The US taxpayer shelled out a fortune for the Shuttle, ultimately to enjoy a mediocre safety record and abysmal performance.
Note that Shuttle had two loss-of-crew failures. Shuttle flew more times than all other manned systems combined.
Soyuz also had two loss-of-crew accidents. Soyuz flew more than all other manned systems combined (other than Shuttle).
Apollo had one loss-of-crew accident. On the ground. And 16 successful manned flights. As opposed to the 100+ for each of Soyuz and Shuttle.
In other words, Shuttle's safety record isn't mediocre. It's better than Apollo, better than Soyuz.
I won't go into "abysmal performance" beyond noting that 30 ton cargo capacity. When you find another manned space vehicle that can carry as much as five tons of cargo, let me know....
Maybe when a stranger at the other end of a keyboard tells you that he is a journalist and priest you should check up on his credentials before you admit to him that you committed a felony?
Even better idea. Don't admit that you committed a felony. Period. Not to a priest, not to a journalist, not to anyone else....
We're still getting new technologies out of the strange sub-atomic stuff others started discovering c. 120 years ago.
Proton, Neutron, Electron. Have we come up with any new technologies out of any sub-atomic particles since then?
Personally, I find this fascinating. Especially if it means the Standard Model has to be revised (again!), since you can never tell what you're going to get when the theory has to be scrapped....
It might have been the latter, given that black holes are, by definition, exceedingly dense. I've never heard of "sparse" black holes before, since they have to be dense in order to form in the first place.
No, they have to be massive in order to form. Dense just allows it to form with a smaller mass.
One Solar mass is 2x10^30 kg or so, which would have to be mashed down into a radius (yes, I know radius is meaningless for a Black Hole) of about 3km. Density about 2x10^18 kg/m^3.
For, say, 1,000,000,000 Solar masses, radius (still meaningless) would be around 3 billion km, and density would be about 19 kg/m^3 (note that liquid hydrogen has a density of about 70 kg/m^3)....
Note further that for intact star systems to be inside a Black Hole, we're probably talking about something in the size-range of the entire sidereal universe.
Anyway, three cheers for SpaceX, but if I were NASA I'd make damn sure they know what the deal was with that roll before they let a Dragon anywhere near the ISS.
Thing the first: the next test flight will put the prototype Dragon into orbit for tests. It won't go to the ISS.
Thing the second: the real Dragon (as opposed to the dummy atop yesterday's test launch) has quite a comprehensive set of maneuvering & attitude control thrusters. It should be quite capable of stabilizing itself, even if it ends up rolling.
Thing the third: that roll is going to be a problem for any launch that doesn't involve a spacecraft with its own attitude control system. Which almost certainly means that that's what SpaceX is going to be working on come Monday...assuming they're not all still hung-over anyways.
Do you have any sort of sources at all for this? I didn't know that the Falcon 9 was ever supposed to be able to achieve escape velocity. What exactly where they supposedly shooting for? A moon shot?
There is always a final burn after 1/2 orbit to circularize the orbit. Which is probably what the OP was babbling about. There was no intention to put the Falcon 9 into an escape orbit.
On the other hand, Falcon 9 is capable of putting a payload into GEO. It requires more deltaV to achieve a circular orbit at GEO than it does to reach escape speed (if the fuel needed to circularize the orbit at GEO were spent during the initial boost, Falcon 9 would be about 150 m/s shy of a Mars transfer orbit.
If you can point to a beaver that could gather ALL of the trees into one massive dam that could breach and wipe out the entire species then I'll take it back.
If you can point to a human (just one, mind you, as implied by "a beaver" or "a human") that could wipe out our entire species, I'll consider it....
the slippery slope implies that there is no rational thinking people in the room
And the "there is no slippery slope" argument implies that everyone in the room shares your opinions on everything that matters.
Note that we're talking about government here. The government's objectives at any given time are not necessarily the same as your objectives. They're not even necessarily similar to your objectives.
Do remember all the screaming about the PATRIOT Act. And then look back over the last eight years and see how much of that has actually happened...
As to the question of legalizing Gay Marriage...personally, I'm pretty much indifferent to the question, but I hate to break it to you, but the arguments used to justify gay marriage work quite well to justify polygamy/polyandry/polygyny. If I were a Mormon, I'd already be planning my ad campaign for the 2020 election season....
And China plus India plus Russia making up about half the world's population (which it doesn't, by the by, more like 40%) isn't about being a superpower. It's about having a lot of people.
And Russia doesn't have a lot of people. It's number nine, not number three. Note that Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria all have more people than Russia.
(perhaps someone who knows about it better can figure out why it ended up OK - but from what I see, the USA was lucky to have good leaders at that point).
It ended up okay because George Washington refused to lead the Army in taking over the government after the Revolution.
And, even more importantly, convinced his officers not to do it on their own.
See "Society of the Cincinnati" for more information.
Don't confuse allowing developing countries to increase energy use and pollution above their current levels with allowing them to increase their energy use and pollution above the levels that the developed world would be required to reduce to.
So, how are you planning on stopping them from doing so? It's not like there's going to be a binding Treaty that controls that sort of thing, unless the "developing world" chooses to sign such a Treaty.
And I've not heard word one to suggest that any of the "developing countries" have any intention of signing such a Treaty, now or at any time in the future....
There is a ton of money in manufacturing, installing, operating, and maintaining things like windmills, solar thermal, solar PE, and nuclear plants.
This sounds disturbingly like the Broken Window Falacy - replacing a bunch of stuff that works just fine until you broke it (by declaring it evil!1!) and claiming that the jobs so created are "economic growth".
Once upon a time, I did things that way. Had to have my caffeine to get going in the morning.
One day about 20 years ago, I decided to stop playing that game. I went cold turkey.
For three days, I took tylenol according to the directions on the bottle, and drank water instead.
At the end of the three days, I had no urge to drink caffeine at all. And haven't touched it since.
And, as a useful side-effect, when I wake up in the morning it's like flipping a lightswitch - I go from fully asleep to fully alert in less than a second. No dragged out feeling, no drowsiness, nothing....
When you change the price point of something, you open the market again. There are things that can't be done in the commercial market because it costs too much. "Cheaper" means some of those things can now (well, "now" meaning after Falcon 9 is operational) be done.
As cool as it is, the Falcon9 doesn't really "open up" space beyond LEO for commerce and industry.
Note, for reference, that the Falcon 9 can put 4500+ kg into GEO, and the Falcon 9 Heavy can put 19500 kg into GEO.
Note further that the total deltaV required to put something into GEO (the insertion into the transfer orbit, plus the final burn to circularize the orbit) is slightly greater than escape speed.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that Shuttle had two loss-of-crew failures. Shuttle flew more times than all other manned systems combined.
Soyuz also had two loss-of-crew accidents. Soyuz flew more than all other manned systems combined (other than Shuttle).
Apollo had one loss-of-crew accident. On the ground. And 16 successful manned flights. As opposed to the 100+ for each of Soyuz and Shuttle.
In other words, Shuttle's safety record isn't mediocre. It's better than Apollo, better than Soyuz.
I won't go into "abysmal performance" beyond noting that 30 ton cargo capacity. When you find another manned space vehicle that can carry as much as five tons of cargo, let me know....
Even better idea. Don't admit that you committed a felony. Period. Not to a priest, not to a journalist, not to anyone else....
Actually, he didn't even ban federal money to it. That had already been done by the previous administration.
What he did was open up federal money for research into a VERY LIMITED set of stem cell lines.
This'll be a great idea if it can be built so cheaply that the money I save from using it is greater than the money I'd save by not buying it.
Not sure I see that happening all that soon.
Proton, Neutron, Electron. Have we come up with any new technologies out of any sub-atomic particles since then?
Personally, I find this fascinating. Especially if it means the Standard Model has to be revised (again!), since you can never tell what you're going to get when the theory has to be scrapped....
Unless you're volunteering to be one of the 90%, I think I'll pass on that "solution".
I've always been fascinated by people who think we could solve all our problems by killing bunch of OTHER people....
They actually agreed to give ALL of it to Novell, and then Novell would pay SCO 5%.
No, they have to be massive in order to form. Dense just allows it to form with a smaller mass.
One Solar mass is 2x10^30 kg or so, which would have to be mashed down into a radius (yes, I know radius is meaningless for a Black Hole) of about 3km. Density about 2x10^18 kg/m^3.
For, say, 1,000,000,000 Solar masses, radius (still meaningless) would be around 3 billion km, and density would be about 19 kg/m^3 (note that liquid hydrogen has a density of about 70 kg/m^3)....
Note further that for intact star systems to be inside a Black Hole, we're probably talking about something in the size-range of the entire sidereal universe.
Since they run the largest Ponzi scheme in US History, I suspect that they're only down on them because they don't like competition.
Thing the first: the next test flight will put the prototype Dragon into orbit for tests. It won't go to the ISS.
Thing the second: the real Dragon (as opposed to the dummy atop yesterday's test launch) has quite a comprehensive set of maneuvering & attitude control thrusters. It should be quite capable of stabilizing itself, even if it ends up rolling.
Thing the third: that roll is going to be a problem for any launch that doesn't involve a spacecraft with its own attitude control system. Which almost certainly means that that's what SpaceX is going to be working on come Monday...assuming they're not all still hung-over anyways.
There is always a final burn after 1/2 orbit to circularize the orbit. Which is probably what the OP was babbling about. There was no intention to put the Falcon 9 into an escape orbit.
On the other hand, Falcon 9 is capable of putting a payload into GEO. It requires more deltaV to achieve a circular orbit at GEO than it does to reach escape speed (if the fuel needed to circularize the orbit at GEO were spent during the initial boost, Falcon 9 would be about 150 m/s shy of a Mars transfer orbit.
No, that was boost time.
It will be falling for the next year or so, until the orbit finally decays.
You've obviously never been in a submarine...
Hint: the women use the officer's head. Which will probably cause a certain amount of hate and discontent all by itself.
Spoken like someone who has never read any of the history on the subject.
Actually, pretty much everyone in the Western World opposes the idea. Because if they didn't, it would've been legal centuries ago....
If you can point to a human (just one, mind you, as implied by "a beaver" or "a human") that could wipe out our entire species, I'll consider it....
And the "there is no slippery slope" argument implies that everyone in the room shares your opinions on everything that matters.
Note that we're talking about government here. The government's objectives at any given time are not necessarily the same as your objectives. They're not even necessarily similar to your objectives.
Do remember all the screaming about the PATRIOT Act. And then look back over the last eight years and see how much of that has actually happened...
As to the question of legalizing Gay Marriage...personally, I'm pretty much indifferent to the question, but I hate to break it to you, but the arguments used to justify gay marriage work quite well to justify polygamy/polyandry/polygyny. If I were a Mormon, I'd already be planning my ad campaign for the 2020 election season....
142 million in Russia.
And China plus India plus Russia making up about half the world's population (which it doesn't, by the by, more like 40%) isn't about being a superpower. It's about having a lot of people.
And Russia doesn't have a lot of people. It's number nine, not number three. Note that Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria all have more people than Russia.
And Pakistan even has the Bomb....
It ended up okay because George Washington refused to lead the Army in taking over the government after the Revolution.
And, even more importantly, convinced his officers not to do it on their own.
See "Society of the Cincinnati" for more information.
So, how are you planning on stopping them from doing so? It's not like there's going to be a binding Treaty that controls that sort of thing, unless the "developing world" chooses to sign such a Treaty.
And I've not heard word one to suggest that any of the "developing countries" have any intention of signing such a Treaty, now or at any time in the future....
This sounds disturbingly like the Broken Window Falacy - replacing a bunch of stuff that works just fine until you broke it (by declaring it evil!1!) and claiming that the jobs so created are "economic growth".
India, China, Russia.
One of these three is not like the others.
Hint: Russia has less than half the population of the USA. It's hardly noticable compared to China and India.
Once upon a time, I did things that way. Had to have my caffeine to get going in the morning.
One day about 20 years ago, I decided to stop playing that game. I went cold turkey.
For three days, I took tylenol according to the directions on the bottle, and drank water instead.
At the end of the three days, I had no urge to drink caffeine at all. And haven't touched it since.
And, as a useful side-effect, when I wake up in the morning it's like flipping a lightswitch - I go from fully asleep to fully alert in less than a second. No dragged out feeling, no drowsiness, nothing....
And beavers build dams in order to change their environment to their liking.
Termites build habitats for themselves with an internal environment to their liking.
Ants, ditto.
Your point was?
When you change the price point of something, you open the market again. There are things that can't be done in the commercial market because it costs too much. "Cheaper" means some of those things can now (well, "now" meaning after Falcon 9 is operational) be done.
Note, for reference, that the Falcon 9 can put 4500+ kg into GEO, and the Falcon 9 Heavy can put 19500 kg into GEO.
Note further that the total deltaV required to put something into GEO (the insertion into the transfer orbit, plus the final burn to circularize the orbit) is slightly greater than escape speed.