sorry about the late reply, I was away for a few days. Gone fishing.)
You would, now would you? Care to explain why LOX, which is generally minimally pressurized and would require vaporization before rapid conflagration would be a risk, would be more dangerous than already gasseous (i.e., as soon as it leaves the tank and its pressure drops) and highly pressurized N2O?
N2O doesn't work as an oxidizer until it's been decomposed (to GOX and N2) by heat/pressure. That's a reason why it'd be safe. (And also part of why they're a bit of a hassle to get lit) In every single one of the (destructive) hybrid failures I've seen, they flamed out after the initial pop.
As I mentioned, it [burn rate] is completely proportional to surface area. Are you going to deny this? Or are you going to deny that an explosion of the N2O tank would dramatically increase the polybutadiene's surface area? What, exactly, is your argument against runaway detonation of solid fuels in an oxidizer-rich environment?
Well, if both the combustion chamber and the N2O tank ruptures at the same time, what you'll have is one or more large piece(s) of burning HTPB flying though a really cold (as it's boiling off) cloud of liquid and gaseous N2O. It might burn while it's passing the cloud, but probably not, the pressure drop when the combustion chamber went away likely flamed it out. If it burns, the surface area of the HTPB is probably higher than before (might burn on all surfaces, might have broken) but the pressure will be vastly lower. Once the HTPB passes the N2O cloud, it will just be a possibly burning piece of rubber, and that will be it.
If it happens on the ground, then the pieces of HTPB might end up in a puddle of liquid N2O. That could probably be a fairly hot fire, but I haven't seen or heard about that failure mode, so I'm not sure. Doesn't apply to SS-1 anyway, since they light the motor while under way.
If you'd have a hybrid with a brittle grain that could shatter and really increase its' surface area, and an oxidiser that doesn't need to be broken down, say GOX, then I agree that you could get a proper fireball out of it.
Are you unfamiliar, for example, with hybrid rocket explosions? Despite the fact that hybrids are used notably less,
Well, thay are a bit new compared to solids and biprop liquids...
they don't have the safety record pancae illusion that a lot of people imagine. Both NASA and Amroc have had case ruptures on their hybrids that would have destroyed manned vehicles - and they weren't even using an pressurized oxidizer that is gasseous essentially instantly apon leaving the tank, like N2O (Amroc, for example, was using H2O2).
Well, most any case rupture is going to be fatal to the craft, and that can happen in any rocket motor. What happens then is the interesting part. If you have any details of more spectacular hybrid failures (especially with N2O), I'd love to hear about them.
LOX is cryogenic, and kept below -183C. Kerosene's freezing point is -73C. When they touch, the kerosene freezes into solid, less flammable chunks, preventing it from having the low surface area and high volatility needed for a conflagration or detonation (it doesn't even burn slowly that well when frozen).
Well that explantion certainly makes sense. But I'm not sure. This (mixing LOX with, well, anything) is not something I've ever done personally, and I don't feel like it either.
It's a well known fact that a LOX spill on asphalt (long hydrocarbons) creates a dangerous high explosive, that's very sensitive to pressure. And the asphalt is solid to begin with, unlike kerosene that need to freeze first.
The effect of GOX on any oil/grease and the need for O2 cleaning is also well known, and I know of
spill procedures for LOX that treat anything touched by it as a contact explosive. MSDSes say to keep it away from hydrocarbons.
I agree that LOX is a lot more dangerous on the ground than once in flight. And anyway, with these kinds of failure, discounting passengers on the craft, from a range safety point of view, a detonation at altitude might well be better than just a fire, because of the smaller pieces downrange.
Hybrid rocket motors are *simpler* than bipropellant rockets. That makes them less prone to *failure*, but it doesn't make their failures less catastrophic.
The danger of failure depends a lot on what's in it. You could have a LOX-and-plastic/rubber/whatever hybrid, and I'd call that a hell of a lot more dangerous than any N2O one.
I can't find exact stats on how much it's pressurized to, but it's not uncommon to find N2O rockets with pressures up to 50 atmospheres at launch (steadily decreasing thereafter)
Vapor pressure of N2O is about 50 atm, so yeah, that's where they'll all be. You need to feed the hybrid liquid N2O.
In short, the vast majority of the oxidizer is *incredibly pressurized*, and is *gasseous*.
Nope. Most of it is a liquid. In the beginning essentially all of it is, but as you use up liquid N20, some will (of course) boil off to fill the space in the tank.
And 50 atm is not very high pressure, especially not in comparison to LOX.
In case you're not familiar, surface area is everything with solid fuels. You can select your thrust over time by the pattern that you cut into the center of the solid rocket booster (circle, star, etc). The reason that solid rocket boosters tend to fail catastrophicly is because when they're ruptured, their surface area increases, and the explosion takes off exponentially (as described above). While hybrid rocket motors don't have the oxidizer mixed in, the situation we're describing is a rupture of the oxidizer tank - and since the oxidizer is a pressurized gas, it will be all over the solid fuel and ready to combust.
The oxidizer will be all over it, but at a much lower pressure than before, when the motor was running as it should.
The solid fuel will burn significantly slower (if at all) should the pressure drop (as in after the chamber has ruptured). Look, a major problem with hybrids like this is their low burn rate even at the correct pressure.
On the other hand, getting a fast conflagration from LOX and kerosene isn't that simple.
Are you kidding? LOX and kerosene (or, hell, pretty much anything that will burn at att in air) is an explosive. You're lucky if it just burns, it's likely to detonate.
Have you ever tried to get a conflagration from gasoline? It's not that simple. You need proper mixing ratios and fine particle size of the gasoline.
In air. Not when it's mixed with LOX.
Look,. N2O hybrids are super safe. Hobbyists use them all the time, they are not considered experimental, you can buy a motor like that off the shelf. (Google for hypertek, rattworks, west coast hybrids etc.)
LOX is not used at all in the high-power rocketry hobby (It is used sometimes in really big, exepimental amateur rockets. RRS has had a few firings etc., but not in regular HPR)
Wild Fire is a LOX/Kerosene rocket designed with a pretty impressive "simulate the heck out of everything first!" methodology. SpaceShipOne is an N2O/Polybutadiene hybrid rocket. While both involve pressurization (since neither use a turbopump), the pressurized substance in SpaceShipOne is much larger, and is the oxidizer itself (as opposed to a relatively small helium tank in the case of Wild Fire). Furthermore, with a gaseous oxidizer, the explosion would be a lot more violent. So, if I have to call one a "big bomb", I'd call SpaceShipOne the "big bomb".
I disagree, a N2O/plastic motor like that is very safe, and a lot less complex than any biprop liquid. The pressurization you talk about is not the big deal. The LOX and the hydrocarbon can mix and become super dangerous, the N20 and plastic can not.
At altitude none of that matters of course, but the guy was talking about it from a bomb perspective, I guess he meant "what if it drops somewhere and goes kablooie". The biprop is a lot worse in that scenario. (The hybrid would pop as the nitrous tank gets ruptured, but that should be it. No explosion.)
NetCraft has successfully identified my exterior Linux Virtual Server boxes, RedHat; great.
Huh? It should see the real servers, that's what it's talking to. (The number will (probably) still be way off, but you probably make up for it in vhosts anyway.)
But the OS of the LVS box shouldn't matter at all, exapt maybe if they do some kind of IP profiling, and even then it'd have to be something weird. It's just acting as a router after all.
How many 747s have had ballistic missiled fired at them? How many have been shot down by targeted missiles? Does that really pose a significant threat to our international travel?
That's not the point. The idea is to cruise for a long time over the battlefield, and zab ballistic missiles during the boost phase, should any take off. Think of the first gulf war (not the iran-iraq one, the one with iraq vs the rest of the world), when a big concern was mobile launchers launching scuds out of nowhere.
The missiles are easier to hit in the boost phase, since they're not moving that fast yet, and there's a big and hot rocket plume behind them. They are also easier to destroy, since they're still full of rocket fuel. Also if they have nasty NBC stuff in them, it lands back where the things was fired from (more or less) as opposed to where they was aimed (more or less).
If you want to talk about a loss of US investments, the US lost a lot more money when Mexico altered their constitution to forbid any foreigners from owning anything below Mexican soil. But you still don't see the kind of bad blood between the US and Mexico as you see between the US and Cuba.
Huh? Can you elaborate on this? it sounds really weird, and I hadn't heard of it before.
If foreigners can't own anything below Mexican soil, does that mean I (as a Swede) could buy a house, but the basement would belong to the government? Or could I only own a house with no basement? Or what? Is this about oil wells? What about a normal water well? What about buried fiber?
Well, I haven't tried with laptops, but they certainly have good suppoort for servers (we have a lot of 2650/1750/1650 boxes running linux.)
They even sell linux with them on the web, although the swedish pages haven't got RHEL 3 yet, just 2.1, but you can call them and you'll get 3.0. No "MS tax" there.
Desktops, at least some of them also seem well supported, they replaced a batch of emu10k1x-based sblive cards for regular emu10k1 ones about a year ago when the "x" version first turned up.
Slashdot Mirror
Yessir.
Well, adverts for PC's said "has 20MB of memory" meaning "has a 20MB HDD". /
Yeah, well, I can't say I remember such ads, but sure, maybe people did that. It was obviously wrong, and they've stopped doing that. What's the problem?
And it was powers-of-two megs.
Kind of shot yourself in the nuts with that one.
Huh? No. Even if your argument had made any sense, those disks were using power-of-ten sizing, at least mostly. Of course, the difference was smaller then, so you'd notice it less.
And when it comes to telecoms, it was all baud. Which WAS NOT 1 bit/sec. And powers-of-ten when it was used was accepted because you had 8 bits, a stop bit and a parity bit. 10 bit bytes.
No.
Well, yeah, baud isn't the same thing as bps, that's true. Everything anybody cared about was the bps number though, even though many people (wrongly) called that baud. Ie V.32bis (14.4 kbps, )(and those are actual "k"s - 1000) used 2400 baud.
And it's true that you could figure the transfer speed in bytes to be about 10:1. But that's completely unrelated to the question about power-of-2/10. I assure you that a kbaud also would have meant 1000 baud. (baud is deprecated, btw, mostly because people keep getting this wrong. "Symbols per second" is the new hotness.)
Please show me where hard drives use 10 bit bytes...
Huh?
Also, at some point this needs to get fixed. The error gets bigger for every generation:
difference between:
It's useful to be able to figure how long it takes to transfer a 10 "TB" file across a 10Gb ethernet connection without having to know about the obscure 10% fudge factor.
Data on Flash memory (e.g. usb drives) has a tendancy to burn in. The longer it's in there the more it burns in. There's no real way to counter this. The only way to theoretically wipe it is to do several passes each a few weeks apart.
References please.
I don't mean that in a bad way, but I'd really like to see some hard data on the erasability of flash disks. I also think that a simple bunch of overwrites will do it, and that doing things like small-root-on-flash,-all-physical-disks-on-lvm-ove r-dm.drypt will do it, but I have't seen the paper published yet...
The current procedure in places where I've been is to keep sensitve disks in a safe (and in the inventory) until they're too old to be desirable by tech folks (or anyone else. We killed 2-, 4-, and 9-GB disk this year.), and then destroy them. Which insn't bad, but it can end up being a lot of (physcal) storage until the burn-date comes. Which is a risk in itself.
Everytime I hear of the milatary using these (and losing them, which they seem to do regularly), it pisses me off. They must have had an IT guy telling to never use that stuff, and to encrypt their data. For some reason the higher ups just seem to not get the point, and they still use it, and leave them behind in their rented cars.
When you hear about things like this ("disposed of" laptops etc), is when someone didn't follow their procedure for disposal. The military (all nations) is the frontrunner of these things. They have the right idea. Why spend lots of thought on ways to securely wipe disks when you can just destroy them securely with stuff like thermite or explosives, and be sure. The hardware cost is nothing compared to the labor (and, if you account for it, security) cost.
Lost/stolen laptops are harder problems though. Encryption is the only thing that helps there, but there are good tools for it these days.
I know by itself thermite and similar methods have difficulty penetrating the outer case reliably, but I would think drill+thermite injection to fill the internal cavity of the system would be effective..
Takes too long to drill the disks and insert the thermite, while your spy plane is spiralling down.
And anyway, if the themite didn't fully destroy the disks, you weren't using enough of it. See?What the hell kind of reasoning is that?
Are you saying that repression of women is (more) OK, because men are also repressed? Two wrongs make a right?
The reason for that is that buttons (being moving parts) break often. And the part with the broken button gets returned to the store. A remote is a lot cheaper to both replace and ship than the thing the remote controls.
On a stereo, you have stuff like knobs and sliders which are even more prone to breakage than a standard button, so it gets even more attractive there.
Sun used to ship 21" screens back in the day (circa 1997) that had basically just a remote and a power button. Nowadays, screens have some kind of on-screen menu system (or are usb controllable), but the idea is the same: Fewer buttons -> fewer returns.
And the XB70 Valkyrie would have. The most beautiful plane that never was.
And if he does, he'll have to fill out a TPS report, right?
Emacs? This thing will be awesome for nethack neophytes!
They have longish range missiles. And unproven long-range ones.
If they even had SCUDs testing, we'd be there in a hot minute.
They certainly have scuds. The "No dong" (I kid you not, that's what they called it) is sort of an upgraded scud too (new engine, whole thing scaled up, but basic design still the same (same propellant, kerosene+RFNA), still have the jet vanes etc))
Hell, they exported scuds to yemen a couple years ago.
Scuds have tange of about 100km, the no-dongs about 1300 km (no-dong 1) to about 1500 km (no-dong 2)
Their real ICBM is called the Taepo-dong. They tried to launch a satellite using it in 1998, but it failed.
Wikipedia article"
If enough pizzas were in demand in a given location to fill the warhead, the delivery cost (assuming you don't have to pay for the missile) would only be 10-20$ per pizza.
According to her, he looked at her like she was completely insane.
And that, right there, is why the west won the cold war.
None of these guys to direct marketing though, they do print and large poster ads. There's a lot of really cool stuff being done with TV ads as well, think of the stuff on superbowl, the honda cog thing, etc.
They all seem to think direct markering is uncreative, low budget and sleazy. I'd add web ads in the same category, perhaps even worse.
/August.
You would, now would you? Care to explain why LOX, which is generally minimally pressurized and would require vaporization before rapid conflagration would be a risk, would be more dangerous than already gasseous (i.e., as soon as it leaves the tank and its pressure drops) and highly pressurized N2O?
N2O doesn't work as an oxidizer until it's been decomposed (to GOX and N2) by heat/pressure. That's a reason why it'd be safe. (And also part of why they're a bit of a hassle to get lit) In every single one of the (destructive) hybrid failures I've seen, they flamed out after the initial pop.
As I mentioned, it [burn rate] is completely proportional to surface area. Are you going to deny this? Or are you going to deny that an explosion of the N2O tank would dramatically increase the polybutadiene's surface area? What, exactly, is your argument against runaway detonation of solid fuels in an oxidizer-rich environment?
Well, if both the combustion chamber and the N2O tank ruptures at the same time, what you'll have is one or more large piece(s) of burning HTPB flying though a really cold (as it's boiling off) cloud of liquid and gaseous N2O. It might burn while it's passing the cloud, but probably not, the pressure drop when the combustion chamber went away likely flamed it out. If it burns, the surface area of the HTPB is probably higher than before (might burn on all surfaces, might have broken) but the pressure will be vastly lower. Once the HTPB passes the N2O cloud, it will just be a possibly burning piece of rubber, and that will be it.
If it happens on the ground, then the pieces of HTPB might end up in a puddle of liquid N2O. That could probably be a fairly hot fire, but I haven't seen or heard about that failure mode, so I'm not sure. Doesn't apply to SS-1 anyway, since they light the motor while under way.
If you'd have a hybrid with a brittle grain that could shatter and really increase its' surface area, and an oxidiser that doesn't need to be broken down, say GOX, then I agree that you could get a proper fireball out of it.
Are you unfamiliar, for example, with hybrid rocket explosions? Despite the fact that hybrids are used notably less,
Well, thay are a bit new compared to solids and biprop liquids...
they don't have the safety record pancae illusion that a lot of people imagine. Both NASA and Amroc have had case ruptures on their hybrids that would have destroyed manned vehicles - and they weren't even using an pressurized oxidizer that is gasseous essentially instantly apon leaving the tank, like N2O (Amroc, for example, was using H2O2).
Well, most any case rupture is going to be fatal to the craft, and that can happen in any rocket motor. What happens then is the interesting part. If you have any details of more spectacular hybrid failures (especially with N2O), I'd love to hear about them.
LOX is cryogenic, and kept below -183C. Kerosene's freezing point is -73C. When they touch, the kerosene freezes into solid, less flammable chunks, preventing it from having the low surface area and high volatility needed for a conflagration or detonation (it doesn't even burn slowly that well when frozen).
Well that explantion certainly makes sense. But I'm not sure. This (mixing LOX with, well, anything) is not something I've ever done personally, and I don't feel like it either.
It's a well known fact that a LOX spill on asphalt (long hydrocarbons) creates a dangerous high explosive, that's very sensitive to pressure. And the asphalt is solid to begin with, unlike kerosene that need to freeze first.
The effect of GOX on any oil/grease and the need for O2 cleaning is also well known, and I know of spill procedures for LOX that treat anything touched by it as a contact explosive. MSDSes say to keep it away from hydrocarbons.
I agree that LOX is a lot more dangerous on the ground than once in flight. And anyway, with these kinds of failure, discounting passengers on the craft, from a range safety point of view, a detonation at altitude might well be better than just a fire, because of the smaller pieces downrange.
The danger of failure depends a lot on what's in it. You could have a LOX-and-plastic/rubber/whatever hybrid, and I'd call that a hell of a lot more dangerous than any N2O one.
I can't find exact stats on how much it's pressurized to, but it's not uncommon to find N2O rockets with pressures up to 50 atmospheres at launch (steadily decreasing thereafter)
Vapor pressure of N2O is about 50 atm, so yeah, that's where they'll all be. You need to feed the hybrid liquid N2O.
In short, the vast majority of the oxidizer is *incredibly pressurized*, and is *gasseous*.
Nope. Most of it is a liquid. In the beginning essentially all of it is, but as you use up liquid N20, some will (of course) boil off to fill the space in the tank.
And 50 atm is not very high pressure, especially not in comparison to LOX.
In case you're not familiar, surface area is everything with solid fuels. You can select your thrust over time by the pattern that you cut into the center of the solid rocket booster (circle, star, etc). The reason that solid rocket boosters tend to fail catastrophicly is because when they're ruptured, their surface area increases, and the explosion takes off exponentially (as described above). While hybrid rocket motors don't have the oxidizer mixed in, the situation we're describing is a rupture of the oxidizer tank - and since the oxidizer is a pressurized gas, it will be all over the solid fuel and ready to combust.
The oxidizer will be all over it, but at a much lower pressure than before, when the motor was running as it should. The solid fuel will burn significantly slower (if at all) should the pressure drop (as in after the chamber has ruptured). Look, a major problem with hybrids like this is their low burn rate even at the correct pressure.
On the other hand, getting a fast conflagration from LOX and kerosene isn't that simple.
Are you kidding? LOX and kerosene (or, hell, pretty much anything that will burn at att in air) is an explosive. You're lucky if it just burns, it's likely to detonate.
Have you ever tried to get a conflagration from gasoline? It's not that simple. You need proper mixing ratios and fine particle size of the gasoline.
In air. Not when it's mixed with LOX.
Look,. N2O hybrids are super safe. Hobbyists use them all the time, they are not considered experimental, you can buy a motor like that off the shelf. (Google for hypertek, rattworks, west coast hybrids etc.)
LOX is not used at all in the high-power rocketry hobby (It is used sometimes in really big, exepimental amateur rockets. RRS has had a few firings etc., but not in regular HPR)
I disagree, a N2O/plastic motor like that is very safe, and a lot less complex than any biprop liquid. The pressurization you talk about is not the big deal. The LOX and the hydrocarbon can mix and become super dangerous, the N20 and plastic can not.
At altitude none of that matters of course, but the guy was talking about it from a bomb perspective, I guess he meant "what if it drops somewhere and goes kablooie". The biprop is a lot worse in that scenario. (The hybrid would pop as the nitrous tank gets ruptured, but that should be it. No explosion.)
Not in the end. But in the beginning.
I'm surprised at your pessimistic view on future space travel, especially with a name like MarsDefenseMinister.
Huh? It should see the real servers, that's what it's talking to. (The number will (probably) still be way off, but you probably make up for it in vhosts anyway.)
But the OS of the LVS box shouldn't matter at all, exapt maybe if they do some kind of IP profiling, and even then it'd have to be something weird. It's just acting as a router after all.
There's some (small but cool) video of it in action on the page.
That's not the point. The idea is to cruise for a long time over the battlefield, and zab ballistic missiles during the boost phase, should any take off. Think of the first gulf war (not the iran-iraq one, the one with iraq vs the rest of the world), when a big concern was mobile launchers launching scuds out of nowhere.
The missiles are easier to hit in the boost phase, since they're not moving that fast yet, and there's a big and hot rocket plume behind them. They are also easier to destroy, since they're still full of rocket fuel. Also if they have nasty NBC stuff in them, it lands back where the things was fired from (more or less) as opposed to where they was aimed (more or less).
Huh? Can you elaborate on this? it sounds really weird, and I hadn't heard of it before.
If foreigners can't own anything below Mexican soil, does that mean I (as a Swede) could buy a house, but the basement would belong to the government? Or could I only own a house with no basement? Or what? Is this about oil wells? What about a normal water well? What about buried fiber?
/August.
They even sell linux with them on the web, although the swedish pages haven't got RHEL 3 yet, just 2.1, but you can call them and you'll get 3.0. No "MS tax" there.
Desktops, at least some of them also seem well supported, they replaced a batch of emu10k1x-based sblive cards for regular emu10k1 ones about a year ago when the "x" version first turned up.
/August.