Some may think so, but I disagree completely. I don't want an my audio electronics to sound warm. In fact I don't want it to sound of *anything*; I only want to hear what it is supposed to be reproducing. If it adds any sound of its own then it's not doing its job properly. If the music it is playing needs anything added then the musicians weren't doing their jobs properly.
I agree with you. On the subject of audiophiles, many prefer vinyl to CD. Yet any real sound geek will tell you that vinyl, while having a theoretical higher quality due to it being analog, will always have distortion due to scratches and imperfections. The "warmer" sound of vinyl is just the needle scratching the record itself.
I couldn't get anywhere near 5% the speed of light. The engines aren't that fuel efficient at all. I'm too lazy to do a real calculation, but to accelerate one ton that fast, not taking into account fuel weight, would require 500 tons of fuel using a Deep Space 1 ion engine. That means that in reality, a.05 craft weighing in a mere one ton empty would need a mass of xenon much greater than a supertanker.
There is no friction in space so inertia will carry they ship at a constant velocity, that is unless its constantly accelerating as is the case with the Ion drive. It would take a long time but you should eventually be able to reach near relativistic speeds seeing as you are accelerating constantly albiet at a very slow pace.
Unless you want to carry a few solar masses worth of xenon, you cannot get to relativistic speeds with an ion engine. The exhaust velocity of DS1 was 30km/sec. Now, C is 300,000 km/sec. This means that the stuff travelling out the back of the ion thruster is going a mere 1/3000 of lightspeed. Using Newton's laws, you can see that it is completely impractical to reach such a speed with an ion thruster.
A better idea would be a laser sail, in which a multi-terrawatt orbital laser would propel a spacecraft many miles wide composed of gold film. Due to the fact that it would carry no fuel, it could reach near lightspeed. Other, slower options, include very advanced fusion engines, although that might not be that efficient in practice.
Question: What does escape velocity have to do with this, unless the satellite is shot from a cannon? From what I understand, escape velocity is the velocity needed for an object without propulsion to fly off to space despite gravity.
However, if you've got a rocket, that shouldn't matter. If you have something that keeps pushing you'll eventually get to space, even if it's ascending at 1 KM/h.
Or I'm missing something here?
If I take my rocket, and go up 200,000 miles vertically from the surface of the earth, I will fall back down again. Escape velocity is needed to leave the orbit of a body. It does applies to rockets, as well as everything else in the universe. If you push something at 1 km/hr towards space, it will just fall back down again.
Rockets actually just propel their payloads to greater angular velocities, which puts them in higher orbits.
don;t know about actual nums (though I'm sure some arma whore'll dig 'em up) but ion is more efficient for longer distances (i.e. the farther you go the faster you go). This is due to the fact that its a constant acceleration requiring little/no fuel. It doesnt give great initial thrust as compared to normal engines, but it can build its speed gradually to approach (though of course not reach) the speed of light. for stopping at your destination you could do a burn of a fuel based engine.
so the short answer to you question is yes, thoug cyogenics are even farther from usefulness right now than this is for such type of travel.
Ion engines cannot get anywhere near the speed of light, although they can be over ten times as efficient as chemical engines.
Despite the fun of French-bashing, it should be pointed out that French Army wasn't all that incompetant. It was just that the Germans bypassed the Maginot line by steamrolling Holland and Belgium.
The French were quite incompetant when they decided not to extend the Maginot line over those borders, considering that is exactly how the German Army entered France in WW1.
It's not necesarily a detriment to have greater working mass, even if it is inert N2. A ultra high exhaust temerature will increase the exhaust velocity, but only to a certain extent. It is more efficient to shove a large amount of mass out the back, even if the exhaust velocity is lower.
Jets are not more efficient than rockets. Actually, because they have to obtain their oxidizer from the surrounding atmosphere, they are quite a bit less efficient. The atmosphere is mostly useless nitrogen, varies in density with altitude, and is blasting against the craft at supersonic speeds. Jet engines are only useful in conjunction with wings when you're flying in the atmosphere for extended periods and at constant speeds. Since you don't have to carry your oxidizer and are supported by the air, you can cruise for extended periods. Orbital rockets constantly accelerate and get out of the atmosphere as fast as possible.
Jet engines are not more efficient than rockets just because O2 doesn't need to be carried. The air actually provides the majority of the working mass, with the fuel only serving to heat. Jet engines have efficiencies much greater than even our best ion thrusters.
I suppose you would use cartridges, in combination with anti-scratch coatings. (The polycarbonate used in CDs and DVDs seems to be explicitly designed to scratch.)
People more versed in physics than I am can answer this:
The lasers used for optical media keep on progressing to higher frequency light, which is better able to resolve things. Where is the likely end for optical media?
Past ultraviolet light is x-rays and gamma rays I think... Will they be used for optical media? They are known as "dangerous", but perhaps in low power situations they aren't too bad? Or, you could just have the optical drive shielded in lead:)
Microscopes haved moved past light, into "electron microscopes", which used streams of electrons to resolve things that light cannot. Will that be possible with our optical media techniques?
It would be so low power that it wouldn't be dangerous. But, x-rays and gamma rays don't act like normal light. They would just coast right through a plastic disc. You wouldn't be able to reflect it off of lead like a normal disc, either. Perhaps an xray disc might be more like a shadow mask. Alternating lead/no lead.
In space, since there is no air, it would be the equivalent of being in a thermos bottle. An object in space only loses radiant heat, which is not much.
So an astronaut would keep toasty warm in a scandalously revealing skin tight suit. Sunlight is the real bugaboo, though. You would burn your ass off.
I've heard an interesting plan for a moon base: Make a big carbon fiber fabric bubble. Inflate to 14 PSI. Spray it with special epoxy that will solidify in the harsh lunar sun. Then, pile moonrocks on top of it. The rocks, of course, will weigh little due to the low gravity.
With only a couple hundred pounds, you have a ready made structure that shields against cold, heat, vacuum, and radiation.
The Buran looks almost exactly like the space shuttle. But that is because there is only so many ways you can have a big plane hit the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds and not turn into a meteor. It's really quite different, though. For example, it purely uses a Energiya booster to reach orbit, rather than mainly relying on its own engines.
German shepards. I have a diabetic cousin that has one. This dog has pawed at her face to keep her awake when she has started to go into diabetic comas. It even frightened off a prowler once.
Also, it dilligently watches their baby, and even gently plays with it.
German Shepards are extremely intimidating, yet intelligent and friendly dogs. Excellent with children. They are not mindless attack dogs like pit bulls. Shepards always know who to attack and when.
Dresden occured on Febuary 13, 1945. The Luftwaffe posed little threat to British cities and airfields at that point in time. Germany was falling apart and on the verge of defeat. It was done more to impress the Red Army, which were just about rolling into that area.
Jesus, I'm so damn used to posting on forums using vbcode. I'll try again.
In 1941 the US was not a world power. In 2001 Al Qaeda tried to uncommit suicide by not taking responsibility for the attacks, though it didn't work so well.
The U.S. has been a world power since the late 19th century. Have you ever heard of the Spanish-American war?
[i]In 1941 the US was not a world power. In 2001 Al Qaeda tried to uncommit suicide by not taking responsibility for the attacks, though it didn't work so well.[/i]
[p]
The U.S. has been a world power since the late 19th century. Have you ever heard of the Spanish-American war?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but in practice 16 bit 44.1khz CD audio is almost perfect quality, and much better than vinyl.
Some may think so, but I disagree completely. I don't want an my audio electronics to sound warm. In fact I don't want it to sound of *anything*; I only want to hear what it is supposed to be reproducing. If it adds any sound of its own then it's not doing its job properly. If the music it is playing needs anything added then the musicians weren't doing their jobs properly.
I agree with you. On the subject of audiophiles, many prefer vinyl to CD. Yet any real sound geek will tell you that vinyl, while having a theoretical higher quality due to it being analog, will always have distortion due to scratches and imperfections. The "warmer" sound of vinyl is just the needle scratching the record itself.
I=it, by the way. However difficult it would be to get deep space one to such a velocity, it would even be more difficult to accelerate me that fast.
I couldn't get anywhere near 5% the speed of light. The engines aren't that fuel efficient at all. I'm too lazy to do a real calculation, but to accelerate one ton that fast, not taking into account fuel weight, would require 500 tons of fuel using a Deep Space 1 ion engine. That means that in reality, a .05 craft weighing in a mere one ton empty would need a mass of xenon much greater than a supertanker.
Vacuum tubes, as big as they were, were a huge improvement of the mechanical relay-powered early computers.
There is no friction in space so inertia will carry they ship at a constant velocity, that is unless its constantly accelerating as is the case with the Ion drive. It would take a long time but you should eventually be able to reach near relativistic speeds seeing as you are accelerating constantly albiet at a very slow pace.
Unless you want to carry a few solar masses worth of xenon, you cannot get to relativistic speeds with an ion engine. The exhaust velocity of DS1 was 30km/sec. Now, C is 300,000 km/sec. This means that the stuff travelling out the back of the ion thruster is going a mere 1/3000 of lightspeed. Using Newton's laws, you can see that it is completely impractical to reach such a speed with an ion thruster.
A better idea would be a laser sail, in which a multi-terrawatt orbital laser would propel a spacecraft many miles wide composed of gold film. Due to the fact that it would carry no fuel, it could reach near lightspeed. Other, slower options, include very advanced fusion engines, although that might not be that efficient in practice.
Question: What does escape velocity have to do with this, unless the satellite is shot from a cannon? From what I understand, escape velocity is the velocity needed for an object without propulsion to fly off to space despite gravity.
However, if you've got a rocket, that shouldn't matter. If you have something that keeps pushing you'll eventually get to space, even if it's ascending at 1 KM/h.
Or I'm missing something here?
If I take my rocket, and go up 200,000 miles vertically from the surface of the earth, I will fall back down again. Escape velocity is needed to leave the orbit of a body. It does applies to rockets, as well as everything else in the universe. If you push something at 1 km/hr towards space, it will just fall back down again.
Rockets actually just propel their payloads to greater angular velocities, which puts them in higher orbits.
don;t know about actual nums (though I'm sure some arma whore'll dig 'em up) but ion is more efficient for longer distances (i.e. the farther you go the faster you go). This is due to the fact that its a constant acceleration requiring little/no fuel. It doesnt give great initial thrust as compared to normal engines, but it can build its speed gradually to approach (though of course not reach) the speed of light. for stopping at your destination you could do a burn of a fuel based engine.
so the short answer to you question is yes, thoug cyogenics are even farther from usefulness right now than this is for such type of travel.
Ion engines cannot get anywhere near the speed of light, although they can be over ten times as efficient as chemical engines.
Despite the fun of French-bashing, it should be pointed out that French Army wasn't all that incompetant. It was just that the Germans bypassed the Maginot line by steamrolling Holland and Belgium.
The French were quite incompetant when they decided not to extend the Maginot line over those borders, considering that is exactly how the German Army entered France in WW1.
It's not necesarily a detriment to have greater working mass, even if it is inert N2. A ultra high exhaust temerature will increase the exhaust velocity, but only to a certain extent. It is more efficient to shove a large amount of mass out the back, even if the exhaust velocity is lower.
Jets are not more efficient than rockets. Actually, because they have to obtain their oxidizer from the surrounding atmosphere, they are quite a bit less efficient. The atmosphere is mostly useless nitrogen, varies in density with altitude, and is blasting against the craft at supersonic speeds. Jet engines are only useful in conjunction with wings when you're flying in the atmosphere for extended periods and at constant speeds. Since you don't have to carry your oxidizer and are supported by the air, you can cruise for extended periods. Orbital rockets constantly accelerate and get out of the atmosphere as fast as possible.
Jet engines are not more efficient than rockets just because O2 doesn't need to be carried. The air actually provides the majority of the working mass, with the fuel only serving to heat. Jet engines have efficiencies much greater than even our best ion thrusters.
I don't think it will. I just doubt the plane will hold together with that much pressure on it.
Better call up NASA to let them know about this problem.
I suppose you would use cartridges, in combination with anti-scratch coatings. (The polycarbonate used in CDs and DVDs seems to be explicitly designed to scratch.)
People more versed in physics than I am can answer this:
:)
The lasers used for optical media keep on progressing to higher frequency light, which is better able to resolve things. Where is the likely end for optical media?
Past ultraviolet light is x-rays and gamma rays I think... Will they be used for optical media? They are known as "dangerous", but perhaps in low power situations they aren't too bad? Or, you could just have the optical drive shielded in lead
Microscopes haved moved past light, into "electron microscopes", which used streams of electrons to resolve things that light cannot. Will that be possible with our optical media techniques?
It would be so low power that it wouldn't be dangerous. But, x-rays and gamma rays don't act like normal light. They would just coast right through a plastic disc. You wouldn't be able to reflect it off of lead like a normal disc, either. Perhaps an xray disc might be more like a shadow mask. Alternating lead/no lead.
I repeat the grandparent, "Why didn't he tell us about this before?"
Yeah. The story seems to be incorrect on that. Although LCOS or DLPs are not flat panel, with some optical tricks they aren't deep at all.
Why would you want the ultra-low storage capacity of a CF camcorder? Why not just get a digital camera with a movie function?
Since when is an apostrophe used to denote pluralism?
America's educational system produces poor English student's.
In space, since there is no air, it would be the equivalent of being in a thermos bottle. An object in space only loses radiant heat, which is not much.
So an astronaut would keep toasty warm in a scandalously revealing skin tight suit. Sunlight is the real bugaboo, though. You would burn your ass off.
I've heard an interesting plan for a moon base: Make a big carbon fiber fabric bubble. Inflate to 14 PSI. Spray it with special epoxy that will solidify in the harsh lunar sun. Then, pile moonrocks on top of it. The rocks, of course, will weigh little due to the low gravity.
With only a couple hundred pounds, you have a ready made structure that shields against cold, heat, vacuum, and radiation.
The Buran looks almost exactly like the space shuttle. But that is because there is only so many ways you can have a big plane hit the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds and not turn into a meteor. It's really quite different, though. For example, it purely uses a Energiya booster to reach orbit, rather than mainly relying on its own engines.
German shepards. I have a diabetic cousin that has one. This dog has pawed at her face to keep her awake when she has started to go into diabetic comas. It even frightened off a prowler once.
Also, it dilligently watches their baby, and even gently plays with it.
German Shepards are extremely intimidating, yet intelligent and friendly dogs. Excellent with children. They are not mindless attack dogs like pit bulls. Shepards always know who to attack and when.
Dresden occured on Febuary 13, 1945. The Luftwaffe posed little threat to British cities and airfields at that point in time. Germany was falling apart and on the verge of defeat. It was done more to impress the Red Army, which were just about rolling into that area.
In 1941 the US was not a world power. In 2001 Al Qaeda tried to uncommit suicide by not taking responsibility for the attacks, though it didn't work so well.
The U.S. has been a world power since the late 19th century. Have you ever heard of the Spanish-American war?
[i]In 1941 the US was not a world power. In 2001 Al Qaeda tried to uncommit suicide by not taking responsibility for the attacks, though it didn't work so well.[/i] [p] The U.S. has been a world power since the late 19th century. Have you ever heard of the Spanish-American war?