If you were to build a space-based radio telescope and nudge it over to one of the earth-sun trojan points, you'd have a 1 A.U. baseline. Is this technically feasable? How well does this sort of thing scale?
Given the design of the Apollo programme command modules, I would have to say that it's more likely that if the tank re-entered in a stable attutude (ie not tumbling), it'd be arse-backwards.
The shuttle main engines have been placed central to the mass of the joined shuttle/tank. The OMS engines (Orbital Maneuvering System), being placed much higher, are not. I expect the shuttle would tumble in orbit if the OMS were activated with the tank attached.
The reaction-control jets will have similar troubles. Remember the control problems the astronauts in Apollo 13 faced when trying to control the LEM with the command/service modules still joined?
All scientific laws are "theories", and to dismiss any of them as being _just_ a theory misses the point of why they are so defined.
A _good_ theory is one that is testable, and has a lot of supporting observations. You won't find many better than the Thermodynamics laws.
If you have the aptitude to challenge said laws, good luck, and say Hi for me to Sweden's king, but if not, you might as well regard them as truth.
The truth is : Free energy machines are impossible!
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, write-once FPGAs can run at much higher speeds than the SRAM-based volatile ones. It's a trade-off.
Hey, horses and donkeys can produce offspring, but they aren't fertile. This hybrid of which you speak might not be either.
If the brain was simple enough for us to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it.
If you were to build a space-based radio telescope and nudge it over to one of the earth-sun trojan points, you'd have a 1 A.U. baseline. Is this technically feasable? How well does this sort of thing scale?
If you're wondering why that's bad, try dumping some pencil shavings inside your PC.
Given the design of the Apollo programme command modules, I would have to say that it's more likely that if the tank re-entered in a stable attutude (ie not tumbling), it'd be arse-backwards.
The reaction-control jets will have similar troubles. Remember the control problems the astronauts in Apollo 13 faced when trying to control the LEM with the command/service modules still joined?
All scientific laws are "theories", and to dismiss any of them as being _just_ a theory misses the point of why they are so defined. A _good_ theory is one that is testable, and has a lot of supporting observations. You won't find many better than the Thermodynamics laws. If you have the aptitude to challenge said laws, good luck, and say Hi for me to Sweden's king, but if not, you might as well regard them as truth. The truth is : Free energy machines are impossible!