Yes, and you could always smell the British and French before you saw them.;)
Actually, in the heat, the Army wants you to drink a gallon every four hours. And living in the high desert in California, I can honestly tell you that just breathing dehydrates you because the air is so dry. And it's not even as hot as the middle east!
I would think the rest of the water is for shaving, face washing, food preparation, coffee, and cleaning. Showers aren't done too often unless you are near a base. Instead you use moist towelletes to clean your pits, genitals, and ass. This keeps bacteria from growing in those places,which can slow a person down tremendously. That is if you elect to, some people get away with not cleaning themselves.
True. But safety critical software has to be validated and verified for every contingency. Otherwise you can't call it safety critical, which that Paris plane's software was, and rely on it. There is absolutely NO reason that a pilot should not be able to get a full throttle response from the engines at any time.
And a good pilot can use instruments or not, but those instruments have to be accurate. And force-feel curves are there for a reason. Yes, it is easy to overshoot a turn in a large airplane because of inertia, and it's easy to commnad more pitch than you need if you're relying on the pilot's g sensors (inner ear). That's why force-feedback is so useful, and why it's much easier to fly a plane with mechanical linkages between the controls. Reliability of mechanical linkages aside, the feedback from your control surfaces gives you many times the information you can get from your inner ear. And yes, I have flown both large and small planes before.
I work government, and while I do like my job, there is no real point in my putting in insane hours. Because in government, everyone has to be treated equally. I work about 45 hours a week, busy all day (and reading slashdot!). If we do raises, everyone gets a 2% raise, or x amount a year. Everyone. Even the people that sit around all day surfing the web. There is no reward for me implementing a system wide VOIP system in 1 month from brainstorm to going live. There is no incentive for me to put in tons of work, except for my own satisfaction, and resume building.
That's somewhat true for me (DoD). But supposedly, things are going to change even more from the GS system than they already are for us. (I'm NH.) What we're seeing for the new personnel system means that in some ways we are getting screwed, but it's more of a performance-based system than GS was, and even more than NH is.
The funny thing about all of this is that yes, we are getting a new personnel system (NSPS) that will apply agency wide. But all of the supervisors that I've talked to have said that they're still going to award raises and bonuses based on what they percieve you have done. AND the money still comes out of a set pool, so I might not get a raise this next year since the DoD is facing tens of billions of cuts due to the Iraq BS. That aspect is similar to a company that just doesn't have enough coming in vs. going out.
I don't know what branch or agency you are working for, but it's not too bad where I am. Though I have to say that I'm considering going back to the private sector, because I moved out of my home state and moved from all of my family and friends.
Actually, they are. The speed of sound in the tethers would be many times higher because the tether would be many times more dense than air. Mach number is just the ratio of speed to local sound speed (sqrt of (gamma * gas constant * temperature)).
Because China wants nothing more than to be ready for the US. That's why they did joint military exercises with the Russians last month: so that they can see what Russia has to offer in terms of hardware, and so they can see how some of their systems do against technology that is similar to the US.
Just because China is a trading partner with the US does not mean that they would be very friendly if they see that they have an advantage.
One of Russia's aims is to defeat US technology. They sell stuff that is specifically designed to defeat US military systems.
And who is interested in updating their military? Why China of course!
The US is just trying to stay ahead of their potential enemies. And I'm not saying Russia is one of them, but they sure like selling their stuff to other countries.
A book called Fundamentals of Astrodynamics. It was mentioned a few posts before mine.
And you can look for a set of equations called Hill's Equations. They're a set of non-linear differential equations that use orbital elements to describe the motion of a satellite (or interplanetary vehicle). Hohmann transfers are used only when you want to conserve fuel, they take the longest time too.
Once you find the equations, you can write a script to integrate them, or you can look for pre-compiled packages that are already set up for them, you just need to put in the satellite info.
The red tape is there so contractor X doesn't come along, screw things up, then say "the contract requirements are satisfied, it's your mess now" to the government. Or "Yeah, we made a mess, but if you give us X billion dollars, we'll make it right." That's BS. And for the most part, that's why you have "funny" environmental laws, or laws protecting endangered species.
And it's also why it's illegal for company X to dump their waste from manufacturing those exotic materials that absorb radar.
I'll admit there is WAY TOO MUCH "me and my cronies" in the defense industry. But most of those funny laws are there because some former company screwed up and the taxpayers are paying for it. And it's definitely hard to get in on something if you don't have contacts. I used to work for a company that had a wonderful idea, the Air Force liked it, but the money dried up before we could even think of getting a contract awarded. A few years later, I read somewhere that another, similar, design had several of the exact same features that our design had. Someone talked along the way, or someone came up with the idea and had their buddies sign off on it.
Isn't it a part of the military's job to make sure that they have the resources that they'll need down the road?
So, wouldn't it be prudent to emphasize development of scientists and engineers, because a certain portion of those folks will work for the DoD or defense contractors?
No they don't. They can't insist such a thing because the visible universe only encompasses ~14 billion lightyears. Thus we can only see out 14 billion lightyears, or 14 billion years into the past (depending on your point of view).
Any astrophysicist that insists on such nonsense as the universe being finite is basing their statement on incomplete data, and making an error. In other words, when some astronomer says, "Holey shiat! I see the edge of the universe!", and it's confirmed, then those astrophysicists will have a more complete data set and they can state that the universe is finite.
Its shiny titanium frame and dedicated launchpad sit in the Mojave desert. The frame was bought by the USAF to continue research into the vehicle, but funds dried up and the project was scrapped. The thing was taken apart for salvage and the skeleton of the frame is sitting around because it's too expensive to take it apart further.
At least that's what I heard from a friend of mine that works at Edwards AFB.
There is a book called Physical Gas Dynamics that might answer the question, but I forget the author.
There's also:
Elements of Gasdynamics by HW Liepmann and A. Roshko, Wiley and Sons, 1957
That's considered one of the "must haves" for fluid dynamicists. My copy is from an old professor, and his was from 1957, so I'm not sure if it's still in print. You should still be able to find it at the library though.
A couple of other books:
Fluid Mechanics by Landau & Lifshitz
Fundamentals of Aerodynamics by John Anderson
Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion by Philip Hill.
And books or papers by Von Karman on vortex dynamics should help too.
Anderson would probably a good place to start since his approach seemed to me to be to get the general idea across and develop the math to support it. You'll want to look for information on turbulent boundary layers, flow entrainment, vortex shedding, and if you like the math, dive into the tensor analysis associated with these.
The boundary layer by itself doesn't cause the entrainment of the exhaust gases. It's the fact that you have a shear layer between the high-speed exhaust gases, right next to a relatively slow-moving freestream (which will cause vortex shedding by itself), AND you also have this occuring near or in a turbulent boundary layer (which can be thought of as small-scale vortices rolling up and being shed).
If the SRB had been burn through, it would have caused the fuel inside to be burned at a different rate. (Burn rate is proportional to burn area; more area == faster burn.)
So if there was a faster burn of the fuel on that one side, the entire craft would have tilted due to the yaw differential from the SRBs burning at different rates. The SRBs are NOT throttleable; once they are lit, they keep burning until the fuel is depleted.
Chances are very high that it's flow separation, and what you see are excited exhaust gases getting caught up in the boudary layer next to the booster. Fortunately that isn't so much of a problem since the boundary layer helps to insulate the surface of the SRB.
I seem to recall that Vista will use vector graphics for their interface. Which means that the interface has the potential to look VERY nice, but will suck up a lot of memory doing all the 3d math involved with graphics processing.
Supposedly, Vista will rely heavily on the next generation of Direct X, which will allow the interface to directly access hardware (thus allowing for vector processing on the hardware).
I think the above came from anandtech or tomshardware, but I don't recall exactly which one.
Creationism is not a theory. It's a hypothesis that can not be further tested. A theory has to have some sort of facts that support the theory; or the flipside is that a theory is a bunch of facts that are explained by a set of statements or principles.
Evolution is a theory because it explains the fact that there are a variety of species that share similar aspects to how they were built (DNA, RNA). It also explains how the process of natural selection can bring about such a wide variety of species, some of which are adapted to live in very specific environments.
Creationism does none of that. What it does do is explain things that we have no way of testing or no way of determining facts for. What happens after you die?
I don't know. But religion offers an explanation. (Note the absence of facts to back up this explanation.) But I believe that regardless of what happens after you die, you should live a good life because what you do in this life affects those that live with you and come after you.
(And I was raised Christian.)
I know several mathematicians that would disagree with your assessment that coming up with new algorithms is engineering. Algorithm development is typically in the domain of scientists working on better computational tools.
If astrophysicists, computational fluid dynamicists, and/or computational plasma physicists (all of them are scientists, by definition), all got together with game developers and swapped algorithm ideas, I guarantee that there would be improvements seen in games. Those scientists are constantly developing new techniques and algorithms to refine their computations.
An engineer would come along, read the papers those scientists published, gain an understanding of the algorithms and techniques discussed, then go implement them in some code.
Not to diss any engineers out there (I am one), but that's basically what engineers do: take the work of others and implement it, usually in a practical manner. I've worked the other side of the situation as well, working in CFD and controls (amongst other computational things).
The best investment would be a perfect portfolio. A little bit of everything so that if one thing heads south, the others will keep your losses low. Even during market downturns/crashes/slips/etc. there is always something that is doing well.
For example, if the stock market crashed and millions lost a lot of money, I'm sure that companies or countries that produce "the basics" would be good things to have invested in. And you gotta remember that most countries want their nations to prosper, so the world as a whole will tend to be relatively stable. It's just getting all the slices to that gargantuan pie that's the hard part.;)
If it increases the public good in some way, the government could very well fund it. If it doesn't increase the public good, then the government wouldn't be doing its job supporting it.
I don't have an immediate use for Social Security, but they still tear me a new one by taking money out for it. And it just so happens that a lot of people benefit from it.
data acquisition systems for large experiments. Such things like the hardware and software used at particle physics labs on their detectors: lots of individual sensors in a huge array that has to be sampled a hell of a lot in one second.
Another thing to look into is testing for dynamic loads on cars or aircraft. At least for aircraft, they'll put thousands of accelerometers all over the frame to measure the various accelerations.
Both of those are prime examples of a similar system to yours. And such users would have insight into the problems you are looking at, as well as be potential customers in the future.:D
If you read up on Iraq's capabilities, you'll find that they had a LOT of capability for air defense. They just didn't use it properly, and those that were used were easily wiped out because their buddies didn't support them. On top of that, the US has done a very good job of keeping up on how to take down air defense networks.
A lot of what Iraq could have done, their army just didn't do. I think 10 years of blowing the hell out of anything that even thought of irradiating an allied aircraft would have an effect on the crews manning those defenses. Even if Saddam was able to provide new equipment, the fear associated with pushing the button to acquire a target - knowing that your radar will be destroyed - would still have a huge impact on your performance.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and you could always smell the British and French before you saw them. ;)
Actually, in the heat, the Army wants you to drink a gallon every four hours. And living in the high desert in California, I can honestly tell you that just breathing dehydrates you because the air is so dry. And it's not even as hot as the middle east!
I would think the rest of the water is for shaving, face washing, food preparation, coffee, and cleaning. Showers aren't done too often unless you are near a base. Instead you use moist towelletes to clean your pits, genitals, and ass. This keeps bacteria from growing in those places,which can slow a person down tremendously. That is if you elect to, some people get away with not cleaning themselves.
True. But safety critical software has to be validated and verified for every contingency. Otherwise you can't call it safety critical, which that Paris plane's software was, and rely on it. There is absolutely NO reason that a pilot should not be able to get a full throttle response from the engines at any time.
And a good pilot can use instruments or not, but those instruments have to be accurate. And force-feel curves are there for a reason. Yes, it is easy to overshoot a turn in a large airplane because of inertia, and it's easy to commnad more pitch than you need if you're relying on the pilot's g sensors (inner ear). That's why force-feedback is so useful, and why it's much easier to fly a plane with mechanical linkages between the controls. Reliability of mechanical linkages aside, the feedback from your control surfaces gives you many times the information you can get from your inner ear. And yes, I have flown both large and small planes before.
I work government, and while I do like my job, there is no real point in my putting in insane hours. Because in government, everyone has to be treated equally. I work about 45 hours a week, busy all day (and reading slashdot!). If we do raises, everyone gets a 2% raise, or x amount a year. Everyone. Even the people that sit around all day surfing the web. There is no reward for me implementing a system wide VOIP system in 1 month from brainstorm to going live. There is no incentive for me to put in tons of work, except for my own satisfaction, and resume building.
That's somewhat true for me (DoD). But supposedly, things are going to change even more from the GS system than they already are for us. (I'm NH.) What we're seeing for the new personnel system means that in some ways we are getting screwed, but it's more of a performance-based system than GS was, and even more than NH is.
The funny thing about all of this is that yes, we are getting a new personnel system (NSPS) that will apply agency wide. But all of the supervisors that I've talked to have said that they're still going to award raises and bonuses based on what they percieve you have done. AND the money still comes out of a set pool, so I might not get a raise this next year since the DoD is facing tens of billions of cuts due to the Iraq BS. That aspect is similar to a company that just doesn't have enough coming in vs. going out.
I don't know what branch or agency you are working for, but it's not too bad where I am. Though I have to say that I'm considering going back to the private sector, because I moved out of my home state and moved from all of my family and friends.
Actually, they are. The speed of sound in the tethers would be many times higher because the tether would be many times more dense than air. Mach number is just the ratio of speed to local sound speed (sqrt of (gamma * gas constant * temperature)).
Because China wants nothing more than to be ready for the US. That's why they did joint military exercises with the Russians last month: so that they can see what Russia has to offer in terms of hardware, and so they can see how some of their systems do against technology that is similar to the US.
Just because China is a trading partner with the US does not mean that they would be very friendly if they see that they have an advantage.
One of Russia's aims is to defeat US technology. They sell stuff that is specifically designed to defeat US military systems.
And who is interested in updating their military? Why China of course!
The US is just trying to stay ahead of their potential enemies. And I'm not saying Russia is one of them, but they sure like selling their stuff to other countries.
Look, there's already an estimated 50,000 math teachers in the US. This move by IBM may add another 5,000. Who the hell needs 75,000 math teachers?
Apparently, you do.
So the ancient Egyption invention of beer was a major evolutionary milestone?
Only for ugly people.
A book called Fundamentals of Astrodynamics. It was mentioned a few posts before mine.
And you can look for a set of equations called Hill's Equations. They're a set of non-linear differential equations that use orbital elements to describe the motion of a satellite (or interplanetary vehicle). Hohmann transfers are used only when you want to conserve fuel, they take the longest time too.
Once you find the equations, you can write a script to integrate them, or you can look for pre-compiled packages that are already set up for them, you just need to put in the satellite info.
The red tape is there so contractor X doesn't come along, screw things up, then say "the contract requirements are satisfied, it's your mess now" to the government. Or "Yeah, we made a mess, but if you give us X billion dollars, we'll make it right." That's BS. And for the most part, that's why you have "funny" environmental laws, or laws protecting endangered species.
And it's also why it's illegal for company X to dump their waste from manufacturing those exotic materials that absorb radar.
I'll admit there is WAY TOO MUCH "me and my cronies" in the defense industry. But most of those funny laws are there because some former company screwed up and the taxpayers are paying for it. And it's definitely hard to get in on something if you don't have contacts. I used to work for a company that had a wonderful idea, the Air Force liked it, but the money dried up before we could even think of getting a contract awarded. A few years later, I read somewhere that another, similar, design had several of the exact same features that our design had. Someone talked along the way, or someone came up with the idea and had their buddies sign off on it.
Isn't it a part of the military's job to make sure that they have the resources that they'll need down the road?
So, wouldn't it be prudent to emphasize development of scientists and engineers, because a certain portion of those folks will work for the DoD or defense contractors?
No they don't. They can't insist such a thing because the visible universe only encompasses ~14 billion lightyears. Thus we can only see out 14 billion lightyears, or 14 billion years into the past (depending on your point of view).
Any astrophysicist that insists on such nonsense as the universe being finite is basing their statement on incomplete data, and making an error. In other words, when some astronomer says, "Holey shiat! I see the edge of the universe!", and it's confirmed, then those astrophysicists will have a more complete data set and they can state that the universe is finite.
Its shiny titanium frame and dedicated launchpad sit in the Mojave desert. The frame was bought by the USAF to continue research into the vehicle, but funds dried up and the project was scrapped. The thing was taken apart for salvage and the skeleton of the frame is sitting around because it's too expensive to take it apart further.
At least that's what I heard from a friend of mine that works at Edwards AFB.
There is a book called Physical Gas Dynamics that might answer the question, but I forget the author.
There's also:
Elements of Gasdynamics by HW Liepmann and A. Roshko, Wiley and Sons, 1957
That's considered one of the "must haves" for fluid dynamicists. My copy is from an old professor, and his was from 1957, so I'm not sure if it's still in print. You should still be able to find it at the library though.
A couple of other books:
Fluid Mechanics by Landau & Lifshitz
Fundamentals of Aerodynamics by John Anderson
Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion by Philip Hill.
And books or papers by Von Karman on vortex dynamics should help too.
Anderson would probably a good place to start since his approach seemed to me to be to get the general idea across and develop the math to support it. You'll want to look for information on turbulent boundary layers, flow entrainment, vortex shedding, and if you like the math, dive into the tensor analysis associated with these.
The boundary layer by itself doesn't cause the entrainment of the exhaust gases. It's the fact that you have a shear layer between the high-speed exhaust gases, right next to a relatively slow-moving freestream (which will cause vortex shedding by itself), AND you also have this occuring near or in a turbulent boundary layer (which can be thought of as small-scale vortices rolling up and being shed).
If the SRB had been burn through, it would have caused the fuel inside to be burned at a different rate. (Burn rate is proportional to burn area; more area == faster burn.)
So if there was a faster burn of the fuel on that one side, the entire craft would have tilted due to the yaw differential from the SRBs burning at different rates. The SRBs are NOT throttleable; once they are lit, they keep burning until the fuel is depleted.
Chances are very high that it's flow separation, and what you see are excited exhaust gases getting caught up in the boudary layer next to the booster. Fortunately that isn't so much of a problem since the boundary layer helps to insulate the surface of the SRB.
I seem to recall that Vista will use vector graphics for their interface. Which means that the interface has the potential to look VERY nice, but will suck up a lot of memory doing all the 3d math involved with graphics processing.
Supposedly, Vista will rely heavily on the next generation of Direct X, which will allow the interface to directly access hardware (thus allowing for vector processing on the hardware).
I think the above came from anandtech or tomshardware, but I don't recall exactly which one.
Religion in a science class?
Um...
WTF?
Creationism is not a theory. It's a hypothesis that can not be further tested. A theory has to have some sort of facts that support the theory; or the flipside is that a theory is a bunch of facts that are explained by a set of statements or principles.
Evolution is a theory because it explains the fact that there are a variety of species that share similar aspects to how they were built (DNA, RNA). It also explains how the process of natural selection can bring about such a wide variety of species, some of which are adapted to live in very specific environments.
Creationism does none of that. What it does do is explain things that we have no way of testing or no way of determining facts for. What happens after you die?
I don't know. But religion offers an explanation. (Note the absence of facts to back up this explanation.) But I believe that regardless of what happens after you die, you should live a good life because what you do in this life affects those that live with you and come after you.
(And I was raised Christian.)
I always thought Lynda Carter was good. Too bad she's not as good now as she was back then.
I know several mathematicians that would disagree with your assessment that coming up with new algorithms is engineering. Algorithm development is typically in the domain of scientists working on better computational tools.
If astrophysicists, computational fluid dynamicists, and/or computational plasma physicists (all of them are scientists, by definition), all got together with game developers and swapped algorithm ideas, I guarantee that there would be improvements seen in games. Those scientists are constantly developing new techniques and algorithms to refine their computations.
An engineer would come along, read the papers those scientists published, gain an understanding of the algorithms and techniques discussed, then go implement them in some code.
Not to diss any engineers out there (I am one), but that's basically what engineers do: take the work of others and implement it, usually in a practical manner. I've worked the other side of the situation as well, working in CFD and controls (amongst other computational things).
Sure. Double-sided, into a 3-inch, D-ring binder. :D
The best investment would be a perfect portfolio. A little bit of everything so that if one thing heads south, the others will keep your losses low. Even during market downturns/crashes/slips/etc. there is always something that is doing well.
;)
For example, if the stock market crashed and millions lost a lot of money, I'm sure that companies or countries that produce "the basics" would be good things to have invested in. And you gotta remember that most countries want their nations to prosper, so the world as a whole will tend to be relatively stable. It's just getting all the slices to that gargantuan pie that's the hard part.
If it increases the public good in some way, the government could very well fund it. If it doesn't increase the public good, then the government wouldn't be doing its job supporting it.
I don't have an immediate use for Social Security, but they still tear me a new one by taking money out for it. And it just so happens that a lot of people benefit from it.
because I read:
by Woo Suk Hwang
As "by Who Suk Hwang".
data acquisition systems for large experiments. Such things like the hardware and software used at particle physics labs on their detectors: lots of individual sensors in a huge array that has to be sampled a hell of a lot in one second.
:D
Another thing to look into is testing for dynamic loads on cars or aircraft. At least for aircraft, they'll put thousands of accelerometers all over the frame to measure the various accelerations.
Both of those are prime examples of a similar system to yours. And such users would have insight into the problems you are looking at, as well as be potential customers in the future.
If you read up on Iraq's capabilities, you'll find that they had a LOT of capability for air defense. They just didn't use it properly, and those that were used were easily wiped out because their buddies didn't support them. On top of that, the US has done a very good job of keeping up on how to take down air defense networks.
A lot of what Iraq could have done, their army just didn't do. I think 10 years of blowing the hell out of anything that even thought of irradiating an allied aircraft would have an effect on the crews manning those defenses. Even if Saddam was able to provide new equipment, the fear associated with pushing the button to acquire a target - knowing that your radar will be destroyed - would still have a huge impact on your performance.