They have solids as well. For e.g. the *very* interesting Topol-M.
There are a bunch of older Soviet era solid rockets as well. There are still many storable liquid propellant ICBMs and other old ICBMs in the Russian arsenal, but they are being progressively replaced by Topol-M.
The interesting thing here is that both China and India have communist economies AFAIK. India was the Soviets best arms client for a long time and still is Russia's best arms client.
The difference is India is a real democracy, with real elections and so on. China on the other hand is a Soviet like Oligarchy.
Redstone used LOX/Alcohol so yes. The early Titans also used some cryogenics. However later Titans used storable toxic hypergolic liquid fuels. Some even had solid first stages.
India already has the Agni family of missiles with solid first stage, why would they use cryogenic engines for nukes? Sure they could use it for a small batch of revenge weapons to hit China, think modified Agni family with cryogenic 3rd stage, but that would have limited use.
India has nukes. I think they even did nuclear tests.
China has the nukes and the means to deliver them for a long time. Search for info on the DF-4 family (liquid toxic fuels). They are also in the process of mass-producing a new generation of ICBMs and IRBMs (solid fuels). These are for submarines, road/train vehicles and silos.
There is no silver bullet. The answer will always have to be a multitude of energy resources. Regarding Uranium, please remember that there is Uranium present in nature, even U235. That is where we are getting it from. Besides, Uranium isn't that radioactive. Radium is worse for e.g.
"Nuclear waste" as you called it contains high-level and low-level radioactive waste. The low-level radioactive waste, i.e. the stuff that takes millions of years to decay like Uranium and Plutonium is all reusable for energy production. The high-level wastes, the really dangerous stuff like caesium, decays in a few decades.
Hydro power is not a universal answer because there aren't infinite places for dams. In several countries all the good spots have been used already. Besides, they disrupt whole ecosystems by flooding large regions. Offshore wind power will not satisfy our whole energy requirements.
So, what do you prefer? Fossil fuel power plants emiting noxious fumes which cause lung cancer, acid rain, etc. Or nuclear plants?
The Chinese turned inwards for several reasons. Others who expanded beat them. Maybe this be a lesson for you: if Earthlings do not expand to space, someone else will expand here. It may take 10, 100, 1000, 10000 years. But it will happen.
Better team is relative. The team the Soviets got had designed the Wasserfall radar guided surface to air missile IIRC.
US's problem was they cheerfully duplicated WWII missiles without trying to develop new stuff. While the Russians, pushed by Stalin's megalomania, dumped loads of resources on missiles.
Read all about early Russian rocket development here.
Huhuh. Please explain how using wasting more money on next-gen designs of the huge liquid fuel space rockets (LOX/LH2 designs are in the cards) helps with long-range nuke delivery. It may have when they first designed their toxic hypergolic rockets way back (the one which was launched today is close to their old hypergolic ICBM DF-5 BTW).
They are putting all their new nukes on solids. e.g. DF-31 For nukes you need cold-launch capability and a LOX/LH2 space rocket requires a couple of minutes to fill the tanks and for the engines to heat-up. They are no good for nukes. Too slow.
It will be cheaper, faster to develop since it needs less parts. It will carry more given the same launch rocket. It will be safer because it is easier to make a capsule with a continuous intact abort feature (i.e. you can evac the crew any step of the flight).
Just think about it. A top mounted capsule can be ejected upwards in case there is a problem with the booster, afterwards it safely lands using a parachute.
If there is a problem with the shuttle booster or other side mounted vehicle, you can probably kiss your ass goodbye.
The wings are a nuisance while taking off. That is the reason why the Shuttle is mounted sideways on the rocket instead of at the top. The original X-20 Dynasoar space plane was planned to be top mounted until someone figured out that having wings on the nose of a rocket isn't a good thing because it makes the whole thing unstable. There is a reason arrows have the feathers on the tail instead of the opposite.
So you carry wings, a reinforced hull to support the structural stresses wings provove, wheels, etc. All just for landing?
A parachute is much simpler, cheaper, and doesn't use all that space and weight! You could also use landing rockets like the DC-X used, or a parafoil (a sort of a cross between a parachute and a wing) with some skids like the X-38, etc.
Why must a space vehicle look like an airplane? An airplane does not look like a train, a train does not look like a boat either.
The main medium is different, the vehicle is supposed to fit to the medium, not the other way around. In space wings are just as useless as wheels on a boat at sea.
That is a composite. Not a single nanotube. It has way less strength than required. Lots of people have been able to make composites, although this one seems to be quite nice.
ESA has launched more probes before the SMART-1 moon mission. e.g.: Mars Express, Giotto, click on the 'Missions' button in that page and see the list.
Actually Artemis only featured gridded ion thrusters. This baby has both ion and hall effect thrusters.
IIRC it uses the same basic technology as the French satellite STENTOR did. STENTOR would have been IIRC the first European satellite using hall effect thrusters of that design.
However, in case you don't remember, STENTOR was the huge satellite payload in that first Ariane 5 ECA version launch that blew up...
Spot on. What does it matter to land in the right place to not spend time doing capsule recovery, if the bloody thing takes months to inspect and refurbish to launch again?
Recovering a capsule with a chopper will take a day or two tops, what is the big deal? Landing in an airstrip is overrated.
Not to mention a capsule can safely land in more places, while if the shuttle misses the runway you are essentially doomed.
Regarding drivers, it is a matter of choosing something with a Linux kernel and XFree86 version that support your devices.
Before I bought my system I chose components I knew had support in Linux. This makes things simpler. Luckily the most well suported devices are usually the cheaper ones, so you will not lose much from this.
If you think Linux has driver problems how about the Mac? You do not have driver problems because all the stuff you use comes bundled together. Try using certain PC devices like cheap DVD recorders, etc and you will see which one has better driver support as boxed.
If you like the Mac that is fine. MacOS X is a fine OS, unlike the previous attempts, with a great UI/API. I prefer non proprietary solutions.
You are mistaken. Compare the change of UI from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 for example. The window buttons changed a lot, as did the scrollbars, well everything changed.
The change to XP was not simply to make the widgets blue. Notice app buttons are no longer beveled except when you pass the mouse of them. The taskbar is also different. There are many other subtle changes that most people to not even notice but they are there.
When your UI has reached a certain point, improvements usually come in smaller steps. But many small steps make big changes.
Re:Message from http://www.budgetlinuxcds.com
on
Mandrake 9.2 RC1
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
...not all advertising is evil...
What you say?!
You have no chance to survive make your time.
Ha Ha Ha Ha....
Slashdot Mirror
They have solids as well. For e.g. the *very* interesting Topol-M. There are a bunch of older Soviet era solid rockets as well. There are still many storable liquid propellant ICBMs and other old ICBMs in the Russian arsenal, but they are being progressively replaced by Topol-M.
The difference is India is a real democracy, with real elections and so on. China on the other hand is a Soviet like Oligarchy.
Redstone used LOX/Alcohol so yes. The early Titans also used some cryogenics. However later Titans used storable toxic hypergolic liquid fuels. Some even had solid first stages. India already has the Agni family of missiles with solid first stage, why would they use cryogenic engines for nukes? Sure they could use it for a small batch of revenge weapons to hit China, think modified Agni family with cryogenic 3rd stage, but that would have limited use.
China has the nukes and the means to deliver them for a long time. Search for info on the DF-4 family (liquid toxic fuels). They are also in the process of mass-producing a new generation of ICBMs and IRBMs (solid fuels). These are for submarines, road/train vehicles and silos.
Rockets aren't that good without having nukes in them. A bomber can deliver more explosive mass with less cost.
Not really. The first Russian rockets were V-2 clones (e.g. R-1) and they essentially kidnapped the Wasserfall design team for several years.
FYI, the USA is in debt to China. In fact, most of the USA's debts are with China.
"Nuclear waste" as you called it contains high-level and low-level radioactive waste. The low-level radioactive waste, i.e. the stuff that takes millions of years to decay like Uranium and Plutonium is all reusable for energy production. The high-level wastes, the really dangerous stuff like caesium, decays in a few decades.
Hydro power is not a universal answer because there aren't infinite places for dams. In several countries all the good spots have been used already. Besides, they disrupt whole ecosystems by flooding large regions. Offshore wind power will not satisfy our whole energy requirements.
So, what do you prefer? Fossil fuel power plants emiting noxious fumes which cause lung cancer, acid rain, etc. Or nuclear plants?
And I could kill every human being on Earth by choking them in the ocean. So?
Humany must expand outwards into space eventually, the faster the better.
The Chinese turned inwards for several reasons. Others who expanded beat them. Maybe this be a lesson for you: if Earthlings do not expand to space, someone else will expand here. It may take 10, 100, 1000, 10000 years. But it will happen.
If it had happened it would already have leaked by now. After all, we now know the secret history of the Soviet moon race. The secret history of the German scientists involvement in their rocket program. So why not about this bit as well.
US's problem was they cheerfully duplicated WWII missiles without trying to develop new stuff. While the Russians, pushed by Stalin's megalomania, dumped loads of resources on missiles.
Read all about early Russian rocket development here.
They are putting all their new nukes on solids. e.g. DF-31 For nukes you need cold-launch capability and a LOX/LH2 space rocket requires a couple of minutes to fill the tanks and for the engines to heat-up. They are no good for nukes. Too slow.
It will be cheaper, faster to develop since it needs less parts. It will carry more given the same launch rocket. It will be safer because it is easier to make a capsule with a continuous intact abort feature (i.e. you can evac the crew any step of the flight).
Just think about it. A top mounted capsule can be ejected upwards in case there is a problem with the booster, afterwards it safely lands using a parachute.
If there is a problem with the shuttle booster or other side mounted vehicle, you can probably kiss your ass goodbye.
The wings are a nuisance while taking off. That is the reason why the Shuttle is mounted sideways on the rocket instead of at the top. The original X-20 Dynasoar space plane was planned to be top mounted until someone figured out that having wings on the nose of a rocket isn't a good thing because it makes the whole thing unstable. There is a reason arrows have the feathers on the tail instead of the opposite.
So you carry wings, a reinforced hull to support the structural stresses wings provove, wheels, etc. All just for landing?
A parachute is much simpler, cheaper, and doesn't use all that space and weight! You could also use landing rockets like the DC-X used, or a parafoil (a sort of a cross between a parachute and a wing) with some skids like the X-38, etc.
Why must a space vehicle look like an airplane? An airplane does not look like a train, a train does not look like a boat either.
The main medium is different, the vehicle is supposed to fit to the medium, not the other way around. In space wings are just as useless as wheels on a boat at sea.
For more info on all I talked above, just check out the excellent site Encyclopedia Astronautica.
That is a composite. Not a single nanotube. It has way less strength than required. Lots of people have been able to make composites, although this one seems to be quite nice.
If platinum was cheaper, fuel cells would be cheaper.
ESA has launched more probes before the SMART-1 moon mission. e.g.: Mars Express, Giotto, click on the 'Missions' button in that page and see the list.
RS-68 is the engine on a Delta 4. It is a bell nozzle engine also made by Rocketdyne, not aerospike.
IIRC it uses the same basic technology as the French satellite STENTOR did. STENTOR would have been IIRC the first European satellite using hall effect thrusters of that design. However, in case you don't remember, STENTOR was the huge satellite payload in that first Ariane 5 ECA version launch that blew up...
Recovering a capsule with a chopper will take a day or two tops, what is the big deal? Landing in an airstrip is overrated.
Not to mention a capsule can safely land in more places, while if the shuttle misses the runway you are essentially doomed.
Before I bought my system I chose components I knew had support in Linux. This makes things simpler. Luckily the most well suported devices are usually the cheaper ones, so you will not lose much from this.
If you think Linux has driver problems how about the Mac? You do not have driver problems because all the stuff you use comes bundled together. Try using certain PC devices like cheap DVD recorders, etc and you will see which one has better driver support as boxed.
If you like the Mac that is fine. MacOS X is a fine OS, unlike the previous attempts, with a great UI/API. I prefer non proprietary solutions.
Windows XP is much superior.
The change to XP was not simply to make the widgets blue. Notice app buttons are no longer beveled except when you pass the mouse of them. The taskbar is also different. There are many other subtle changes that most people to not even notice but they are there.
When your UI has reached a certain point, improvements usually come in smaller steps. But many small steps make big changes.
What you say?!
You have no chance to survive make your time. ....
Ha Ha Ha Ha