Are you kidding? Transporting material with ships is *cheap*. And given that most of the stuff that'll be shipped up is made in China anyway, it'd be cheaper sending it to the elevator than it would be to send it to the US.:)
Why? They're anti-aircraft missiles. The fact that they didn't work too hot for something they weren't even friggin designed for (anti-ballistic missile) doesn't really pertain. If they can shoot down British fighters they can probably handle a hijacked commercial plane.
Problem with that design is you'll have to do something to keep it in orbit, like put a rocket at its center of rotation or pulse electricity through it at the right times to use the Earth's magnetic field to accelerate into a higher orbit. The momentum for pulling things into space and flinging them away has to come from somewhere. With the "classical" design going past geostationary orbit, the momentum comes from the Earth's rotation.
Re:The Moon for 100 Billion, Mars for 20 Billion?
on
NASA's New Shuttle
·
· Score: 1
1) Yeah, getting a nuclear reactor launched off US soil would be unlikely. As I understand it, the nukes is going to be dragged away from the unmanned vehicle and buried anyway; maybe it could be launched seperately? The French could step up to the plate and build and launch it from French Guayana. They aren't wimps when it comes to nuclear power. In return, they get a free seat on the manned mission.
2) Get a long enough tether linking the two vehicles, and Coriolis won't be a problem.
3) Aerobraking at Mars: The velocity change won't be what it is for returning to Earth, they can have a larger aerobrake, and they can do multiple passes.
Haven't you gotten the memo? They gave up on dismantling the government. The plan now is to run it into bankruptcy so all tax revenue is used to provide a steady stream of income to bondholders. Moon and Mars mission are *perfect* for helping that happen, especially if you own aerospace company stock.
If they get rid of the SRBs, it should be possible to successfully abort at every point of ascent. The escape rocket should be able to pull them away from an exploding booster. Losing a throwaway booster wouldn't be *that* bad (or expensive) if the crew survives. And since you'd have a pipeline of launch vehicles, it'd be a lot more likely you'd have a rescue vehicle lying around if someone was stranded in orbit with a broken heat shield (which would be a lot less likely given that a capsule's heat shield is protected until it's used).
Another thought... It's a lot easier to do continuous improvement on a throwaway rocket. Even within the Apollo program the later versions were much improved (more weight to the moon, longer duration).
I've never been able to understand some people's attachment to the shuttle. One of these days it'll be cheaper and more reliable to use a reuseable spacecraft. That day isn't here yet. For good engineers, cheaper and more reliable are always more important than "ooh, shiny!".
Until they get rid of the SRBs, it's still way more dangerous that it has to be. There's no way to easily abort while they are attached and running. At the very least, they should only use them on unmanned cargo flights. Makes me wonder if Morton Thiokol has incriminating pictures of someone:(.
Well, if *I* were spending 5000 bucks a pound to put something in orbit, the last thing *I'd* do is bring it back if I could help it. Forget SpaceLabs. Spend an extra 10% and make them a permanent addition to a space station. For things you need to bring back, it wouldn't be too hard to design it so you could return it in a capsule (make something like the Long Duration Exposure Facility so it folds up, etc.).
I doubt that, given the fact that in the forward to the book, Clarke says he moved Sri Lanka a couple hundred miles south so it's on the equator. Don't think that'll happen in real life.
Actually, the equator *doesn't* have high winds. The twin Petronas (?) towers in Kuala Lampur (until recently the world's tallest buildings) are near the equator, and they don't have near the wind load as something like the Sears tower.
Weather is driven by Coriolis acceleration and by temperature differentials. Ain't a lot of either in the ocean far from land near the equator.
We'll never get that far. In a few years somebody's going to start up the first quantum computer and the reality emulator we're running on is going to dump core.
Don't know what state you live in, but here in Texas it's not too bright to have one on your car. It'll be gone pretty soon and you'll be lucky if you're not keyed as well.
You know the fish symbols born-agains sometimes have on their car? It's like that, only with feet and the word "Darwin" in or under it. Kind of like the one at the end of http://www.wagoneers.com/pages/RocketCar/rockit.ht ml
I was under the impression that changing careers to be a teacher later in life is a bad idea from a retirement fund standpoint. Many (most?) public school teachers don't pay into Social Security; they pay into an investment fund (similar to the the way members of Congress do it). This won't amount to much unless you start teaching when you're young, and Social Security benefits go down when you start putting money away like this.
Of course, one theory I've always liked is that we're seeing the tail end of alien matter-antimatter starship drives that temporarily are pointed our way.:)
Since it only lasts a few minutes, wouldn't it depend if it's visible in the sky? Similar to "Inconstant Moon" by Larry Niven? What I've read is that if one occurs within 6000 light years or so, it'll kill everything on the side of the planet facing it. Since half the ozone layer would be gone, in a few days air currents would redistribute what was left so whoever survived would have to deal with ozone layer being reduced to half its level.
I thought gamma ray bursts were likely to be collisions of massive objects, like binary neutron stars/black holes orbiting closer and closer till they collide.
Don't think they had concentration camps for civilians, but Sherman's march to the sea pretty much destroyed everything in its path. The intent of that was to break the South's will to fight by showing them the Union could devestate anywhere in the South with impunity.
You don't have to live in France to have France's labor laws work for you. I had a good job in Dallas working for Alcatel (French telecom company). They'd much rather hire people in the US than in France.
Rumor has it that a few years ago Alcatel management in France was talking with the unions trying to avoid a strike. They ended up getting fined by the government because they spent more than 35 hours in a week negotiating.
Slashdot Mirror
As Warren Buffet said, you want to make it so your children can do anything they want, but you don't want to make it so your children can do nothing.
Just depressurize the friggin cabin and force everyone to use the oxygen masks.
Are you kidding? Transporting material with ships is *cheap*. And given that most of the stuff that'll be shipped up is made in China anyway, it'd be cheaper sending it to the elevator than it would be to send it to the US. :)
Why? They're anti-aircraft missiles. The fact that they didn't work too hot for something they weren't even friggin designed for (anti-ballistic missile) doesn't really pertain. If they can shoot down British fighters they can probably handle a hijacked commercial plane.
Problem with that design is you'll have to do something to keep it in orbit, like put a rocket at its center of rotation or pulse electricity through it at the right times to use the Earth's magnetic field to accelerate into a higher orbit. The momentum for pulling things into space and flinging them away has to come from somewhere. With the "classical" design going past geostationary orbit, the momentum comes from the Earth's rotation.
1) Yeah, getting a nuclear reactor launched off US soil would be unlikely. As I understand it, the nukes is going to be dragged away from the unmanned vehicle and buried anyway; maybe it could be launched seperately? The French could step up to the plate and build and launch it from French Guayana. They aren't wimps when it comes to nuclear power. In return, they get a free seat on the manned mission.
2) Get a long enough tether linking the two vehicles, and Coriolis won't be a problem.
3) Aerobraking at Mars: The velocity change won't be what it is for returning to Earth, they can have a larger aerobrake, and they can do multiple passes.
Haven't you gotten the memo? They gave up on dismantling the government. The plan now is to run it into bankruptcy so all tax revenue is used to provide a steady stream of income to bondholders. Moon and Mars mission are *perfect* for helping that happen, especially if you own aerospace company stock.
If they get rid of the SRBs, it should be possible to successfully abort at every point of ascent. The escape rocket should be able to pull them away from an exploding booster. Losing a throwaway booster wouldn't be *that* bad (or expensive) if the crew survives. And since you'd have a pipeline of launch vehicles, it'd be a lot more likely you'd have a rescue vehicle lying around if someone was stranded in orbit with a broken heat shield (which would be a lot less likely given that a capsule's heat shield is protected until it's used).
Another thought... It's a lot easier to do continuous improvement on a throwaway rocket. Even within the Apollo program the later versions were much improved (more weight to the moon, longer duration).
I've never been able to understand some people's attachment to the shuttle. One of these days it'll be cheaper and more reliable to use a reuseable spacecraft. That day isn't here yet. For good engineers, cheaper and more reliable are always more important than "ooh, shiny!".
Until they get rid of the SRBs, it's still way more dangerous that it has to be. There's no way to easily abort while they are attached and running. At the very least, they should only use them on unmanned cargo flights. Makes me wonder if Morton Thiokol has incriminating pictures of someone :(.
Well, if *I* were spending 5000 bucks a pound to put something in orbit, the last thing *I'd* do is bring it back if I could help it. Forget SpaceLabs. Spend an extra 10% and make them a permanent addition to a space station. For things you need to bring back, it wouldn't be too hard to design it so you could return it in a capsule (make something like the Long Duration Exposure Facility so it folds up, etc.).
I doubt that, given the fact that in the forward to the book, Clarke says he moved Sri Lanka a couple hundred miles south so it's on the equator. Don't think that'll happen in real life.
Actually, the equator *doesn't* have high winds. The twin Petronas (?) towers in Kuala Lampur (until recently the world's tallest buildings) are near the equator, and they don't have near the wind load as something like the Sears tower.
Weather is driven by Coriolis acceleration and by temperature differentials. Ain't a lot of either in the ocean far from land near the equator.
Laser or microwave powered launchers. Keep the fuel and the engines on the ground.
We'll never get that far. In a few years somebody's going to start up the first quantum computer and the reality emulator we're running on is going to dump core.
Don't know what state you live in, but here in Texas it's not too bright to have one on your car. It'll be gone pretty soon and you'll be lucky if you're not keyed as well.
:)
Oh, and before you ask, no I've never had one.
You know the fish symbols born-agains sometimes have on their car? It's like that, only with feet and the word "Darwin" in or under it. Kind of like the one at the end of http://www.wagoneers.com/pages/RocketCar/rockit.ht ml
I was under the impression that changing careers to be a teacher later in life is a bad idea from a retirement fund standpoint. Many (most?) public school teachers don't pay into Social Security; they pay into an investment fund (similar to the the way members of Congress do it). This won't amount to much unless you start teaching when you're young, and Social Security benefits go down when you start putting money away like this.
What's better than winning the Special Olympics? Not being retarded.
Thanks.
:)
Of course, one theory I've always liked is that we're seeing the tail end of alien matter-antimatter starship drives that temporarily are pointed our way.
Since it only lasts a few minutes, wouldn't it depend if it's visible in the sky? Similar to "Inconstant Moon" by Larry Niven? What I've read is that if one occurs within 6000 light years or so, it'll kill everything on the side of the planet facing it. Since half the ozone layer would be gone, in a few days air currents would redistribute what was left so whoever survived would have to deal with ozone layer being reduced to half its level.
I thought gamma ray bursts were likely to be collisions of massive objects, like binary neutron stars/black holes orbiting closer and closer till they collide.
As long as you check for scuba divers first . . .
Don't think they had concentration camps for civilians, but Sherman's march to the sea pretty much destroyed everything in its path. The intent of that was to break the South's will to fight by showing them the Union could devestate anywhere in the South with impunity.
Maybe one day you'll get paid enough to afford air conditioning :(
You don't have to live in France to have France's labor laws work for you. I had a good job in Dallas working for Alcatel (French telecom company). They'd much rather hire people in the US than in France.
Rumor has it that a few years ago Alcatel management in France was talking with the unions trying to avoid a strike. They ended up getting fined by the government because they spent more than 35 hours in a week negotiating.