First let me say thank you for you reply. People like you are one of the reasons I read Slashdot.
You are correct of course that everything has gravity (well, everything that has mass does) However, for a heavenly body to maintain it's spherical shape, it must have enough mass to generate the gravity to give it that shape. The definitions that astronomers have used for Planets has been wholy arbatrary whereas using gravity as your defining principle gives you a fixed point of reference. There are several planetoids out there that have a lot of mass but they do not have enough mass to generate the gravity needed to form a sphere. Ceres is one astroid (or planet if you use gravity to define it) that has enough mass to generate the gravity to form it's sphere.
I know I didn't specify planets orbiting stars and moons orbiting planets. My mistake, I assumed that was a given.
To Sturm's question. A star is a massive fusion reactor. I think you could even define it by gravity. Jupiter is an aborted attempt at a star because it did not have enough mass to generate the gravity needed to create fusion. That is what separates it from planets.
BTW guys, I certainly don't claim to be an expert. Just very interested in the subject. Great discussion:)
Gravity is a constant that should be used to define a planet. Any body that has enough mass to generate enough gravity to maintain a spherical shape should be a planet. Yes, even Ceres would be a planet by this definition.
The SRB O-rings that failed and caused the Challenger accident were redesigned. The Challenger explosion was caused when super heated gasses escaped from the SRB, after an O-ring failure, and burned through the ET. When the CEV is launched, there will be not ET in the equation. If there is an O-ring failure (which is much less likely after the redesign) it will be easy to notice and the CEV can simply eject off the top with it's escape tower. If the SRB fails on the HLV and the ET stack explodes, well you lose money, but you do not lose people. Hence the reasoning of separating people and cargo.
The Russians and the ESA get the benefit of learning from all of our mistakes without having to spend tax dollars.
I still think wingless is the best way to go for the Kliper and/or the CEV. Unless you are taking off from a horizontal position, those wings are just dead weight.
If Halo 3 is a launch title, then that will help the sales of the 360, however I'm not sure that it would be enough to get me to invest in a system that will be obsolete in a year.
I can't wait to see what Penny Arcade says about it. You know they will:)
If it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces, then removing the subsidy will not help. Ethanol production will make only serve to tighten oil supplies even more than they already are and drive up the cost of energy for all of us. Simply put, it is a waste of time, money, and (most importantly) energy.
$0.51 per gallon of Ethanol. That's not how much Ethanol makers charge us for their fuel. It is how much the Federal government subsidizes every gallon of Ethanol made.
If Ethanol is such a viable replacement for gasoline made from oil, then why does it need a 51 cent subsidy? The fact is that no ethanol maker can make a profit without that subsidy.
There isn't a solid plan yet, however Griffin is very interested in the concept. I suspect he'll request a new study on it before summers end. I single Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV) launch could put a large portion of the space stations components in orbit in a single launch. Then just fly the astronauts up to ISS in the CEV and let them do the assembly work.
Actually removing the human element would be a huge benefit. That alone saves several thousands of pounds in the people, the life support systems, and the habitation area.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but the Shuttle C isn't an unmanned shuttle. It isn't a shuttle at all. It is a cargo pod strapped to the External Tank and the boosters. There are no wings, which saves a lot of weight. It's pretty much a flying cargo bay that will burn up on re-entry. The original shuttle C plan was to house the shuttle main engines (SME) in a pod that eject from the cargo container and re-enter the atmostphere for reuse. A newer design, that Administrator Griffin is interested in, would mount the cargo on the top of the ET and put engines under the ET. Only the SRBs would be reusable. The lift capacity would be HUGE.
Any Sys Admin that has to lug desktops around the office for various reasons might just love these things. They'll be much lighter and easier to carry than a full desktop and monitor.
I don't really have a side job. Instead, I go out and help build houses for Habitat for Humanity. I'm a computer nerd by trade but I'm a carpenter by heart. I love to build things and building for those who otherwise would never own a home is very rewarding. I also do the occasional church raising out in the rural areas.
About 10 years ago, China was the 5th largest consumer of oil. Today they are #2. China is burting at the seams with economic growth and they're pollution control standards are weaker than they are in both the US and the EU. That is but one of the many reasons that many US companies are moving factories over there.
I see the major problem for this debate being that it will not have any new coverage. It won't be live on any of the networks, it won't even be on Cable. If MSNBC or CNN or even FoxNews were to cover this debate, it "could" become very meaningful. The Libertarian candidate might even ciphon off some votes from Bush, like Nader most likely will from Kerry.
The only way these parties are going to start making a difference is if they are noticed. Perot made a difference (how is debatable) because his candidacy was noticed by the media. His money bought him air time and media recognition. If he hadn't pulled out of the election and acted like a looney, he might well have won the election or at least forced the House to pick the new President at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
First let me say thank you for you reply. People like you are one of the reasons I read Slashdot.
:)
You are correct of course that everything has gravity (well, everything that has mass does) However, for a heavenly body to maintain it's spherical shape, it must have enough mass to generate the gravity to give it that shape. The definitions that astronomers have used for Planets has been wholy arbatrary whereas using gravity as your defining principle gives you a fixed point of reference. There are several planetoids out there that have a lot of mass but they do not have enough mass to generate the gravity needed to form a sphere. Ceres is one astroid (or planet if you use gravity to define it) that has enough mass to generate the gravity to form it's sphere.
I know I didn't specify planets orbiting stars and moons orbiting planets. My mistake, I assumed that was a given.
To Sturm's question. A star is a massive fusion reactor. I think you could even define it by gravity. Jupiter is an aborted attempt at a star because it did not have enough mass to generate the gravity needed to create fusion. That is what separates it from planets.
BTW guys, I certainly don't claim to be an expert. Just very interested in the subject. Great discussion
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this but a drop of water or mercury maintains is roundness from surface tension, rather than gravity.
Gravity is a constant that should be used to define a planet. Any body that has enough mass to generate enough gravity to maintain a spherical shape should be a planet. Yes, even Ceres would be a planet by this definition.
The SRB O-rings that failed and caused the Challenger accident were redesigned. The Challenger explosion was caused when super heated gasses escaped from the SRB, after an O-ring failure, and burned through the ET. When the CEV is launched, there will be not ET in the equation. If there is an O-ring failure (which is much less likely after the redesign) it will be easy to notice and the CEV can simply eject off the top with it's escape tower. If the SRB fails on the HLV and the ET stack explodes, well you lose money, but you do not lose people. Hence the reasoning of separating people and cargo.
Agreed.
The Russians and the ESA get the benefit of learning from all of our mistakes without having to spend tax dollars.
I still think wingless is the best way to go for the Kliper and/or the CEV. Unless you are taking off from a horizontal position, those wings are just dead weight.
What kind of Nerd are you? Isn't it obvious.
WTF was BillG thinking?
:)
Obviously he wasn't.
If Halo 3 is a launch title, then that will help the sales of the 360, however I'm not sure that it would be enough to get me to invest in a system that will be obsolete in a year.
I can't wait to see what Penny Arcade says about it. You know they will
If it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces, then removing the subsidy will not help. Ethanol production will make only serve to tighten oil supplies even more than they already are and drive up the cost of energy for all of us. Simply put, it is a waste of time, money, and (most importantly) energy.
$0.51 per gallon of Ethanol. That's not how much Ethanol makers charge us for their fuel. It is how much the Federal government subsidizes every gallon of Ethanol made.
If Ethanol is such a viable replacement for gasoline made from oil, then why does it need a 51 cent subsidy? The fact is that no ethanol maker can make a profit without that subsidy.
There isn't a solid plan yet, however Griffin is very interested in the concept. I suspect he'll request a new study on it before summers end. I single Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV) launch could put a large portion of the space stations components in orbit in a single launch. Then just fly the astronauts up to ISS in the CEV and let them do the assembly work.
Actually removing the human element would be a huge benefit. That alone saves several thousands of pounds in the people, the life support systems, and the habitation area.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but the Shuttle C isn't an unmanned shuttle. It isn't a shuttle at all. It is a cargo pod strapped to the External Tank and the boosters. There are no wings, which saves a lot of weight. It's pretty much a flying cargo bay that will burn up on re-entry. The original shuttle C plan was to house the shuttle main engines (SME) in a pod that eject from the cargo container and re-enter the atmostphere for reuse. A newer design, that Administrator Griffin is interested in, would mount the cargo on the top of the ET and put engines under the ET. Only the SRBs would be reusable. The lift capacity would be HUGE.
Hmm, nice suggestion. I'll keep that one in mind when I get my next PDA. Thx...
Any Sys Admin that has to lug desktops around the office for various reasons might just love these things. They'll be much lighter and easier to carry than a full desktop and monitor.
Amen, bow to the A dash brigade ;)
I hope those boys at HP are ready because they've just screwed themselves.
Yes, and thank you for putting it there. Good netizen, here's a bone for you ;)
Just host the code locally on your drive and bookmark Google to it. Then you can enjoy it as your Google homepage for now on.
I think this guy is talking about the Malicious Software removal tool. This is pushed out via Windows Update but it's scope is very limited.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890830
WTF!?!?!
To save this worthless POS channel. At least they droped the illusion of having anything to do with technology.
You bet! Someday people will realize that the Bible is a book of THEOLOGY and not a book of SCIENCE.
Is Space Ship One?
Go away, your not helping the Coonass cause.
I don't really have a side job. Instead, I go out and help build houses for Habitat for Humanity. I'm a computer nerd by trade but I'm a carpenter by heart. I love to build things and building for those who otherwise would never own a home is very rewarding. I also do the occasional church raising out in the rural areas.
About 10 years ago, China was the 5th largest consumer of oil. Today they are #2. China is burting at the seams with economic growth and they're pollution control standards are weaker than they are in both the US and the EU. That is but one of the many reasons that many US companies are moving factories over there.
I see the major problem for this debate being that it will not have any new coverage. It won't be live on any of the networks, it won't even be on Cable. If MSNBC or CNN or even FoxNews were to cover this debate, it "could" become very meaningful. The Libertarian candidate might even ciphon off some votes from Bush, like Nader most likely will from Kerry.
The only way these parties are going to start making a difference is if they are noticed. Perot made a difference (how is debatable) because his candidacy was noticed by the media. His money bought him air time and media recognition. If he hadn't pulled out of the election and acted like a looney, he might well have won the election or at least forced the House to pick the new President at the time.