If that were true, then the Space Shuttle would have used them instead of solid rocket boosters.
Uh, it is true. The SRBs weren't chosen for their specific impulse, they were chosen primarily because they were cheap to develop compared to a new liquid rocket booster which would probably have required a new engine, too.
As I understand it, they chose the hybrid engine because it was a fast way to get Spaceship One into space to win the X-Prize. And it worked well.
It just doesn't seem to have scaled up to an operational vehicle, and should probably have been abandoned long ago. I've seen a number of people online over the last few years talking about their concerns with using these engines in this way, and how it was likely to go badly wrong.
We gave up on zeppelins because heavier-than-air craft became much more capable and cheaper to operate. They still crashed and burned on a regular basis.
But the idea of having my television connected to the internet and do all kinds of 'extras' apart from just displaying images, always seemed like a terrible idea.
In what way is Android playing catch up with iOS? Are they features people actually use or even know about?
Well, let's see: how about not letting Facetwitterlinkbook have access to absolutely everything on your device because their app demands so many permissions and you can't deniy specific ones?
I'm sorry, but your post is too sensible and informative for today's Slashdot, where technological knowledge takes a back seat to 'stick it to the man!' outrage.
365 days without a security patch. Does uptime make you more money than protecting your customer data?
Most of my servers are behind firewalls with no incoming connections through the Internet. And, yes, uptime matters when we're doing something more critical than serving funny cat videos.
No-one's going to pay for a 'self-driving' car that requires them to take over at a second's notice. For it to be viable, it has to be limited to cruise control, or handle all conditions, without exception... there's no sane middle ground between them.
As we've pointed out many times before, we've seen in aviation what happens when you rely on the driver to handle cases the computer can't, when the computer does handle 99.9% of cases. It typically involves crashing into the sea and killing everyone on board.
If I remember correctly, rail was also used a lot more for cargo until the rail strikes in the 90s, which convinced many companies to move to a more reliable transport method. If the railways go on strike... your cargo is stuck. If Joe's Trucking goes on strike, you call Bob's Trucking and he collects it for you, instead.
Uh, no. If you're using adaptive cruise control, you're still in charge of the car, and should be monitoring it at all times. Clearly some people won't, and will crash, and will be responsible.
A true self-driving car won't even have a steering wheel, so how can you possibly be held responsible for what it does?
#2: They don't need to be as good as humans are in the general case. Only in the specific domain case of: Hit the brake before you collide.
So it's OK if they go straight through red lights that aren't in the database and drive along the sidewalk because the database is wrong, so long as they stop before they hit anything?
Easy... get one of these automated cars driving into nascar... if it makes it through a season at least placing in the top 5, and no accidents, it's safe.
How often does a deer run across a NASCAR track? How often are NASCAR races run in a snow storm? How often do NASCAR tracks have randomly placed ice patches?
Racing is easy for a computer to do, compared to driivng through town in a blizzard.
Unless it becomes law, self driving cars* will be a gimmick. Kind of like heated seats, kind of nice, but not necessary for your average joe.
Let me guess: you've never had to start your car and drive home at forty below zero, have you?
Heated seats are, at least in part, a response to the increased fuel economy of modern engines, which don't produce enough waste heat to warm the cabin rapidly. I believe some diesel-engined cars even have electric elements in the heater for cold weather, because the coolant takes so long to warm up.
Back on topic, my guess is:
First we'll see decent 'hands free' cruise control for highway driving. Then we'll see automated trucks driving between truck stops just outside cities, where a human driver will handle the few miles to their destination and back to the truck stop with a new load of cargo. Then, some time a few decades from now, see actual self-driving cars that can drive anywhere without human assistance.
"There's literally almost nothing on this world that is both so unique as to exist singularly and so instantly-needed potentially anywhere to justify the expense of launching that one thing into a suborbital flight on a rocket for delivery."
That all depends on how much the rocket flight costs. But, yes, suborbital delivery is unlikely to ever make financial sense if you can have those parts in 24 hours on a jet. Particularly if both then spend hours in customs waiting to be cleared once they arrive.
Exactly. It's weird that the same people gushing over 1960s space propaganda also support 3D printing, without realizing they contradict each other utterly!
3D printing is also likely to be one of the technologies that lets us expand across the solar system. No-one's going to be doing overnight shipping of replacement parts to Mars any time soon... if ever.
Slashdot Mirror
How many people do you think are going to pay $200,000 for a few minutes in space if there's a one in sixty chance of not coming back?
I note you completely ignored my question.
In what sense, exactly, is killing the crew one time in sixty 'extremely safe'?
If that were true, then the Space Shuttle would have used them instead of solid rocket boosters.
Uh, it is true. The SRBs weren't chosen for their specific impulse, they were chosen primarily because they were cheap to develop compared to a new liquid rocket booster which would probably have required a new engine, too.
As I understand it, they chose the hybrid engine because it was a fast way to get Spaceship One into space to win the X-Prize. And it worked well.
It just doesn't seem to have scaled up to an operational vehicle, and should probably have been abandoned long ago. I've seen a number of people online over the last few years talking about their concerns with using these engines in this way, and how it was likely to go badly wrong.
We gave up on zeppelins because heavier-than-air craft became much more capable and cheaper to operate. They still crashed and burned on a regular basis.
Hey, it's the anti-Space Nutter Nutter.
Yes, we should listen to the people who think 'man-rated' means killing the crew one time in sixty is OK.
But the idea of having my television connected to the internet and do all kinds of 'extras' apart from just displaying images, always seemed like a terrible idea.
Yes, but your'e not a TV manufacturer.
In what way is Android playing catch up with iOS? Are they features people actually use or even know about?
Well, let's see: how about not letting Facetwitterlinkbook have access to absolutely everything on your device because their app demands so many permissions and you can't deniy specific ones?
I'm sorry, but your post is too sensible and informative for today's Slashdot, where technological knowledge takes a back seat to 'stick it to the man!' outrage.
Exactly. Let's not get wrapped up in partisanship. It's wrong when either side does it, and both sides have.
Except one side claims to be on the side of the workers, and the other side... doesn't.
365 days without a security patch. Does uptime make you more money than protecting your customer data?
Most of my servers are behind firewalls with no incoming connections through the Internet. And, yes, uptime matters when we're doing something more critical than serving funny cat videos.
If they are fully automated you could save a lot of money by sharing a car with your buddy.
We, uh, could do that today. We don't, because it's so freaking inconvenient.
I mean, it's not like me and Bob both want to go to work in different places, from different places, at the same time, right?
No-one's going to pay for a 'self-driving' car that requires them to take over at a second's notice. For it to be viable, it has to be limited to cruise control, or handle all conditions, without exception... there's no sane middle ground between them.
As we've pointed out many times before, we've seen in aviation what happens when you rely on the driver to handle cases the computer can't, when the computer does handle 99.9% of cases. It typically involves crashing into the sea and killing everyone on board.
If I remember correctly, rail was also used a lot more for cargo until the rail strikes in the 90s, which convinced many companies to move to a more reliable transport method. If the railways go on strike... your cargo is stuck. If Joe's Trucking goes on strike, you call Bob's Trucking and he collects it for you, instead.
...and why do I want this 'feature' again?
Uh, no. If you're using adaptive cruise control, you're still in charge of the car, and should be monitoring it at all times. Clearly some people won't, and will crash, and will be responsible.
A true self-driving car won't even have a steering wheel, so how can you possibly be held responsible for what it does?
#2: They don't need to be as good as humans are in the general case. Only in the specific domain case of: Hit the brake before you collide.
So it's OK if they go straight through red lights that aren't in the database and drive along the sidewalk because the database is wrong, so long as they stop before they hit anything?
Easy... get one of these automated cars driving into nascar... if it makes it through a season at least placing in the top 5, and no accidents, it's safe.
How often does a deer run across a NASCAR track? How often are NASCAR races run in a snow storm? How often do NASCAR tracks have randomly placed ice patches?
Racing is easy for a computer to do, compared to driivng through town in a blizzard.
Unless it becomes law, self driving cars* will be a gimmick. Kind of like heated seats, kind of nice, but not necessary for your average joe.
Let me guess: you've never had to start your car and drive home at forty below zero, have you?
Heated seats are, at least in part, a response to the increased fuel economy of modern engines, which don't produce enough waste heat to warm the cabin rapidly. I believe some diesel-engined cars even have electric elements in the heater for cold weather, because the coolant takes so long to warm up.
Back on topic, my guess is:
First we'll see decent 'hands free' cruise control for highway driving.
Then we'll see automated trucks driving between truck stops just outside cities, where a human driver will handle the few miles to their destination and back to the truck stop with a new load of cargo.
Then, some time a few decades from now, see actual self-driving cars that can drive anywhere without human assistance.
Even if they're *free*, why go through the trouble?
Are you even smart enough to have any idea how retarded that comment is?
Damn, Slashdot has gone downhill since Betageddon sent most of the smart posters elsewhere.
Contrary to what you say, many studies have found that the better educated and informed you are the more likely you are to be a liberal.
Well, yes, because 'educated' people have spent years being taught liberal dogma, and being told how wonderful they are for doing so.
'Education' has very little to do with intelligence. Quite the opposite, in most cases.
Ardent libertarian is the term used in polite society for "emotionally immature and intellectually unsophisticated".
No, you're confusing 'libertarian' with 'liberal'.
"There's literally almost nothing on this world that is both so unique as to exist singularly and so instantly-needed potentially anywhere to justify the expense of launching that one thing into a suborbital flight on a rocket for delivery."
That all depends on how much the rocket flight costs. But, yes, suborbital delivery is unlikely to ever make financial sense if you can have those parts in 24 hours on a jet. Particularly if both then spend hours in customs waiting to be cleared once they arrive.
Exactly. It's weird that the same people gushing over 1960s space propaganda also support 3D printing, without realizing they contradict each other utterly!
3D printing is also likely to be one of the technologies that lets us expand across the solar system. No-one's going to be doing overnight shipping of replacement parts to Mars any time soon... if ever.