I keep seeing this type of comment, so I guess I will respond here. 65,000 pounds is essentially 3,000 pounds per year (assuming that this system, being digital, has a long life, and using somewhat standard depreciation rates). 3,000 pounds per year is not really enough to do much anyway - but that is not the propper way to look at it. You really look at it this way: The pool has a budget of X. Spending 3,000 pounds per year will make our lifeguards 20% more effective. We pay lifeguards 20,000 pounds per year, so this system is worth 4,000 pounds. We should buy the system.
Really, this is not an expensive system. Think about how much a large pool costs to install (millions, not thousands!) By building this into the pool, it is made far safer, without noticably increasing the cost.
BTW, if you do get into donating money (I hope you do!), be careful about who you give it to. Most of the international aid agencies don't provide much aid for the amount of money they are given. For example, the Red Cross (and others) sent many of their aid workers to the Tsunami effected area via FIRST CLASS AIR TICKETS! (They could have flown 5-10x the flights for the cost of that one ticket!) Look into the "Toyota Taliban" in Afganistan. These people are living extremely well, pulling down large salaries, doing big business. Oh, and they help some people too.
Personally, I donate between 10-20% of my salary to aid organizations. I try to split it between humanitarian stuff and education, but I really like education grants. I mainly use volunteer church organizations (so I know that the maximum possible good will come of the money). Some of the programs are pretty impressive - and all of the money goes to those that need it, not to some aid worker's inflated lifestyle...
What I find really interesting are these types of statements in light of the fact that two thirds of scientists believe in God. Even in biology (where belief rates are lowest), 59% believe in God!
Actually, it is vitually certain that insurance companies will pay very little if anything. You cannot get flood insurance when your propperty is below sea level. Just like you can't get earthquake insurance if your house is on a fault line.
The real reason for these comments is the animosity between the groups - and the animosity is almost entirely NASA's fault. When these people built their first and second companies, NASA would come over and tell their customers, "use us, we'll do it for free" until congress finally passed laws making that illegal.
Their mad because NASA used government money to compete with them, and they are justified in pointing out that they can accomplish great things spending less money than NASA used to spend trying to quash them.
(Not that NASA didn't have the best of intentions, mind you [safety, etc.], but we all know what paves the road the hell...)
Heh, yes, but what I am saying is that the line between need and want is arbitrary (and I would bet you will change your line throughout your life). Why is companionship a need while freedom is not? Does that mean you would not be upset if I placed you in a 6x6 cell as long as I fed, clothed and accompanied you? The edges are fuzzy... and that's the problem. You say a normal person kills to survive, so it is a need. A psychopath kills for a hamburger (they kill for anything!), doesn't that make a hamburger a need (at least for them)?
Worst problem... basically a good ole boy crony network
Interestingly enough, this is done on purpose - and is the most efficient system we have. You don't dare risk your corporation and assets on someone you don't know personally, no matter how highly recommended he comes. This is a good system, it works.
The problem is people like you don't work to get on those networks - the networks need good people, and its not that hard to get in...
Essentially, I disagree. Needs and wants are virtually the same. For example (extending your logic), why do we need food? So that we don't die. But why don't we just die, it's simpler, easier? The reason is that we don't want to die. There are no needs, just a higherarchy of interrelated wants. Or, saying the same thing, every want is a need at some level - so yes, we do "need" a McDonald's hamburger, otherwise they would not show a profit.
The line between needs and wants is arbitrary - and says a lot about what the line drawer wants to impose on others...
Because of how capitalism works, the answer is YES, by definition (if we didn't need the hamburgers, we wouldn't pay for them, and they would cease to exist). Or are you of the evil hamburger conspiracy persuasion?;-}
We need many things - the true failing of most totalitarian/communistic societies is too much focus, not enough breadth. We do have people working on the whole "get along with each other" thing. In fact, in many ways our society is best of class in that reguard - but most of these tings only work internally, not with people outside the country.
You are a psychopath because you value some things (your pleasure, happiness, etc.) more than the lives/happiness/etc of others. It really doesn't matter what you value more than someone's life (marshmellows, communism, women) - just that your values are messed up with relation to others.
Actually, management classes are just about getting the best result for you - they don't involve necessarily hurting others. (In fact, as you go into more advanced classes, you find out why hurting others almost never works via game theory)
The reason capitalism works is survival of the fittest. The only way that works is if the non-fittest are penalized sufficiently so that they decide to do something else (that they can be best at). Otherwise, everyone would do what they want rather than what society needs, and no work would get done!
I'm one of the people trying to build a company around this - and let me tell you, I would be overjoyed at getting 1% of the 7 million people. Work the numbers: 1% of 7 million is 70,000. 70,000 times $200,000 is $14,000,000. $14 M is plenty to finance the initial work - and then the price will come down!
Personally, I don't think it will work that way. I think a lot of the draw to a space excursion is the fact that no one has done it before - once lots of people have done it, the market will fall off. The real money to be made is in space shipping, not space airliners. (Fortunately, people are working on both!)
First of all, being wealthy (or more precisely, being the family of someone weathly) is not a crime and should not invite attack. Second, doing this to anyone would be dangerous to that person (and even attacking wealthy people is immoral and illegal).
I'm not talking about extra protection - I am saying that anyone deserves this protection. (And that if someone did this to my family, they would be hurt a lot worse than this!)
Yes, the CEO is a public figure - but his family is not. They crossed the line when they gave names and addresses of his family. I would have done far more in response for that, I think what they did was pretty mild.
If someone did this to me I'd be pretty mad too. Publish what you want about me, BUT LEAVE MY FAMILY OUT OF IT! In this modern world, publishing information on a widely published source can put lives in danger - especially for the wealthy. Because there exists a class of people that when they read this article the thought goes through their minds - "hey, I could kidnap this guys kids - I know where they live." Yes, the information is available on Google - but security by obscurity does provide some protection here, and the publisher increased the level of risk to the family.
You cross the line (and I get my gun and ignore all laws) when you threaten or endanger my family. And if you think this is not endangerment, you do not understand society. (Think about it, why does noone mention the spouses of public figures?)
You were stating that SSTO was not possible with current technology because of the required mass ratio - I refuted that by demonstrating a past technology that had more than enough (too much, in fact) power, and a perfectly acceptable mass ratio for SSTO. It was built and flown, but not in the mission I described. I think that is as close to an existence proof as you can get in this situation.
The key is that it wouldn't be reuseable - but quite possibly a newer design using the most recent technologies could have been.
1) You are wrong - the Titan configuration put a few tons to LEO. The real problem is that the engine would need to be throttled down, and the Titan engine was not throttlable. (On the other hand, it is pretty straightforward to decrease an engines performance!)
2) You are still not quite correct - did you forget to include the boosters? Details: GLOW: 2,041,200 kilograms Payload Max: 24,948 kilograms Orbiter Mass: 104,328 kilograms
So its more like 20:1
It still makes my point, the Shuttle is not an example of good engineering for a cargo launcher - it is an example of how launching a space station for every flight is expensive, even if that space station is reuseable!
The rocket equation does not put any limits on space flight, only our (lack of) design experience puts those limits in. (I think I should know, I am in the business after all!)
As to your snide comments, please grow up;-} I'm not really trying to impress the rocket equation, it's already married!
Re:Whatever happened to single-stage-to-orbit?
on
NASA's Shuttle Plans
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that the only reason this is true is because the washing machine was designed to fit the shuttle.
It could have been sent up 1 kg at a time, if instead of 3 big gyros (which bring down the station when they fail) they used 100 small gyros with easily swappable parts. It would weigh a little bit more though, so the "cost conscious" designers used the washing machine...
BTW, the true advantage of propane is that it is temperature compatible with LOX, so the tanks can share a common bulkhead. Other than that, it has slightly higher Isp than kerosene, and is denser. Other advantages, such as high speed gas injection, can be used depending on engine design. (There are also some really neat pumping methods the work almost exclusively with liquid propane at LOX temperatures, but I don't want to go into that...)
That said, I think there are better ways to acheive a reusable SSTO - I guess we'll see if I'm right!
1) The Titan II first stage has a sufficient mass ratio to be a SSTO. SSTO is 60s technology, and already flown hardware! (Reuseable, on the other hand, has yet to be accomplished in any form.)
2) Did you know that the Space Shuttle has the worst GLOW:payload ratio in the business? It is 75:1! Hydrogen is a horrible fuel - modern rockets avoid except for upper stages (even then they avoid it if possible!). For comparison, Delta, Atlas, and Pegasus are about 40-50:1, using denser fuels. (The density help an awful lot when dealing with pressure vessels, so the Isp savings of hydrogen are vastly outwieghed by the density problem.)
3) When my SSTO flies, I guess that will be the ultimate test, right? (I hope;-} )
The exact usage may be wrong in this case, however it is customary to call the transformation of a low power, long time draw into a high power, short time draw "generation" of pulsed power. Even though, as you say, no real power is generated. I think the key word is "pulsed" power.
To make it even better: if 1,000 people took the ride the total revenue would be $200M, which would probably just break even after development and setting up the business. For reference: SS1 cost about $20M, flew only twice, carried only one person, and was virtually certain to kill someone eventually (that's why they retired it - it was more of a learn from mistakes type of craft). This one will have 3x the payload, have to fly many times, and NOT have the primary atitude control system fail...
Actually, if ice were the problem they would ignore it - they typically do not bother to insulate LOX tanks, for example, because they form an ice layer that is a very effective insulator (the ice falls off during launch, but in a normal rocket nothing is below the tank to hit!).
The problem with LH is that it condenses oxygen from the atmosphere onto it. That does two really bad things - first, you now have lox all over the place turning everything around it into a high explosive (pratically any porous substance, like concrete or asphalt, becomes a high explosive when saturated with LOX), and this is not a good thing to have around when lighting up a rocket. Second, condensing the LOX adds a lot of energy into the LH, boiling it, possibly raising the pressure enough to rupture the tank - KABOOM! (Remember that LOX sitting around outside the tank? Great stuff!)
Even if the LH tank doesn't rupture, you would never get the tank full enough to fly...
Slashdot Mirror
I keep seeing this type of comment, so I guess I will respond here. 65,000 pounds is essentially 3,000 pounds per year (assuming that this system, being digital, has a long life, and using somewhat standard depreciation rates). 3,000 pounds per year is not really enough to do much anyway - but that is not the propper way to look at it. You really look at it this way: The pool has a budget of X. Spending 3,000 pounds per year will make our lifeguards 20% more effective. We pay lifeguards 20,000 pounds per year, so this system is worth 4,000 pounds. We should buy the system.
Really, this is not an expensive system. Think about how much a large pool costs to install (millions, not thousands!) By building this into the pool, it is made far safer, without noticably increasing the cost.
BTW, if you do get into donating money (I hope you do!), be careful about who you give it to. Most of the international aid agencies don't provide much aid for the amount of money they are given. For example, the Red Cross (and others) sent many of their aid workers to the Tsunami effected area via FIRST CLASS AIR TICKETS! (They could have flown 5-10x the flights for the cost of that one ticket!) Look into the "Toyota Taliban" in Afganistan. These people are living extremely well, pulling down large salaries, doing big business. Oh, and they help some people too.
Personally, I donate between 10-20% of my salary to aid organizations. I try to split it between humanitarian stuff and education, but I really like education grants. I mainly use volunteer church organizations (so I know that the maximum possible good will come of the money). Some of the programs are pretty impressive - and all of the money goes to those that need it, not to some aid worker's inflated lifestyle...
What I find really interesting are these types of statements in light of the fact that two thirds of scientists believe in God. Even in biology (where belief rates are lowest), 59% believe in God!
Actually, it is vitually certain that insurance companies will pay very little if anything. You cannot get flood insurance when your propperty is below sea level. Just like you can't get earthquake insurance if your house is on a fault line.
The real reason for these comments is the animosity between the groups - and the animosity is almost entirely NASA's fault. When these people built their first and second companies, NASA would come over and tell their customers, "use us, we'll do it for free" until congress finally passed laws making that illegal.
Their mad because NASA used government money to compete with them, and they are justified in pointing out that they can accomplish great things spending less money than NASA used to spend trying to quash them.
(Not that NASA didn't have the best of intentions, mind you [safety, etc.], but we all know what paves the road the hell...)
Heh, yes, but what I am saying is that the line between need and want is arbitrary (and I would bet you will change your line throughout your life). Why is companionship a need while freedom is not? Does that mean you would not be upset if I placed you in a 6x6 cell as long as I fed, clothed and accompanied you? The edges are fuzzy... and that's the problem. You say a normal person kills to survive, so it is a need. A psychopath kills for a hamburger (they kill for anything!), doesn't that make a hamburger a need (at least for them)?
I agree with you for the most part, though.
Worst problem ... basically a good ole boy crony network
Interestingly enough, this is done on purpose - and is the most efficient system we have. You don't dare risk your corporation and assets on someone you don't know personally, no matter how highly recommended he comes. This is a good system, it works.
The problem is people like you don't work to get on those networks - the networks need good people, and its not that hard to get in...
Essentially, I disagree. Needs and wants are virtually the same. For example (extending your logic), why do we need food? So that we don't die. But why don't we just die, it's simpler, easier? The reason is that we don't want to die. There are no needs, just a higherarchy of interrelated wants. Or, saying the same thing, every want is a need at some level - so yes, we do "need" a McDonald's hamburger, otherwise they would not show a profit.
The line between needs and wants is arbitrary - and says a lot about what the line drawer wants to impose on others...
Because of how capitalism works, the answer is YES, by definition (if we didn't need the hamburgers, we wouldn't pay for them, and they would cease to exist). Or are you of the evil hamburger conspiracy persuasion? ;-}
We need many things - the true failing of most totalitarian/communistic societies is too much focus, not enough breadth. We do have people working on the whole "get along with each other" thing. In fact, in many ways our society is best of class in that reguard - but most of these tings only work internally, not with people outside the country.
You are a psychopath because you value some things (your pleasure, happiness, etc.) more than the lives/happiness/etc of others. It really doesn't matter what you value more than someone's life (marshmellows, communism, women) - just that your values are messed up with relation to others.
Actually, management classes are just about getting the best result for you - they don't involve necessarily hurting others. (In fact, as you go into more advanced classes, you find out why hurting others almost never works via game theory)
The reason capitalism works is survival of the fittest. The only way that works is if the non-fittest are penalized sufficiently so that they decide to do something else (that they can be best at). Otherwise, everyone would do what they want rather than what society needs, and no work would get done!
I'm one of the people trying to build a company around this - and let me tell you, I would be overjoyed at getting 1% of the 7 million people. Work the numbers: 1% of 7 million is 70,000. 70,000 times $200,000 is $14,000,000. $14 M is plenty to finance the initial work - and then the price will come down!
Personally, I don't think it will work that way. I think a lot of the draw to a space excursion is the fact that no one has done it before - once lots of people have done it, the market will fall off. The real money to be made is in space shipping, not space airliners. (Fortunately, people are working on both!)
Emacs would work as a front end to whatever database system they are using
But then, Emacs is well on its way to becoming sentient and taking over - I'm not sure I want cops relying on it...
First of all, being wealthy (or more precisely, being the family of someone weathly) is not a crime and should not invite attack. Second, doing this to anyone would be dangerous to that person (and even attacking wealthy people is immoral and illegal).
I'm not talking about extra protection - I am saying that anyone deserves this protection. (And that if someone did this to my family, they would be hurt a lot worse than this!)
Yes, the CEO is a public figure - but his family is not. They crossed the line when they gave names and addresses of his family. I would have done far more in response for that, I think what they did was pretty mild.
If someone did this to me I'd be pretty mad too. Publish what you want about me, BUT LEAVE MY FAMILY OUT OF IT! In this modern world, publishing information on a widely published source can put lives in danger - especially for the wealthy. Because there exists a class of people that when they read this article the thought goes through their minds - "hey, I could kidnap this guys kids - I know where they live." Yes, the information is available on Google - but security by obscurity does provide some protection here, and the publisher increased the level of risk to the family.
You cross the line (and I get my gun and ignore all laws) when you threaten or endanger my family. And if you think this is not endangerment, you do not understand society. (Think about it, why does noone mention the spouses of public figures?)
ooh! ooh! I feel a pedant moment coming on!
Take a laxative, sometimes that helps...
You were stating that SSTO was not possible with current technology because of the required mass ratio - I refuted that by demonstrating a past technology that had more than enough (too much, in fact) power, and a perfectly acceptable mass ratio for SSTO. It was built and flown, but not in the mission I described. I think that is as close to an existence proof as you can get in this situation.
The key is that it wouldn't be reuseable - but quite possibly a newer design using the most recent technologies could have been.
1) You are wrong - the Titan configuration put a few tons to LEO. The real problem is that the engine would need to be throttled down, and the Titan engine was not throttlable. (On the other hand, it is pretty straightforward to decrease an engines performance!)
;-} I'm not really trying to impress the rocket equation, it's already married!
2) You are still not quite correct - did you forget to include the boosters? Details:
GLOW: 2,041,200 kilograms
Payload Max: 24,948 kilograms
Orbiter Mass: 104,328 kilograms
So its more like 20:1
It still makes my point, the Shuttle is not an example of good engineering for a cargo launcher - it is an example of how launching a space station for every flight is expensive, even if that space station is reuseable!
The rocket equation does not put any limits on space flight, only our (lack of) design experience puts those limits in. (I think I should know, I am in the business after all!)
As to your snide comments, please grow up
The problem is that the only reason this is true is because the washing machine was designed to fit the shuttle.
It could have been sent up 1 kg at a time, if instead of 3 big gyros (which bring down the station when they fail) they used 100 small gyros with easily swappable parts. It would weigh a little bit more though, so the "cost conscious" designers used the washing machine...
BTW, the true advantage of propane is that it is temperature compatible with LOX, so the tanks can share a common bulkhead. Other than that, it has slightly higher Isp than kerosene, and is denser. Other advantages, such as high speed gas injection, can be used depending on engine design. (There are also some really neat pumping methods the work almost exclusively with liquid propane at LOX temperatures, but I don't want to go into that...)
That said, I think there are better ways to acheive a reusable SSTO - I guess we'll see if I'm right!
Some interesting facts you may not be aware of:
;-} )
1) The Titan II first stage has a sufficient mass ratio to be a SSTO. SSTO is 60s technology, and already flown hardware! (Reuseable, on the other hand, has yet to be accomplished in any form.)
2) Did you know that the Space Shuttle has the worst GLOW:payload ratio in the business? It is 75:1! Hydrogen is a horrible fuel - modern rockets avoid except for upper stages (even then they avoid it if possible!). For comparison, Delta, Atlas, and Pegasus are about 40-50:1, using denser fuels. (The density help an awful lot when dealing with pressure vessels, so the Isp savings of hydrogen are vastly outwieghed by the density problem.)
3) When my SSTO flies, I guess that will be the ultimate test, right? (I hope
The exact usage may be wrong in this case, however it is customary to call the transformation of a low power, long time draw into a high power, short time draw "generation" of pulsed power. Even though, as you say, no real power is generated. I think the key word is "pulsed" power.
To make it even better: if 1,000 people took the ride the total revenue would be $200M, which would probably just break even after development and setting up the business. For reference: SS1 cost about $20M, flew only twice, carried only one person, and was virtually certain to kill someone eventually (that's why they retired it - it was more of a learn from mistakes type of craft). This one will have 3x the payload, have to fly many times, and NOT have the primary atitude control system fail...
Actually, if ice were the problem they would ignore it - they typically do not bother to insulate LOX tanks, for example, because they form an ice layer that is a very effective insulator (the ice falls off during launch, but in a normal rocket nothing is below the tank to hit!).
The problem with LH is that it condenses oxygen from the atmosphere onto it. That does two really bad things - first, you now have lox all over the place turning everything around it into a high explosive (pratically any porous substance, like concrete or asphalt, becomes a high explosive when saturated with LOX), and this is not a good thing to have around when lighting up a rocket. Second, condensing the LOX adds a lot of energy into the LH, boiling it, possibly raising the pressure enough to rupture the tank - KABOOM! (Remember that LOX sitting around outside the tank? Great stuff!)
Even if the LH tank doesn't rupture, you would never get the tank full enough to fly...