I agree, but is any survey (or poll) a random sample? Telephone surveys only get those with landlines with phone numbers that are bought or freely accessable, internet surveys only catch those that are connected to the internet. Door to door surveys get people who are home at certain hours. And people who don't want to be surveyed, well, don't get their sample taken. A true broad survey would combine all three, and some that I missed. Of course, some of this depends on your target demographic. I wouldn't say that a web base survey is worthless, but it is very specific. And it could still be scientific, just that it is impossible to extrapolate this data to a larger data set. I'm sure there are some hard working Mexicans (who also are Americans, just not from the USA) who just didn't have internet access, or spare time to waste filling out web based surveys. (I hope I wasn't insensitive in that last sentence) All surveys I've encountered, don't seem to be able to take into account liars. Are there double blind surveys that encorporate two (or more) types of surveyors to cross match data to weed out people who lie about there basic demographic data? On most "free registration required forms" I'm the opposite gender, and much older. I do it just to fuck up their demographics (if they take them with a grain of salt) and give them bad data, for their own hubris in using that data for anything. (Hubris, that it is common human knowledge that people also lie, all kinds of people, to varying degrees)
That is why one should use cargo planes. A C-130 can carry more cargo, and airdrop it quickly while in motion. It is difficult to intercept with small arms fire. The precision is less, but with the added cargo area, you could also drop inflatable rafts, so people could retrieve the supplies that missed dry land. Using helicopters to drop cargo is very ineffecient, especially from a $$$ in fuel to mass of supplies ratio. And if there is a major disaster, you run plane after plane. Helicopters are slower, and cannot move the tonnage that a cargo plane can.
Until someone finally puts a dam across the strait of Gibraltar, and drys up your precious Mediterranean Sea for development. Until terrorists blow the dam, wiping out said future development. Hey, I think I have a business plan...
Ok, I am talking a little out of my ass, but you're a resident, so maybe you can tell me about it. Would the Phoenix-Tucson area support the current population if not for large western dams? I understand that the area is a desert normally, and that it is facing a long term water shortage crisis. The rivers are tapped, the undergound aquifier is depleting faster than regenerating, and they are now tapping the Colorado river. Could a solid drought be considered a natural disaster? New Orleans isn't a natural disaster, it is a man made disaster. A large population decided to overdevelop a region prone to flooding due to hurricane activity which is know to happen in the region. They also failed to properly prepair for this event. Is Phoenix prepaired for a sustained drought? It isn't an acute disaster (like the Indoneasian tsunami), but if you have to leave Phoenix in the future due to water shortages, would that count? Or would it just mean that no one has lucious green lawns and golf courses? I lived for a year in Orange Beach Alabama. It was temporary from the start, because I don't wan't to live there, but I got to see the destruction of Ivan. I evacuated, as I believe any sane person would. But the gulf coast of Alabama has become a playground for the affluent and while there are a lot of good, hard working class folks there, it will aways be in demand because it is the beach. The locals support the tourism economy because it pays well. The Mississippi river is a major artery of commerce, therefore the mouth is going to be a hub of activity. A lot of people lost out in this last hurricane. I hope they weren't suprised, because they shouldn't be. I believe that huberis won the day and therefore a lot of deaths occured. I feel that a lot of deaths could have been prevented.
But has there been any significant technological innovations in water pumping since 1928? I could understand higher dikes (or levees) and more pumps, but if the 1928 pump still works, use it. Are there not pumps in the netherlands that are older and still in use?
Which was originally an ICBM because it had "balloon" tanks which get their structural rigidity from being pressurized within. Granted, NASA did use the Atlas for some manned missions, but it was felt that structures that could support themselves without pressurization were safer. The Atlas would collapse under its own weight if not under pressure. I'm not saying that NASA's position is better, but they had their reasons.
Yes, I agree. I wasn't trying to knock him for doing that. But he isn't the only one reserching academic papers as part of a larger body of research. And Carmack also has the body of wealth to apply what he reads. This is what a lot of people lack. I don't have anything against Carmack. I don't believe I've played any of his games, but I'm not a gamer myself. Disclaimer: I ain't no Ph.D. or even a graduate student. Hats off to him indeed.
Psst, here is another secret: Most of the rocket engines made weren't designed by NASA either. The were built by Pratt and Whitney, Rocketdyne, and others. But NASA managed the project and doled out the money because rocket engine design and manufacturing is expensive and not very profitable unless you're working for the government, which has all this taxpayer money to spend and wants some rockets. So it isn't a government bureacracy that has a monopoly on rockets. There is nothing stopping a private company building rockets, but they are expensive to build and not very profitable.
Science in general has a lot of trial and error. But what makes it science is the building of a body of research and moving on from there, not chucking good ideas and starting over again. Is Armadillo's problem getting a good working design, or is it manufacturing a working design. Ok, I don't have any problems with what Armadillo is doing. The person who posted the original article, and did the write up, in my opinion, blew it way out of proportion with the "disruptive" technology bit. It was his perspective that Armadillo (and Carmack) was going to revolutionize rocket design by going with a throatless nozzle. I call bullshit, and will continue to point out that the convergant-divergent nozzle is the product of a huge body of research, not just some good idea. Convergant-divergent nozzles are hard to manufacture, but they seem to be one optimal solution for a liquid fueled rocket. Tubular nozzles aren't as efficient and it seems that Armadillo is using it as a trade off from a manufacturability standpoint. Ok, fine, but energy efficiency is important when you are trying to send a rocket up.
NASA did things based on previous research by Goddard, Von Braun, and others. H2/LOX fueled engines didn't materialize until the Apollo program. Kero/LOX was the status quo for big liquid fueled boosters before that. And it is still used by the Russians. Is your argument that NASA has only done things one way, and hasn't explored other options? What about the Soviet space program, did they steal the design from NASA, or did the also come up with it through research? If alien cultures ever made cars, do you think they would have round wheels? Some times the optimum solution is the same, no matter where it is invented. I don't think that chemical rockets are the end all be all of rocketry, but they are a mature technology, and everyone who has achived orbit has used convergent-divergent nozzles. The revolutionary step is mass production, to bring the cost down. Making parts from aerospace alloys is difficult. Tubular shapes are easy because tubing is mass produced. If you want to bring the cost down, one needs to find cheaper ways of making rockets. Liquid fueled rockets are complex and require turbo machinery. Maybe he should look to solid fueled rockets. There isn't as much complexity in them.
I love it that it is called wireless. I mean, when people say wireless, don't they mean radio? Most people I know don't call cars "horseless carrages". Wouldn't optical fiber be wireless as well? There is no wire in it. Just a curious observation.
The volunteers. We'll that explains a lot. I know I learned a lot about machining from the "old man" in the shop. It is very hard to put a price on experience and wisdom. As far as CNC goes, most CNC machines I've seen have built in coolant/cutting fluid nozzles, so applying cutting fluid manually seemed curious to me. Maybe he has a cheaper one. Once again, maybe the should hire a machinist. If nothing else, as a consultant. I'm all for learning the hard way, but I guess Armadillo is just a hobby for some dedicated (and well heeled) volunteers. Oh, and it is much more difficult to turn conic sections on a mill (CNC or otherwise). Maybe I should have been more specific. He should get a CNC lathe to complement his mill. I mean, are his problems manufacturablity, or basic design? He says:
"The great thing about these engines is that it only takes me two nights to machine the parts, so we can test two engines a week if necessary."
There is an old saying: "if I don't have time to do it right, what makes you think I have time to do it over?" More testing can just be a waste of time (and other resources) if your design is flawed. I'm not trying to be a naysayer, but instead of standing on the shoulders of giants (those with past experience) my impression is that he is trying to rediscover the wheel. On a tubular rocket nozzle, the opening becomes the "throat" and if he were to put a bell on the end, he would get more impulse out of it. It is rocket science, not rocket trial and error. I'm sure Carmack is a smart guy, but just having volunteers limits your brain trust. Some people have kids to feed. But it is their money, so I'm not being negative, I just don't think they're going to be successful if there goal is to launch a rocket with the equivalence of say, a German V2 from WWII (I'm not saying that that is their goal). But I'm sure they are learning a lot.
I call them Ph.Ds. I don't know what Carmack's education is, and it does't matter, because he is obviously successful (by most measures, maybe not in the big time rocketry department), but researching academic papers are one of the major things that Ph.D students do as part of getting their doctorate. That is how the system works. So yes, hats off to him for mining academic papers. There is a lot of good research there, and that helps society as a whole get further along with regards to knowledge.
And I think he needs to hire a good machinist. And get some CNC equipment. It sounds as though Carmack is a rank amateur when in comes to machining and fabrication. Here is a choice quote:
"I used to have issues with wandering drill bits during injector drilling, but now I am spotting everything with a larger diameter carbide spotting drill, and manually applying cutting fluid to every hole as the mill runs. The 1/32" holes in the last engine came out perfectly straight."
As a kid using my father's drill press, I know all about walking (or wandering as he says) drill bits. 1/32" is a very small hole. As a machinist, I can say to him "duh". Anyone who has done any precision machining would know this (and I do have experiece in this area). But is sounds as though Carmack is reinventing the wheel over and over again.
I mean, hundreds of years years of rocket nozzle development is just thrown out the window. Remember, fireworks were developed in China a long time ago, and they had tapered nozzles. Oh, and all that research by Goddard and Von Braun et al, was just a waste of time I guess. I couldn't read the article because it tanked, but it sounds as though he is trying to make an easy to manufacture engine work, instead of making a better design easy to manufacture. CNC? Robotic welding? Sure they are expensive, but it looks as though his "disruptive" technology may just be disruptive to Armadillo Aerospace. How high a price can you put on failure? I guess the sky is the limit. Maybe it is time to hire some more (or better) engineers. Best of luck with your tubular nozzle. Maybe he should look into spike rocket nozzles. They look to be easier to manufacture.
Yes, my first thought was, SU or Stromberg? as well. As a former owner of older volvos (1969-1971 140 series) I have had to deal with both. The look very similar and are both constant velocity carburators. I got tired of dealing with them and their constant maintaince, with the dashpots needing fluid and such , and chucked them for a Weber conversion. Much better.
Slashdot Mirror
no, but how long would you stand having to read only last year's /. on a daily basis?
I thought we did that already. You know, with the dupes and all.
Then a bunch of lazy, shiftless fucks will want to work at his company. Some with very good resumés.
I agree, but is any survey (or poll) a random sample? Telephone surveys only get those with landlines with phone numbers that are bought or freely accessable, internet surveys only catch those that are connected to the internet. Door to door surveys get people who are home at certain hours. And people who don't want to be surveyed, well, don't get their sample taken. A true broad survey would combine all three, and some that I missed. Of course, some of this depends on your target demographic. I wouldn't say that a web base survey is worthless, but it is very specific. And it could still be scientific, just that it is impossible to extrapolate this data to a larger data set. I'm sure there are some hard working Mexicans (who also are Americans, just not from the USA) who just didn't have internet access, or spare time to waste filling out web based surveys. (I hope I wasn't insensitive in that last sentence) All surveys I've encountered, don't seem to be able to take into account liars. Are there double blind surveys that encorporate two (or more) types of surveyors to cross match data to weed out people who lie about there basic demographic data? On most "free registration required forms" I'm the opposite gender, and much older. I do it just to fuck up their demographics (if they take them with a grain of salt) and give them bad data, for their own hubris in using that data for anything. (Hubris, that it is common human knowledge that people also lie, all kinds of people, to varying degrees)
That is why one should use cargo planes. A C-130 can carry more cargo, and airdrop it quickly while in motion. It is difficult to intercept with small arms fire. The precision is less, but with the added cargo area, you could also drop inflatable rafts, so people could retrieve the supplies that missed dry land. Using helicopters to drop cargo is very ineffecient, especially from a $$$ in fuel to mass of supplies ratio. And if there is a major disaster, you run plane after plane. Helicopters are slower, and cannot move the tonnage that a cargo plane can.
Gives new meaning to the phrase "dry pair".
The moderators have been sacked. where's the (-1, english humor) moderation when we really need it?
Until someone finally puts a dam across the strait of Gibraltar, and drys up your precious Mediterranean Sea for development. Until terrorists blow the dam, wiping out said future development. Hey, I think I have a business plan...
Ok, I am talking a little out of my ass, but you're a resident, so maybe you can tell me about it. Would the Phoenix-Tucson area support the current population if not for large western dams? I understand that the area is a desert normally, and that it is facing a long term water shortage crisis. The rivers are tapped, the undergound aquifier is depleting faster than regenerating, and they are now tapping the Colorado river. Could a solid drought be considered a natural disaster? New Orleans isn't a natural disaster, it is a man made disaster. A large population decided to overdevelop a region prone to flooding due to hurricane activity which is know to happen in the region. They also failed to properly prepair for this event. Is Phoenix prepaired for a sustained drought? It isn't an acute disaster (like the Indoneasian tsunami), but if you have to leave Phoenix in the future due to water shortages, would that count? Or would it just mean that no one has lucious green lawns and golf courses? I lived for a year in Orange Beach Alabama. It was temporary from the start, because I don't wan't to live there, but I got to see the destruction of Ivan. I evacuated, as I believe any sane person would. But the gulf coast of Alabama has become a playground for the affluent and while there are a lot of good, hard working class folks there, it will aways be in demand because it is the beach. The locals support the tourism economy because it pays well. The Mississippi river is a major artery of commerce, therefore the mouth is going to be a hub of activity. A lot of people lost out in this last hurricane. I hope they weren't suprised, because they shouldn't be. I believe that huberis won the day and therefore a lot of deaths occured. I feel that a lot of deaths could have been prevented.
But has there been any significant technological innovations in water pumping since 1928? I could understand higher dikes (or levees) and more pumps, but if the 1928 pump still works, use it. Are there not pumps in the netherlands that are older and still in use?
What about a mirrored, quickly spinning missile?
Then you have an awesome laser light show! Hey look! it's a mach 20 disco ball! Just don't stare at the lasers!
OS 9 (uggh) no less.
Which was originally an ICBM because it had "balloon" tanks which get their structural rigidity from being pressurized within. Granted, NASA did use the Atlas for some manned missions, but it was felt that structures that could support themselves without pressurization were safer. The Atlas would collapse under its own weight if not under pressure. I'm not saying that NASA's position is better, but they had their reasons.
Yes, I agree. I wasn't trying to knock him for doing that. But he isn't the only one reserching academic papers as part of a larger body of research. And Carmack also has the body of wealth to apply what he reads. This is what a lot of people lack. I don't have anything against Carmack. I don't believe I've played any of his games, but I'm not a gamer myself. Disclaimer: I ain't no Ph.D. or even a graduate student. Hats off to him indeed.
Psst, here is another secret: Most of the rocket engines made weren't designed by NASA either. The were built by Pratt and Whitney, Rocketdyne, and others. But NASA managed the project and doled out the money because rocket engine design and manufacturing is expensive and not very profitable unless you're working for the government, which has all this taxpayer money to spend and wants some rockets. So it isn't a government bureacracy that has a monopoly on rockets. There is nothing stopping a private company building rockets, but they are expensive to build and not very profitable.
Science in general has a lot of trial and error. But what makes it science is the building of a body of research and moving on from there, not chucking good ideas and starting over again. Is Armadillo's problem getting a good working design, or is it manufacturing a working design. Ok, I don't have any problems with what Armadillo is doing. The person who posted the original article, and did the write up, in my opinion, blew it way out of proportion with the "disruptive" technology bit. It was his perspective that Armadillo (and Carmack) was going to revolutionize rocket design by going with a throatless nozzle. I call bullshit, and will continue to point out that the convergant-divergent nozzle is the product of a huge body of research, not just some good idea. Convergant-divergent nozzles are hard to manufacture, but they seem to be one optimal solution for a liquid fueled rocket. Tubular nozzles aren't as efficient and it seems that Armadillo is using it as a trade off from a manufacturability standpoint. Ok, fine, but energy efficiency is important when you are trying to send a rocket up.
Yes, I'd say his Internet Service Provider is in the low 200s as well.
NASA did things based on previous research by Goddard, Von Braun, and others. H2/LOX fueled engines didn't materialize until the Apollo program. Kero/LOX was the status quo for big liquid fueled boosters before that. And it is still used by the Russians. Is your argument that NASA has only done things one way, and hasn't explored other options? What about the Soviet space program, did they steal the design from NASA, or did the also come up with it through research? If alien cultures ever made cars, do you think they would have round wheels? Some times the optimum solution is the same, no matter where it is invented. I don't think that chemical rockets are the end all be all of rocketry, but they are a mature technology, and everyone who has achived orbit has used convergent-divergent nozzles. The revolutionary step is mass production, to bring the cost down. Making parts from aerospace alloys is difficult. Tubular shapes are easy because tubing is mass produced. If you want to bring the cost down, one needs to find cheaper ways of making rockets. Liquid fueled rockets are complex and require turbo machinery. Maybe he should look to solid fueled rockets. There isn't as much complexity in them.
I love it that it is called wireless. I mean, when people say wireless, don't they mean radio? Most people I know don't call cars "horseless carrages". Wouldn't optical fiber be wireless as well? There is no wire in it. Just a curious observation.
I call them Ph.Ds. I don't know what Carmack's education is, and it does't matter, because he is obviously successful (by most measures, maybe not in the big time rocketry department), but researching academic papers are one of the major things that Ph.D students do as part of getting their doctorate. That is how the system works. So yes, hats off to him for mining academic papers. There is a lot of good research there, and that helps society as a whole get further along with regards to knowledge.
I mean, hundreds of years years of rocket nozzle development is just thrown out the window. Remember, fireworks were developed in China a long time ago, and they had tapered nozzles. Oh, and all that research by Goddard and Von Braun et al, was just a waste of time I guess. I couldn't read the article because it tanked, but it sounds as though he is trying to make an easy to manufacture engine work, instead of making a better design easy to manufacture. CNC? Robotic welding? Sure they are expensive, but it looks as though his "disruptive" technology may just be disruptive to Armadillo Aerospace. How high a price can you put on failure? I guess the sky is the limit. Maybe it is time to hire some more (or better) engineers. Best of luck with your tubular nozzle. Maybe he should look into spike rocket nozzles. They look to be easier to manufacture.
Yes, my first thought was, SU or Stromberg? as well. As a former owner of older volvos (1969-1971 140 series) I have had to deal with both. The look very similar and are both constant velocity carburators. I got tired of dealing with them and their constant maintaince, with the dashpots needing fluid and such , and chucked them for a Weber conversion. Much better.
...direction of the most intensive light source (which should be the only positioning the dish would need)
But then it might track a nuclear detonation, and that would be unwanted, because it is brief and all. Oh, wait what am I thinking...
"That's my 2cents"
don't you mean, that's my nickel?