Not only does it not ablate, but the titanium will melt and scram the reactor long before the reactor itself experiences meltdown.
In other words, this is an extremely safe reactor design.:-)
Not to sound paranoid, but when the reactor overheats and falls off where does it go?
I think you are misinterpreting the word 'scram'. They don't mean that it makes the reactor 'get out of there', or melt off and fall away. Scram is a term used with reactors to describe a safety procedure that shuts down the reaction.
In this reactor its not even a mechanical devise or procedure that has to be run; if the reactor starts to overheat then the heat melts the tungsten cladding around the fuel rods and the reaction is quenched. That's why it's an extremely safe design. Or something like that, perhaps a real nuclear engineer could elaborate, they didn't seem to lay it out very clearly in the article.
(Ok, it's an M3 - I couldn't find any evidence that anyone seriously races a modern M5 - which is kind of sad. But also consider that the new M5 has underbody aerodynamics and a rear diffuser to combat rear lift, so in essence it does have a rear wing, its just hidden underneath the car, not something that can be easily re-engineered onto a car.)
On your other points, no one 'needs' anything other than maybe a pure utility vehicle. So as long as we are allowing people to choose their own vehicles, why not allow them to make their own choices in how to modify them as well? Does putting neon in a computer case make it run any faster? It's not a matter of need, or even of function, - it's individual taste, whether you or I like it or not.
Also, I don't know what you consider 'high speed', but wings can be effective at as little as 60mph. I agree that most probably don't do anything, at any speed.
You can get gas detectors (like a smoke detector but about $50) that will warn you of a gas leak. I have one in case I have a problem with the propane in my house. You might want to look into that as a backup. Death is supposed to suck.
I guess we better start working on nano machines to live in your lungs and help keep them clean. They could gather up nano dust and other hazards and build them up into lumps that are big enough to be ejected by the lungs. I bet the tobacco industry would fund this... They could package the nanobots in the cigarettes, thus making smoking healthy for you!
Airless bicycle tires have been commonly available for at least a decade. They are heavy and slow and there are many other ways of preventing flats on bikes now.
Exactly why was this obvious? I believe that NASA itself was previously unsure on this point. To the best of my knowledge, (and the reason that I posted it), was that this had not been known/reported before.
There could have been various other failure modes where some or all of the pyros did fire but the chutes were not seen and it still crashed;
pyros fire, drogue not released
pyros fire, drogue released but tangled due to spin,
pyros fire, drogue released, line broke off not pulling out main chute....
etc. etc.
Do you have any information to back up your reply with?
New Scientist is reporting that the pyros never went off to trigger the parachute sequence. NASA doesn't know yet why they didn't go off; batteries, sensors and the electronics responsible are being looked at as possible causes.
They didn't want it contaminted by uncontrolled contact with the planet. Thats why they were attempting to catch it in mid-air. They wanted to have it in a secure containment at NASA within 8 hours of reentry.
"DARPA will place on the route one or more obstacles that are designed to disable tacticle vehicles. These obstacles must be detected and circumnavigated for a vehicle to successfully complete the route."
There are going to be landmines out there this time!!!
The Soyuz takes the passenger up to the ISS first, where they wait for the booster module to be launched. When the booster module reaches orbit, the soyuz (with crew and passenger), leaves the station, joins with the booster and together they fly to the moon and back, aerobraking then parachuting down to earth.
The concept of a $100 million executive jet is a bit much. For comparison, a Grumman Gulfstream IV, considered the top-of-the-line executive jet, costs about $18 million.
Did you read that part where they said that they already have a customer (net jets) that is ready to buy a HUNDRED?
There are over 200 Billionaires in the US alone, will they be content to toddle around at 500mph when their contemporaries are going 1,500mph?
And then there will be a few for our government to wisk people around in, and ours won't be the only government to want a few.
We live in a world where people already spend over 100 million on private yachts, and those only go 20 miles an hour!
What you are referring to is the noise generated by the engines - This is not about sound caused by the engines. Making quieter engines is a continuous goal for engine designers.
This is about redesigning the shape of the plane's airframe so that the shock wave from the plane breaking the sound barrier is reduced. Different problems with different engineers.
What are you talking about? Misubishi group owns Mitsubishi Motors, the car company. Why would they fight over a domain name?
There was a domain name squabble between misubishi group and some guy who had registed Misubishimotors.com, but he was a squatter.
I called Acxiom's headquarters, 1.888.322.9466, then option 5 for their Consumer Hotline Menu. From it I found the following:
(disclaimer: I may have misunderstood this information and/or be misrepresenting it. Please do not take this as the last word on this subject.)
Get a Report
From the Consumer Hotline Menu you may request a report showing what "non-public* (see data category 3 below) information that Acxiom has on file about you". This is option 6 from their Consumer Hotline Menu.
You will be asked to leave your name, address and phone number so that they may mail you an official form to request the report of the non-public information that Acxiom has on file about you. There will be a $5.00 fee for the report. (Press # at the end of the message, then # again to send the voice mail message.)
Opt Out
To 'Opt out' of having the information that they store about you sold to marketing companies, select option 5 from the Consumer Hotline Menu.
You will asked to leave your name, address and phone number in order to be sent a form to request the opt out. There does not appear to be a fee.
(Press # at the end of the message, then # again to send the voice mail message.)
Acxiom's Data Classification
Acxiom classifies consumer data into 4 categories:
(this info came from option 2 on their Consumer Hotline Menu.)
1) 'public and publicly available information.'
Examples may include: property records, birth, death and marriage records, professional membership records.
Acxiom may own this type of information about you.
2) 'marketing info'
This is information that is collected about you at the time that you make a purchase.
Examples may include: name, address, phone number, etc.
Acxiom may own this type of information about you.
* 3) 'non-public information'
This is information that is collected about you from information that you submit for surveys, etc.
Examples may include: name, address, phone number, and any other information that you submit to a survey.
This is apparently the information that will be reported to you if you request the $5.00 report about what they know about you. As far as I can tell, this is the only category of information that will be reported to you, but I don't know for sure.
Acxiom may own this type of information about you.
4) 'private and confidential info'
Examples may include: info from your credit report, data about medial records, data about your salary or employment history.
Acxiom states that this information is regulated under the Fair Credit Report act and that "Acxiom DOES NOT OWN ANY INFORMATION IN THIS CATEGORY". (my capitalization).
I don't know if this means that they don't store any of this information, period, or if they are just weaseling out by saying that they don't 'own' it, but not saying if they store it for their own use or for their customers.
Disclaimer: This is information that I gleaned from listening to the information available on their voice mail consumer hotline, (1.888.322.9466, option 5), and I may have misunderstood it and/or be misrepresenting it. Please do not take this as the last word on this subject.
"Most martian meteorites are 1.3 billion years old or less, much younger than typical igneous meteorites from asteroids which are 4.5 billion years old. They also have higher contents of volatiles than igneous meteorites. The conclusive evidence that the SNC meteorites originated on Mars comes from the measurement of gases trapped in one meteorite's interior. The trapped gases match those that Viking measured in the martian atmosphere."
First run unsuccessful due to pilot error....
on
X43-A on to Mach 10
·
· Score: 1
I think it should be made clear that the first run was unsuccessful due to a pilot error. The Pegasus is normally launched at a much higher altitude with much thinner air. When NASA launched the Pegasus/X-43a they launched much lower and hadn't properly calculated the aerodynamic forces that would be acting on the control fins on the Pegasus booster. This led to loss of control of the booster necessitating is destruction. The rocket booster didn't fail, we just launched it in too thick of air.
You guys aren't getting it. They have not solved re-entry, they have yet to have to deal with it. Orbiting spacecraft (i.e., shuttle) have orbital speed to bleed off (~mach 30) and that is what causes the massive heat, ~3000F for the shuttle.
SpaceShipOne has ZERO orbital velocity to bleed off, just their falling speed, (~mach 3?), and heat to deal with. They just go UP and DOWN, not into a big fast circle around the planet - get it? Not to minimize their incredible accomplishments at all.
This is a terrible idea for maintenance. Imagine trying to read the code for a given app that had all sorts of bizarre preferences chosen. You would have to spend a lot of time just understanding what the hell you were looking at.
I don't believe that you understand the concept becuase it seems that your argument doesn't apply.
The whole point would be that you wouldn't see the idiosyncrasies of the way that he likes his code laid out, he would in essence give you compiled code and your development environment would display it for you however you liked to see it.
For example, take the way people develop HTML code; some code it in notepad, writing the raw code, others use graphical interfaces with WYSIWYG software that just lets them edit the finished product, and others may use something in between, but its all the same code; displayed for you the way you like it; in text or graphically, or in windows with your toolbars and your highlighting preferences and tab spacing. What if you could only view it in the program that it was originally writen in?
Perhaps you can do what some others have done and make a set of groovy coasters by putting the cd in a microwave for 3-4 seconds? If you haven't tried this....it's pretty cool.
Careful - I killed a microwave doing this once - but the CD was left in there a lot longer than 3-4 seconds, maybe 20 - 30.
1) I would guess that a mobile base station is going to have the same equipment that a fixed station would have, at least in the beginning, so any risk of failure in any life critical equipment is going to be the same for both options. As well, if you have a failure to that equipment in a base, you possibly have the option of repairing it. In a rover there might not be a way of replenishing air to wait for a rescue.
2) The space shuttle will not be used to get crew to the moon, that will be a conventional rocket, probably a Soyuz. And you can bet that if lives depended on it, the shuttle would fly, certification be damned.
Bottom line - your failure scenario would be the same for a fixed or mobile base, while the mobile base concept reduces the risk of manned rover missions, and gives the benefits that having a mobile base allow. But this is all moot unless they figure out a way to give a mobile base the radiation shielding that it would need.
Slashdot Mirror
Definition of Scram in this context: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Scram_switch
In this reactor its not even a mechanical devise or procedure that has to be run; if the reactor starts to overheat then the heat melts the tungsten cladding around the fuel rods and the reaction is quenched. That's why it's an extremely safe design. Or something like that, perhaps a real nuclear engineer could elaborate, they didn't seem to lay it out very clearly in the article.
IANANE
http://www.rfmsports.com/SWC/Photos/RS6_RB_3.JPG
http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/07/m3gtr_4.jpg
(Ok, it's an M3 - I couldn't find any evidence that anyone seriously races a modern M5 - which is kind of sad. But also consider that the new M5 has underbody aerodynamics and a rear diffuser to combat rear lift, so in essence it does have a rear wing, its just hidden underneath the car, not something that can be easily re-engineered onto a car.)
On your other points, no one 'needs' anything other than maybe a pure utility vehicle. So as long as we are allowing people to choose their own vehicles, why not allow them to make their own choices in how to modify them as well? Does putting neon in a computer case make it run any faster? It's not a matter of need, or even of function, - it's individual taste, whether you or I like it or not.
Also, I don't know what you consider 'high speed', but wings can be effective at as little as 60mph. I agree that most probably don't do anything, at any speed.
You can get gas detectors (like a smoke detector but about $50) that will warn you of a gas leak. I have one in case I have a problem with the propane in my house. You might want to look into that as a backup. Death is supposed to suck.
I guess we better start working on nano machines to live in your lungs and help keep them clean. They could gather up nano dust and other hazards and build them up into lumps that are big enough to be ejected by the lungs. I bet the tobacco industry would fund this... They could package the nanobots in the cigarettes, thus making smoking healthy for you!
I imported the data from the table that you linked into a spreadsheet and calculated each of the absolute month to month differences.
There were no month to month variations greater than 2.53 ppm, let alone 4!
Where did you come up with the data that "4 ppm would be a normal monthly swing?"
Summary:
Over 500 months of valid data.
Only 35 months >= 2.0 ppm month to month variation.
Only 2 months > 2.5 ppm month to month variation.
Top ten greatest month to month variations (in ppm):
aug-sep 1983 2.53
jul-aug 2002 2.53
jul-aug 1995 2.44
jul-aug 1965 2.34
jul-aug 1999 2.33
aug-sep 1997 2.32
aug-sep 1999 2.31
jul-aug 1960 2.27
jul-aug 1982 2.24
jul-aug 1989 2.23
jul-aug 2003 2.12
This story should be Exhibit A in the argument that we need to be able to moderate entire articles. This one should be -1 Offtopic.
<sarcasm>
Wow, once upon a time people had hairbrained ideas for inventions or crazy concepts about how the world works. How newsworthy!</sarcasm>
Tell me, was this article: 1) 'news for nerds', 2) 'stuff that matters', or 3) offtopic?
First google hit:
http://www.airfreetires.com/
There could have been various other failure modes where some or all of the pyros did fire but the chutes were not seen and it still crashed;
pyros fire, drogue not released
pyros fire, drogue released but tangled due to spin,
pyros fire, drogue released, line broke off not pulling out main chute....
etc. etc.
Do you have any information to back up your reply with?
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 96379
They didn't want it contaminted by uncontrolled contact with the planet. Thats why they were attempting to catch it in mid-air. They wanted to have it in a secure containment at NASA within 8 hours of reentry.
Bad guess.
They bring lots of payloads back down, commonly science experiments that they took up in a labratory module that they bring back down with them.
Check the following link for a story where they captured two satellites and returned to Earth with them.
http://www.spacenet.on.ca/stories/robotics/westarp alapa/
Its 222 MILLION km for the maximum, if you insist on counting in hundred thousands, you need 2220 of them, not 222.
There are going to be landmines out there this time!!!
The Soyuz takes the passenger up to the ISS first, where they wait for the booster module to be launched. When the booster module reaches orbit, the soyuz (with crew and passenger), leaves the station, joins with the booster and together they fly to the moon and back, aerobraking then parachuting down to earth.
Don't you hate having to explain your own jokes Timothy? I mean AC?
There are over 200 Billionaires in the US alone, will they be content to toddle around at 500mph when their contemporaries are going 1,500mph?
And then there will be a few for our government to wisk people around in, and ours won't be the only government to want a few.
We live in a world where people already spend over 100 million on private yachts, and those only go 20 miles an hour!
Haven't you heard? They aren't going to pay those anymore...What you are referring to is the noise generated by the engines - This is not about sound caused by the engines. Making quieter engines is a continuous goal for engine designers. This is about redesigning the shape of the plane's airframe so that the shock wave from the plane breaking the sound barrier is reduced. Different problems with different engineers.
What are you talking about? Misubishi group owns Mitsubishi Motors, the car company. Why would they fight over a domain name? There was a domain name squabble between misubishi group and some guy who had registed Misubishimotors.com, but he was a squatter.
Get a Report
From the Consumer Hotline Menu you may request a report showing what "non-public* (see data category 3 below) information that Acxiom has on file about you". This is option 6 from their Consumer Hotline Menu.
You will be asked to leave your name, address and phone number so that they may mail you an official form to request the report of the non-public information that Acxiom has on file about you. There will be a $5.00 fee for the report. (Press # at the end of the message, then # again to send the voice mail message.)
Opt Out
To 'Opt out' of having the information that they store about you sold to marketing companies, select option 5 from the Consumer Hotline Menu. You will asked to leave your name, address and phone number in order to be sent a form to request the opt out. There does not appear to be a fee. (Press # at the end of the message, then # again to send the voice mail message.)
Acxiom's Data Classification
Acxiom classifies consumer data into 4 categories: (this info came from option 2 on their Consumer Hotline Menu.)
Examples may include: property records, birth, death and marriage records, professional membership records.
Acxiom may own this type of information about you.
This is information that is collected about you at the time that you make a purchase.
Examples may include: name, address, phone number, etc.
Acxiom may own this type of information about you.
This is information that is collected about you from information that you submit for surveys, etc.
Examples may include: name, address, phone number, and any other information that you submit to a survey.
This is apparently the information that will be reported to you if you request the $5.00 report about what they know about you. As far as I can tell, this is the only category of information that will be reported to you, but I don't know for sure.
Acxiom may own this type of information about you.
Examples may include: info from your credit report, data about medial records, data about your salary or employment history.Acxiom states that this information is regulated under the Fair Credit Report act and that "Acxiom DOES NOT OWN ANY INFORMATION IN THIS CATEGORY". (my capitalization).
I don't know if this means that they don't store any of this information, period, or if they are just weaseling out by saying that they don't 'own' it, but not saying if they store it for their own use or for their customers.
Disclaimer: This is information that I gleaned from listening to the information available on their voice mail consumer hotline, (1.888.322.9466, option 5), and I may have misunderstood it and/or be misrepresenting it. Please do not take this as the last word on this subject.
http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/antmet/mar smets/Text.htm
I think it should be made clear that the first run was unsuccessful due to a pilot error. The Pegasus is normally launched at a much higher altitude with much thinner air. When NASA launched the Pegasus/X-43a they launched much lower and hadn't properly calculated the aerodynamic forces that would be acting on the control fins on the Pegasus booster. This led to loss of control of the booster necessitating is destruction. The rocket booster didn't fail, we just launched it in too thick of air.
SpaceShipOne has ZERO orbital velocity to bleed off, just their falling speed, (~mach 3?), and heat to deal with. They just go UP and DOWN, not into a big fast circle around the planet - get it? Not to minimize their incredible accomplishments at all.
I don't believe that you understand the concept becuase it seems that your argument doesn't apply.
The whole point would be that you wouldn't see the idiosyncrasies of the way that he likes his code laid out, he would in essence give you compiled code and your development environment would display it for you however you liked to see it.
For example, take the way people develop HTML code; some code it in notepad, writing the raw code, others use graphical interfaces with WYSIWYG software that just lets them edit the finished product, and others may use something in between, but its all the same code; displayed for you the way you like it; in text or graphically, or in windows with your toolbars and your highlighting preferences and tab spacing. What if you could only view it in the program that it was originally writen in?
Careful - I killed a microwave doing this once - but the CD was left in there a lot longer than 3-4 seconds, maybe 20 - 30.
1) I would guess that a mobile base station is going to have the same equipment that a fixed station would have, at least in the beginning, so any risk of failure in any life critical equipment is going to be the same for both options. As well, if you have a failure to that equipment in a base, you possibly have the option of repairing it. In a rover there might not be a way of replenishing air to wait for a rescue.
2) The space shuttle will not be used to get crew to the moon, that will be a conventional rocket, probably a Soyuz. And you can bet that if lives depended on it, the shuttle would fly, certification be damned.
Bottom line - your failure scenario would be the same for a fixed or mobile base, while the mobile base concept reduces the risk of manned rover missions, and gives the benefits that having a mobile base allow. But this is all moot unless they figure out a way to give a mobile base the radiation shielding that it would need.