Of course you don't have to lift the H3 from the Earth to the Moon. You have to move it from the Moon to the Earth. Which would take a lot less energy.
But the real reason this person doesn't think most of America will switch is because we already use IPv4 and it would be easier to just deal with compatibility issues with the rest of the world that to switch to IPv6.
Besides, technically it isn't ethnocentrism since America isn't an ethnicity. It's nationalism, but I guess that doesn't sound as bad.
Who thinks that it's possible that SCO really was the victim of a DDOS attack?
I hate SCO as much as everyone else, but it seems like everyone here is saying that this is a conspiracy because it makes the open source movement look bad. Not because there is any compelling evidence that SCO did it.
ask: Why should California allow glowing pets?
This is America, the land of the free. Things shouldn't be made illegal unless regulators know they are harmful to society. In this case it was made illegal because a regulator felt that genetically modifying pets is wrong. To me that sounds that he's trying to force his moral convictions on other people, not trying to protect Californians from something that is dangerous.
Hydrogen is diatomic, so gaseous hydrogen is H2, as I said in my post. Which means that gaseous hydrogen has a molecular weight of 2. In contrast helium is a noble gas and bonds with almost nothing, so it is not diatomic, and therefore has a molecular weight of 4 in gaseous form.
Looking at the costs versus benefits, hydrogen is harder to contain, more dangerous, and doesn't lift significantly more than helium. I think the only reason the Germans used hydrogen is they didn't want to ask the Americans for helium.
Really, I thought the buoyant force of an object was equal to the weight of the air it displaced. The Earth's atmosphere has an average molecular weight of around 30 g/mol, H2 has a molecular weight of 2, helium has a molecular weight of 4. So for every mole of air displaced hydrogen would lift 28 grams, versus 26 grams for the same volume using helium.
Hydrogen weighs half as much as helium. So using one gram of hydrogen you could lift more than twice as much as with 1 gram of helium. But from a design standpoint is isn't the mass of the gas that matters, it's the volume of the structure required to contain the gas.
Looking at the costs versus benefits, hydrogen is harder to contain, more dangerous, and doesn't lift significantly more than hydrogen. I think the only reason the Germans used hydrogen is they didn't want to ask the Americans for helium.
That might be true. I wonder if that would mean the end of movies with big budgets and thousands of cast members, where most movies are made by individuals in their spare time.
Depending on the actor. If you're not looking for big movie stars, hiring an actor would cost as much as hiring an artist. And the big name actors might get upset if you try to duplicate them using computers.
Designing a virtual actor takes quite a bit of time and money. Using virtual actors just means hiring a team of graphic artists instead of hiring an actor. Although it would give a director absolute control over the movie.
But if CO2 emissions aren't contributing to global warming we could be wasting a great deal of resources that could be put towards fighting more important environmental problems.
Yeah, but when you take into account the extra fuel necessary to lift landing fuel into space, how much would it cost compared to using heat shields and parachutes?
Maybe they figure that fuel is relatively cheep. So it's easier to just make the rocket bigger rather than add more equipment. Of coarse making larger rockets work is more difficult, but that's the only thing I can think of.
Actually I was wrong about it's speed on reentry. The X-15 reentered at around Mach 5.5. According to Rutan Space Ship One will re-enter at Mach 3.5. I guess that's because it creates more drag.
Actually the highest the X-15 went was 67 miles. In order to win the x-prize a craft would have to go above 62 miles, so Space Ship One would still have to go almost as high. The X-15 reached speeds of Mach 6.7 in level flight, but on parabolic trajectories for high altitude flights it didn't go much above Mach 3.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you don't have to lift the H3 from the Earth to the Moon. You have to move it from the Moon to the Earth. Which would take a lot less energy.
I knew all along that Bush was being sincere about wanting a new direction for the space program.
Here's a link to all the pictures taken so far.
Of coarse the speed of light might make a different specification necessary any way.
I see.
But the real reason this person doesn't think most of America will switch is because we already use IPv4 and it would be easier to just deal with compatibility issues with the rest of the world that to switch to IPv6.
Besides, technically it isn't ethnocentrism since America isn't an ethnicity. It's nationalism, but I guess that doesn't sound as bad.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
We are running out of IP addresses. So we are going to switch to a new standard to get more.
How does that translate to ethnocentrism?
That's not really relevant, most of there contractors are U.S.
Sometimes, I can't help but wonder that we humans are like viruses, we just reproduce/replicate endlessly.
Humans, viruses, and every other life form.
If the beagle had succeded and spirit had failed what would the Euroopeans be saying?
Who thinks that it's possible that SCO really was the victim of a DDOS attack?
I hate SCO as much as everyone else, but it seems like everyone here is saying that this is a conspiracy because it makes the open source movement look bad. Not because there is any compelling evidence that SCO did it.
ask: Why should California allow glowing pets?
This is America, the land of the free. Things shouldn't be made illegal unless regulators know they are harmful to society. In this case it was made illegal because a regulator felt that genetically modifying pets is wrong. To me that sounds that he's trying to force his moral convictions on other people, not trying to protect Californians from something that is dangerous.
Hydrogen is diatomic, so gaseous hydrogen is H2, as I said in my post. Which means that gaseous hydrogen has a molecular weight of 2. In contrast helium is a noble gas and bonds with almost nothing, so it is not diatomic, and therefore has a molecular weight of 4 in gaseous form.
oops, that last paragraph should read
Looking at the costs versus benefits, hydrogen is harder to contain, more dangerous, and doesn't lift significantly more than helium. I think the only reason the Germans used hydrogen is they didn't want to ask the Americans for helium.
Helium has 20% of the lifting power of hydrogen
Really, I thought the buoyant force of an object was equal to the weight of the air it displaced. The Earth's atmosphere has an average molecular weight of around 30 g/mol, H2 has a molecular weight of 2, helium has a molecular weight of 4. So for every mole of air displaced hydrogen would lift 28 grams, versus 26 grams for the same volume using helium.
Hydrogen weighs half as much as helium. So using one gram of hydrogen you could lift more than twice as much as with 1 gram of helium. But from a design standpoint is isn't the mass of the gas that matters, it's the volume of the structure required to contain the gas.
Looking at the costs versus benefits, hydrogen is harder to contain, more dangerous, and doesn't lift significantly more than hydrogen. I think the only reason the Germans used hydrogen is they didn't want to ask the Americans for helium.
America has been based on consumerism for the last 50 years. Doesn't that make it part of American culture?
Would a lap top even work at that temperature?
That might be true. I wonder if that would mean the end of movies with big budgets and thousands of cast members, where most movies are made by individuals in their spare time.
Depending on the actor. If you're not looking for big movie stars, hiring an actor would cost as much as hiring an artist. And the big name actors might get upset if you try to duplicate them using computers.
It's a picture that was made by a New Zealand group that's against genetic engineering.
Designing a virtual actor takes quite a bit of time and money. Using virtual actors just means hiring a team of graphic artists instead of hiring an actor. Although it would give a director absolute control over the movie.
But if CO2 emissions aren't contributing to global warming we could be wasting a great deal of resources that could be put towards fighting more important environmental problems.
Yeah, but when you take into account the extra fuel necessary to lift landing fuel into space, how much would it cost compared to using heat shields and parachutes?
Maybe they figure that fuel is relatively cheep. So it's easier to just make the rocket bigger rather than add more equipment. Of coarse making larger rockets work is more difficult, but that's the only thing I can think of.
Actually I was wrong about it's speed on reentry. The X-15 reentered at around Mach 5.5. According to Rutan Space Ship One will re-enter at Mach 3.5. I guess that's because it creates more drag.
Actually the highest the X-15 went was 67 miles. In order to win the x-prize a craft would have to go above 62 miles, so Space Ship One would still have to go almost as high. The X-15 reached speeds of Mach 6.7 in level flight, but on parabolic trajectories for high altitude flights it didn't go much above Mach 3.