Actually, the SST main engines do more work (impuse * time). The Boosters are just that, boosters... Only providing a short duration boost to get things rolling.
The shuttle itself does use variable thrust. The current boosters; however, do not (a major flaw that needs to be fixed with all new boosters).
SCRAM jets never got past the design and testing phase because we still can't get them to work reliably. They're trying.(not just NASA -- Australia is working on it too)
Boeing and others are working on launches that happen by lifting the launch vehicle above most of the atmosphere. Orbital Science's Pegasus is such a vehicle -- carried to 40k ft by a heavy lift aircraft before being dropped and instructed to ignite it's own engines.
Problem is, that's only designed for a small satellite. What Boeing is proposing, to launch big stuff, will require they build enormous planes (makes the 747 seem like a child's toy) to lift the thing.
It's not just acting as a taxi. It would be lifting the remaining parts. We (Russia included) do not currently have another heavy lifting vehicle that can loft some of those big modules -- only the shuttle has the capability.
You're about to say, "So, build a big unmanned rocket!" Well, the design, construction and testing of the unmanned system would take almost as long as a new shuttle. So, it's either continue building with the shuttle, or abandon the ISS.
"Clippy goes on a rampage..."
Or turn the hot water WAY up during your shower...
Or lock you out...
Or interrupt EVERYTHING you try to do with some stupid suggestion...
This isn't really news. There's quite a bit of BSD embeded in most current proprietary Unix's as well as in Windows (the tcp stack was based on old BSD code, for example -- yes, MS badly implemented it; but, that's where it came from...)
GNU products have been used in unix environments for a decade or more (I was using gcc and emacs on sun in '95)
We've been sitting around at work discussing this; and, fully expect to find SCO's "offending code" in an early BSD4.4Lite, v 1.x.x kernel, or something...
most 9v batteries only rated to produce a max of 50mA continuously; however, the peak (instantaneous) current when shorted could depend on the temperature of the battery, the age of the battery, the amount of charge remaining, the type of battery (nicad's could hit amps easily), etc. It could run to an amp (for a very short duration)
Most likely you just reacted badly -- typical response is to instinctively jump away from the source of the pain... Try harder to hold still next time : )
It's also possible that if you were playing with batteries and water, you created some Hydrogen and Oxygen; which you then ignited...
I spent all those years learning cursive handwritting. Then (I'm about to date myself) I spent three years in drafting classes unlearning cursive, to get the block lettering on drawings right. Then... I had to forget all of that and learn CAD-CAM. Now, I spend most of my time with a keyboard typing code.
Now, you want me to start over again and teach my son cursive??? Why?
We've all heard of the "faster, better, cheaper" game NASA's been playing lately.
Here's the problem as I see it: As software and hardware have become more complicated, there's a need to increase testing. Instead, in order to meet NASA's new budgetary requirements, funding in general, and specifically for testing, has gone down. So, it's not possible to completely test all of the hardware AND software, as it should be.
As an analogy: If we were talking about commercial airliners; these probes would never be certified to fly.
I'm not putting all the blame on NASA here; although, it is apparent to me that they need to start reporting what it's actually going to cost. Having said that, Congress is equally complicit; they need to come to the realization that it's expensive to do work outside the atmosphere (they apparently don't understand this...)
I read the articles (there was more than one written). I read the comments by Aberdeen's rep. She said: Yep, that's the same code alright...
Where's the analysis in this? 80 lines of code isn't damning. Where did it come from? Did she go back into the distro archives and find where and when it was put into the code? No. Did she check against the BSD codebase? NO. Did she even know what she was looking at? Probably not.
That's why the FCC mandated the stations convert to digital. There will be a period when both the digital and analog signal will be transmitted (uh, now). After some time (10 years?) to allow for digital tv's and digital to analog converter boxes to become widely available, the analog signals will be cut off.
Once this is done, the amount of bandwith required will be reduced by nearly an order of magnitude. The saved space is then to be re-allocated.
I suspect that your wrong though. Just because someone asks me "Which graphics card should I get?" doesn't make me an expert in graphics cards. I've a degree in physics, work as an electrical engineer and do instrumentation and controls programming. How does that make me an expert? It doesn't. (sometimes knowledge is knowing when you DON'T know something).
Oops, I was ranting...
The sad truth is that most people don't ask someone knowledgeable. They'll ask a salesman (who's looking for a commission). They'll ask the neighbor who owns a computer. They'll take what's in one particular magazine at face value, without checking it out themselves. (doing a simple google search...)
Sure, it's usually safe to pick some reputable brands "latest and greatest," which seems to be your advice (the Radeon 9700) But is that what they really want or need. I could buy a Porsche; but I drive an old Dodge truck because it gets me there (and the occasional rack full of electronic gear fits in it better).
The mass market will buy the box with the prettier logo
Most of the time, I don't care either; as long as it does what I want. I'm not out on a witch hunt... Besides, I was replying to Aren't we smart enough not to be pulled in my marketing hyperzor?
and that's exactly what most people do, fall for the market hype.
Uh, no. The mass market will buy the box with the prettier logo, The box with the lower price, or the box that magazine xyz (that they read) says is best.
Sad, but true.
Most people will shop around, to make sure the features they're looking for are simply there and work. Beyond that, they don't do the research to understand which version is better unless they're forced to.
And if I hadn't been so tired and in a sarcastic mood anyway, I might have thought about it more.
On one hand, I see the Microsoft business as a good thing. They drive the industry. They give us a goal (how can I make my app better than...) And, despite what many here on/. would say, they do provide a reasonable, feature rich OS, which is improving (features, stability, user friendliness) with each release. Their Office apps are the industry standard that everyone is trying to copy. Their development environments are among the best. The list goes on...
On the other, I (personally) have problems with some of the thought process they appear to follow. For example: "We have this competitor. Let's destroy them by duplicating their product(s) and bundling it with our operating system" This is perfectly legitimate, I admit. I'm just not comfortable with this line of reasoning. Maybe I read too much into it. Another complaint is that they (in my opinion) charge too much; but, I don't really have a grasp of what there overhead is. It could be that their pricing structure is reasonable for them as a company. I also wish that there would be fewer holes, bugs and other "features" in their code; but, really, other software isn't much better.
Before I get flamed: I work with both Windows and various flavors of unix; and, I happen to prefer unix; but, Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, any of them, have there own list of "issues" to contend with. There is no perfect OS.
they take a huge screen and pass it in front of their star, doing so in a pattern that we can identify as "intelligent" (are we smart enough to recognize it?)
Yeah, I know it's not likely. Yeah, I know how big the screen would have to be. So what. If ya ain't got nothing better to do, why not build something.
Think of it as a Chinese construction project where they manage to redirect a river basin by giving a few million people shovels and telling them to start digging.
It may not be efficient. It may not be pretty. It just happens to work.
Well Duh. Did you feel the shockwave from any supernova lately. No, I don't think so.
Let's see, if memory serves me right... the last time a supernova happened near us.... Hmmm, OH YEAH, it caused our solar system to coalesce from the cloud of gas left over from the one before that.
ahhh Anonymous, that is your name isn't it? Well, it's not the business I'm opposed to, it's the Taking other peoples work that bothers me.
evil refers to how he uses his evil powers to crush the competition by duplicating their efforts, bundling it with the OS "for free" and then somehow convincing the government that it's all legit...
I'll never understand, I guess my standards are too high.
Get rid of the flourescent lights. They're the worst thing (short of mercury vapor) that you can use. Get some good old fashioned incandescent lamps or halogens. Indirect bright light is best (don't introduce glair...)
Insist your employer provide you with a good quality monitor. Remind them that if you have problems caused by the bad hardware, it will reduce your productivity and may result in lost time. If they still won't comply, as a last resort, ask if you can provide your own monitor. If they agree, get it in writting and make it clear it's your property -- label it so "Personal Property of so-and-so..." You can deduct the cost from your taxes as "unreimbursed business related expenses"
You know, I need to follow some of my own advice... (Eyes... Pain... Going Blind...)
Slashdot Mirror
The shuttle itself does use variable thrust. The current boosters; however, do not (a major flaw that needs to be fixed with all new boosters).
SCRAM jets never got past the design and testing phase because we still can't get them to work reliably. They're trying.(not just NASA -- Australia is working on it too)
Boeing and others are working on launches that happen by lifting the launch vehicle above most of the atmosphere. Orbital Science's Pegasus is such a vehicle -- carried to 40k ft by a heavy lift aircraft before being dropped and instructed to ignite it's own engines.
Problem is, that's only designed for a small satellite. What Boeing is proposing, to launch big stuff, will require they build enormous planes (makes the 747 seem like a child's toy) to lift the thing.
You're about to say, "So, build a big unmanned rocket!" Well, the design, construction and testing of the unmanned system would take almost as long as a new shuttle. So, it's either continue building with the shuttle, or abandon the ISS.
"Clippy goes on a rampage..." Or turn the hot water WAY up during your shower... Or lock you out... Or interrupt EVERYTHING you try to do with some stupid suggestion...
GNU products have been used in unix environments for a decade or more (I was using gcc and emacs on sun in '95)
We've been sitting around at work discussing this; and, fully expect to find SCO's "offending code" in an early BSD4.4Lite, v 1.x.x kernel, or something...
Most likely you just reacted badly -- typical response is to instinctively jump away from the source of the pain... Try harder to hold still next time : )
It's also possible that if you were playing with batteries and water, you created some Hydrogen and Oxygen; which you then ignited...
Now, you want me to start over again and teach my son cursive??? Why?
Here's the problem as I see it: As software and hardware have become more complicated, there's a need to increase testing. Instead, in order to meet NASA's new budgetary requirements, funding in general, and specifically for testing, has gone down. So, it's not possible to completely test all of the hardware AND software, as it should be.
As an analogy: If we were talking about commercial airliners; these probes would never be certified to fly.
I'm not putting all the blame on NASA here; although, it is apparent to me that they need to start reporting what it's actually going to cost. Having said that, Congress is equally complicit; they need to come to the realization that it's expensive to do work outside the atmosphere (they apparently don't understand this...)
Where's the analysis in this? 80 lines of code isn't damning. Where did it come from? Did she go back into the distro archives and find where and when it was put into the code? No. Did she check against the BSD codebase? NO. Did she even know what she was looking at? Probably not.
Once this is done, the amount of bandwith required will be reduced by nearly an order of magnitude. The saved space is then to be re-allocated.
The entire AM radio spectrum isn't even half of a single TV channel.
I suspect that your wrong though. Just because someone asks me "Which graphics card should I get?" doesn't make me an expert in graphics cards. I've a degree in physics, work as an electrical engineer and do instrumentation and controls programming. How does that make me an expert? It doesn't. (sometimes knowledge is knowing when you DON'T know something).
Oops, I was ranting...
The sad truth is that most people don't ask someone knowledgeable. They'll ask a salesman (who's looking for a commission). They'll ask the neighbor who owns a computer. They'll take what's in one particular magazine at face value, without checking it out themselves. (doing a simple google search...)
Sure, it's usually safe to pick some reputable brands "latest and greatest," which seems to be your advice (the Radeon 9700) But is that what they really want or need. I could buy a Porsche; but I drive an old Dodge truck because it gets me there (and the occasional rack full of electronic gear fits in it better).
The mass market will buy the box with the prettier logo
Most of the time, I don't care either; as long as it does what I want. I'm not out on a witch hunt... Besides, I was replying to Aren't we smart enough not to be pulled in my marketing hyperzor? and that's exactly what most people do, fall for the market hype.
Any technical advantage their hardware gives them would be lost; because, they'd have to reveal the specs for all to see.
Sad, but true.
Most people will shop around, to make sure the features they're looking for are simply there and work. Beyond that, they don't do the research to understand which version is better unless they're forced to.
And if I hadn't been so tired and in a sarcastic mood anyway, I might have thought about it more.
On one hand, I see the Microsoft business as a good thing. They drive the industry. They give us a goal (how can I make my app better than ...) And, despite what many here on /. would say, they do provide a reasonable, feature rich OS, which is improving (features, stability, user friendliness) with each release. Their Office apps are the industry standard that everyone is trying to copy. Their development environments are among the best. The list goes on...
On the other, I (personally) have problems with some of the thought process they appear to follow. For example: "We have this competitor. Let's destroy them by duplicating their product(s) and bundling it with our operating system" This is perfectly legitimate, I admit. I'm just not comfortable with this line of reasoning. Maybe I read too much into it. Another complaint is that they (in my opinion) charge too much; but, I don't really have a grasp of what there overhead is. It could be that their pricing structure is reasonable for them as a company. I also wish that there would be fewer holes, bugs and other "features" in their code; but, really, other software isn't much better.
Before I get flamed: I work with both Windows and various flavors of unix; and, I happen to prefer unix; but, Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, any of them, have there own list of "issues" to contend with. There is no perfect OS.
they take a huge screen and pass it in front of their star, doing so in a pattern that we can identify as "intelligent" (are we smart enough to recognize it?)
Yeah, I know it's not likely. Yeah, I know how big the screen would have to be. So what. If ya ain't got nothing better to do, why not build something.
Think of it as a Chinese construction project where they manage to redirect a river basin by giving a few million people shovels and telling them to start digging.
It may not be efficient. It may not be pretty. It just happens to work.
Let's see, if memory serves me right... the last time a supernova happened near us.... Hmmm, OH YEAH, it caused our solar system to coalesce from the cloud of gas left over from the one before that.
Sorry, Tired. Becoming Sarcastic. Can't stop self. Help...
Big hot wind blows by. Bright! Burns! Kills! If I'm far enough away that it doesn't vaporize rock; and, I'm a rock, then I'm still there.
evil refers to how he uses his evil powers to crush the competition by duplicating their efforts, bundling it with the OS "for free" and then somehow convincing the government that it's all legit...
I'll never understand, I guess my standards are too high.
I get it now... Too tired from actually working...
Get rid of the flourescent lights. They're the worst thing (short of mercury vapor) that you can use. Get some good old fashioned incandescent lamps or halogens. Indirect bright light is best (don't introduce glair...)
Insist your employer provide you with a good quality monitor. Remind them that if you have problems caused by the bad hardware, it will reduce your productivity and may result in lost time. If they still won't comply, as a last resort, ask if you can provide your own monitor. If they agree, get it in writting and make it clear it's your property -- label it so "Personal Property of so-and-so..." You can deduct the cost from your taxes as "unreimbursed business related expenses"
You know, I need to follow some of my own advice... (Eyes... Pain... Going Blind...)
If your feeling vindictive, you can bring it up with the management at your former company and get him fired...