I think Hyundai, Honda, Audi, and Toyota kind of disprove your argument based on auto manufacturers.
Hyundai had been around for a long time, but it wasn't until about 4 or 5 years ago that they got a serious foothold in the US market. Honda and Toyota were similar back in the 80s.
Saturn would be a good example as well. Even though the company is a baby of Chrysler, Saturn is still around. That's because there was something worthwhile about their vehicles.
I'd say that you are wrong in your assessment that it's almost impossible to start an automobile company.
If you found a way to do something better/cheaper/faster in the auto manufacturing industry, you have three options:
1) Patent it and sit on the patent. Maybe license the idea to companies.
2) Outright sell the idea to auto companies (sell your patent to them).
3) Use the idea yourself, get some capital (there are small business loans and grants from your state), and start producing.
If people like what you are offering, then they will come.
Notice that Yugos didn't take off in the US because they were crap.;)
Still, what you did was pretty sweet in terms of the math. I hadn't thought of the system that way outside of using phase space distributions in Vlasov's equation to figure out the stability of waves in gases.
Isn't that synonymous to integrating the Vlasov equation, where f is a distribution function (AKA, the collisionless Boltzmann equation)?
You're still working with a many-dimensional system.
And in a sense that approach can be confusing if you are only concerned with deriving the ideal gas law. But if you were demonstrating the benefits of using a 3N-dimensional sphere, then WAY TO GO!
The ideal gas law is much more easily derived if you take Boltzmann's equation (S=k*ln(W)), where S is the entropy associated with W states and k is Boltzmann's constant. W can be any function that accurately describes the kinds of states you can have (Bose statistics or Fermi statistics).
Realize that dS=dQ/T=(pdS/pdT)V *dT + (pdS/pdV)T *dV, (dQ is heat added reversibly, T is temperature, pd is partial derivative, and the first partial (pdS/pdT)V is partial of entropy with respect to Temperature while holding volume constant. (pdS/pdV)T is partial of entropy with respect to volume while holding temperature constant.
Then take the definitions of heat capacity at constant volume, Cv=(dQ/dT)V = T*(pdS/pdT)V. And then one of Maxwell's relations, (pdS/pdV)T = (pdP/pdT)V.
Combine like terms, integrate, and you'll get P*V = n*R*T (R shows up from the use of Cv, and n shows up because you take it on a per mole basis). Or you can leave Boltzmann's constant in there, k, and you'll get P*V=N*k*T. Where N is the number of atoms in the gas.
R (the universal gas constant) is just N_A (avogadro's number) times k (Boltzmann's constant).
In my mind (I'm a fluid mechanics guy), the approach I presented is much simpler and more intuitive than trying to visualize a higher dimensional sphere. Plus the approach I presented fits in nicely with the rest of fluid mechanics. If you need to include relativistic effects (say in nuclear weapons research, fusion research, or to describe plasma physics-like systems), you will need to realize that P = N*k*T/V = 2/3 * u (for non-relativistic gases), where u is 1/2 the average gas momentum times * N. For relativistic gases, the relation is P = 1/3 * u.
Alternatively, you can take the average pressure due to the motion of particles in a gas as P_avg = k*T*pd(ln(W))/pdV. Where W is the number of states, pd is partial derivative, V is volume, T is temperature, and k is Boltzmann's constant.
Integrating gives you P_avg = 1/3 * n*m*(v_avg)^2. Where n=the number of particles, m=the mass of a particle, and v_avg is the average speed of the particles. From there you can substitute terms to arrive back at P*V=N*k*T. You can integrate and substitute to get this from the original average pressure in terms of particle motion, but the v_avg^2 form is shown to help with understanding and visualization.
When I went there, the undergrad computing labs had mostly PCs. The funny thing about that was that our email accounts were (and still are) run on *nix machines. The school's various clusters and supercomputers used *nix.
In my department (aero & astro), we had one Mac hooked up to a scanner. We had several PCs, but the PCs were all hooked up to DEC Alpha servers running unix. When I started there in my junior year of college, the department had 3 PCs and a TON of xterminals connected to the DEC Alphas. By the time I left, after getting my masters, we had mostly PCs, one mac (the same one), and a few xterminals, oh and the servers.
The servers are still around because they are used part time for simulations and join other machines for parallel computations (clusters and supercomputers).
The secretaries and advisors all ran Macs.
Oh and the user accounts were all on the servers, which meant when you logged on one of the PCs, your userid and password were compared to what was on the server. I don't know the exact methods used to admin the whole system, but I would think that it was very adhoc.
It was too bad that they got a bunch of PCs. You couldn't modify someone's.cshrc file in fun ways anymore. Like changing someone's config file, when they would step away without logging out, to have a bunch of aliases pointing to "netscape pr0nsite". It was also hard for them to change their config file back if you aliased all the editors; the person would have to telnet/ssh in to edit the file. =)
The CAA is the British equivalent of the FAA. The FAA has not done the same tests for itself. Instead it has relied on the CAA's data and erred on the side of caution.
And not all of the avionics are located on the flight deck. The avionics, especially things like flight control computers, are distributed throughout the aircraft in a redundant system.
It's sad that they focus on making people feel safe rather than actually being safe.
It's the same thing with SUVs. People drive them thinking they are more safe because they feel safer being higher up. But you're actually less safe due to being more unstable by having your center of gravity so high off the ground.
Besides... I've always felt safer when I see that 80 year old grandmothers and 50ish, balding fat guys get the rubber-glove-in-the-butt treatment.:|
in terms of energy released per reaction per unit mass
Hydrogen offers a more compact energy source than gasoline, but there is no other known fuel that releases as much energy in the oxidation process. Gasoline has hydrogen beat I think 3 to 1, if my memory serves.
I am calling BS this is a total peice of crap the N dosen't burn if it did then you could just pump air into your engine and haver it produce useable energy what it does so is react in a heated enviroment with oxygen to procude a nitrogen/oxygen mixture in various ratios this increase in produce that dosen't produce any useable energy slows down the burning of Carbon type molicules and reduces the completeness of the carbon burning process.
Why do you think Nx compounds are tested for in emissions testing? Nitrogen "burns" just like carbon.
Actually, the process is called "combustion" when it involves oxidizing a carbon compound, and oxidizing for everything else involving oxygen acting on other molecules and atoms.
Those Nx compounds (NO, NO+, NO2, NO2+, etc.) are a direct result of the nitrogen reacting with oxygen inside the combustion chamber. The reason that the nitrogen reacts is that the combustion engine is just hot enough to start exciting the nitrogen so that it will react with oxygen. You do get energy from this reaction, but it's not much, and the products are not good for people.
The oxidation of carbon compounds is the perferred method of getting energy. This is because with the case of most carbon-based fuels, the net energy gain is pretty good (you can get a self-sustaining reaction). Gasoline is in fact the BEST fuel known in terms of energy released per reaction per unit mass of gasoline for oxidation reactions. It stores the energy in its chemical bonds very well and releases the energy nicely when the gasoline is oxidized.
I would definitely agree that German engineering is on par with American engineering. (I own and Audi A4.)
I was just pointing out that the American parts generally have tens of thousands of dollars worth of paperwork to go with them. (Someone has to write those papers...)
I've known a few collegues that have stopped working in the aerospace industry because of the fact that all the paperwork required inflates the cost of a 10 dollar part to the tens of thousands.
Google for "masturbation". It may answer your questions.
NASA watches everything the astronauts do. It would make sense if there were a NASA-ordered "session" for the guys. NASA would revolutionize the gay porn industry they way they revolutionized aerospace!
Not exactly. Most engineering companies generate HUGE amounts of paperwork for parts. I used to work for a private aerospace company, and for even the simplest thing you would have a TON of paperwork. The paperwork described how the part worked, what it was used for, how to integrate it into whatever you were putting it in, what testing had to be done for the part to pass qualification, the actual qualification test results and test data, the production sampling test data (still gotta do quality assurance), and production phase modifications. In some cases you even have to say how the part should be properly disposed of.
It takes a long time for many parts to be certified to fly in space or in aircraft.
On a more interesting, but related note, a certain large US aerospace company whose name starts with a "b" has been buying parts from China in the last couple of years. As we all know, China is world renowned for its quality of parts. As evidence, the first parts that this US company received from China had some problems. The Chinese parts failed 90% of the qualification tests. These are not just tests that the company required. These are tests that the FAA requires for safety (don't want your wings falling off in flight, do you?).
It turns out this company rejected all the bad parts, retested the 10% that passed, and sent the rest back to China. Getting the necessary parts from China, in the numbers needed, ended up costing the company a LOT more than if they'd just stuck with the parts being made in the USA.
As a result of this, I personally will not fly on a plane made after the year 2000.
In space the matter is spread out much more than here on earth, which means the speed of sound through the various gases (mostly hydrogen, helium nuclei, electrons, and protons), is different. Since the gases are all spread out, the mean free paths between gas particles is pretty big. That means that your speed of sound is going to be greater.
But there is another catch!
Because the gases in space have a sigificant amount of charged particles, there is also a coupling effect between the electromagnetic field and the speed of sound. You essentially have TWO speeds of sound: one from the gas molecules bumping into each other; and one from the plasmadynamic interactions between the gas particles causing magnetosonic waves which have their own wave speed. The magnetosonic waves can only happen in a gas that is at least partially ionized.
The heliopause is a prime example of a magnetosonic shock. It's theorized to be pretty much a standing shock wave (standing still from our point of view). The heliopause should also have a sonic shock from the clashing of different materials at different speeds (two gas flows coming at each other). One gas will force the other gas to slow down; which forces the slowed-down-gas to form a shock.
In space, the speed of sound is REALLY big. 100 km/s is not an uncommon speed of sound. The magnetosonic waves should travel at speeds between the speed of sound and the speed of light. Magnetosonic wave speeds vary on how many ions exist in the gas, and on how much electromagnetic energy is transported through the gas.
If you alternate the current in a winding, put an aluminum torus with a slot cut all the way from root to tip in the radial direction, then put another uncut aluminum torus on top of that, the top one will float.
So...
Coil some wire and make the windings wrap around an axis that is coaxial with your CD's.
Cut a radial slot in an aluminum washer. Or alternatively, drill a hole and cut a slot in a disc made of aluminum.
Set that modified disc above the coils so that it is coaxial with the coils.
Turn the electricity on so that you have current in the wire coil. This has to be AC so that you get direction changes in the electric field.
Set a CD on top of this thing so that it is coaxial with the other stuff. The CD will float. It may also get a little warm, so watch out.
The reason this works is due to image currents set up in the aluminum pieces. You could use copper, gold, or whatever, but aluminum is the lightest and probably easiest to get.
Note that you don't ever need a ferrous material to set up a magnetic field.;)
Look in some documents called FAR. Federal Acquisition Regulations. The FARs should have something in there about export restrictions. I say that only because there is a list of import restrictions.
The other place that may have the list is here:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/index.html
I see that it could be useful to have a mobile base. But only if that base is backed up by an underground, permanent base too. The mobile base could be useful for just getting really far away from the permanent base... like the other side of the moon.
But I can't possibly see a mobile base taking over for a permanent underground facility. Like you said, there is radiation, micrometorites, and the possibility of breaking down, which all point to needing a permanent facility where you can service the vehicles.
Umm... that's only on some weapon systems. A lot of smart bombs don't switch over to cameras, they just go to the last target position they had. The GPS jammers the Russians sold to the Iraqis work just fine.
The problem the Iraqis ran into when using them was literally not using them properly. They overwhelmed certain areas with GPS jamming, while leaving other areas fully exposed to GPS guided weapons.
This had the effect of allowing the US airstrikes to pick targets off just outside the jamming range and occasionally those targets would be GPS jammer locations, so the Iraqis would also lose coverage as the airstrikes moved in. Sometimes the US would just skip a target all-together to get to a different, more valuable target.
As for the "switch" that you refer to between the civilian and military versions...
Basically, the military just turned off the encryption that was in the data on the second carrier wave. With no encryption on the signal, a GPS receiver can use both signals simultaneously. It's not that one signal is more accurate than the other. You use some math to get more accurate location info based on the two signals. You still have the high-latitude restrictions, and the restrictions associated with weather effects.
And that loosening of GPS was done about 4 or 5 years ago.
Yep. It's standard after the X-1's flight to have power assisted (or mechanically assisted) flight control surfaces for vehicles that go supersonic. It's also pretty standard to have your RCS thrusters engage when the local pressure drops sufficiently.
Sort of. Much of the energy that would normally go into the recoil of the gun actually is in the form of electric current in the rails. You are pushing back on the electric field in the rails, which pushes the electrons back and pushes against the existing electric field in the rails. Most of the recoil is noticed as heat.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Hyundai, Honda, Audi, and Toyota kind of disprove your argument based on auto manufacturers.
;)
Hyundai had been around for a long time, but it wasn't until about 4 or 5 years ago that they got a serious foothold in the US market. Honda and Toyota were similar back in the 80s.
Saturn would be a good example as well. Even though the company is a baby of Chrysler, Saturn is still around. That's because there was something worthwhile about their vehicles.
I'd say that you are wrong in your assessment that it's almost impossible to start an automobile company.
If you found a way to do something better/cheaper/faster in the auto manufacturing industry, you have three options: 1) Patent it and sit on the patent. Maybe license the idea to companies.
2) Outright sell the idea to auto companies (sell your patent to them).
3) Use the idea yourself, get some capital (there are small business loans and grants from your state), and start producing.
If people like what you are offering, then they will come.
Notice that Yugos didn't take off in the US because they were crap.
Still, what you did was pretty sweet in terms of the math. I hadn't thought of the system that way outside of using phase space distributions in Vlasov's equation to figure out the stability of waves in gases.
Isn't that synonymous to integrating the Vlasov equation, where f is a distribution function (AKA, the collisionless Boltzmann equation)?
You're still working with a many-dimensional system.
And in a sense that approach can be confusing if you are only concerned with deriving the ideal gas law. But if you were demonstrating the benefits of using a 3N-dimensional sphere, then WAY TO GO!
The ideal gas law is much more easily derived if you take Boltzmann's equation (S=k*ln(W)), where S is the entropy associated with W states and k is Boltzmann's constant. W can be any function that accurately describes the kinds of states you can have (Bose statistics or Fermi statistics).
Realize that dS=dQ/T=(pdS/pdT)V *dT + (pdS/pdV)T *dV, (dQ is heat added reversibly, T is temperature, pd is partial derivative, and the first partial (pdS/pdT)V is partial of entropy with respect to Temperature while holding volume constant. (pdS/pdV)T is partial of entropy with respect to volume while holding temperature constant.
Then take the definitions of heat capacity at constant volume, Cv=(dQ/dT)V = T*(pdS/pdT)V. And then one of Maxwell's relations, (pdS/pdV)T = (pdP/pdT)V.
Combine like terms, integrate, and you'll get P*V = n*R*T (R shows up from the use of Cv, and n shows up because you take it on a per mole basis). Or you can leave Boltzmann's constant in there, k, and you'll get P*V=N*k*T. Where N is the number of atoms in the gas.
R (the universal gas constant) is just N_A (avogadro's number) times k (Boltzmann's constant).
In my mind (I'm a fluid mechanics guy), the approach I presented is much simpler and more intuitive than trying to visualize a higher dimensional sphere. Plus the approach I presented fits in nicely with the rest of fluid mechanics. If you need to include relativistic effects (say in nuclear weapons research, fusion research, or to describe plasma physics-like systems), you will need to realize that P = N*k*T/V = 2/3 * u (for non-relativistic gases), where u is 1/2 the average gas momentum times * N. For relativistic gases, the relation is P = 1/3 * u.
Alternatively, you can take the average pressure due to the motion of particles in a gas as P_avg = k*T*pd(ln(W))/pdV. Where W is the number of states, pd is partial derivative, V is volume, T is temperature, and k is Boltzmann's constant.
Integrating gives you P_avg = 1/3 * n*m*(v_avg)^2. Where n=the number of particles, m=the mass of a particle, and v_avg is the average speed of the particles. From there you can substitute terms to arrive back at P*V=N*k*T. You can integrate and substitute to get this from the original average pressure in terms of particle motion, but the v_avg^2 form is shown to help with understanding and visualization.
=)
When I went there, the undergrad computing labs had mostly PCs. The funny thing about that was that our email accounts were (and still are) run on *nix machines. The school's various clusters and supercomputers used *nix.
.cshrc file in fun ways anymore. Like changing someone's config file, when they would step away without logging out, to have a bunch of aliases pointing to "netscape pr0nsite". It was also hard for them to change their config file back if you aliased all the editors; the person would have to telnet/ssh in to edit the file. =)
In my department (aero & astro), we had one Mac hooked up to a scanner. We had several PCs, but the PCs were all hooked up to DEC Alpha servers running unix. When I started there in my junior year of college, the department had 3 PCs and a TON of xterminals connected to the DEC Alphas. By the time I left, after getting my masters, we had mostly PCs, one mac (the same one), and a few xterminals, oh and the servers.
The servers are still around because they are used part time for simulations and join other machines for parallel computations (clusters and supercomputers).
The secretaries and advisors all ran Macs.
Oh and the user accounts were all on the servers, which meant when you logged on one of the PCs, your userid and password were compared to what was on the server. I don't know the exact methods used to admin the whole system, but I would think that it was very adhoc.
It was too bad that they got a bunch of PCs. You couldn't modify someone's
Nah. Just sheild the building. Make it a giant Faraday cage and no signal will get out.
Works where I work.
Civil Aviation Authority's experimental results for cell phone usage.
The CAA is the British equivalent of the FAA. The FAA has not done the same tests for itself. Instead it has relied on the CAA's data and erred on the side of caution.
And not all of the avionics are located on the flight deck. The avionics, especially things like flight control computers, are distributed throughout the aircraft in a redundant system.
We taste like chicken? =)
I've heard that humans actaully taste more like pork. But I've never eaten anyone...
It's sad that they focus on making people feel safe rather than actually being safe.
:|
It's the same thing with SUVs. People drive them thinking they are more safe because they feel safer being higher up. But you're actually less safe due to being more unstable by having your center of gravity so high off the ground.
Besides... I've always felt safer when I see that 80 year old grandmothers and 50ish, balding fat guys get the rubber-glove-in-the-butt treatment.
I didn't say energy per fuel mass. I said,
in terms of energy released per reaction per unit mass
Hydrogen offers a more compact energy source than gasoline, but there is no other known fuel that releases as much energy in the oxidation process. Gasoline has hydrogen beat I think 3 to 1, if my memory serves.
Learning enough about the ins and outs of the technology and production leads to epihanies, eureka moments and generally groking the thing at hand.
I read "the ins and outs...", then read "and generally groping the thing at hand".
I need to get more sleep...
I am calling BS this is a total peice of crap the N dosen't burn if it did then you could just pump air into your engine and haver it produce useable energy what it does so is react in a heated enviroment with oxygen to procude a nitrogen/oxygen mixture in various ratios this increase in produce that dosen't produce any useable energy slows down the burning of Carbon type molicules and reduces the completeness of the carbon burning process .
Why do you think Nx compounds are tested for in emissions testing? Nitrogen "burns" just like carbon.
Actually, the process is called "combustion" when it involves oxidizing a carbon compound, and oxidizing for everything else involving oxygen acting on other molecules and atoms.
Those Nx compounds (NO, NO+, NO2, NO2+, etc.) are a direct result of the nitrogen reacting with oxygen inside the combustion chamber. The reason that the nitrogen reacts is that the combustion engine is just hot enough to start exciting the nitrogen so that it will react with oxygen. You do get energy from this reaction, but it's not much, and the products are not good for people.
The oxidation of carbon compounds is the perferred method of getting energy. This is because with the case of most carbon-based fuels, the net energy gain is pretty good (you can get a self-sustaining reaction). Gasoline is in fact the BEST fuel known in terms of energy released per reaction per unit mass of gasoline for oxidation reactions. It stores the energy in its chemical bonds very well and releases the energy nicely when the gasoline is oxidized.
I would definitely agree that German engineering is on par with American engineering. (I own and Audi A4.)
I was just pointing out that the American parts generally have tens of thousands of dollars worth of paperwork to go with them. (Someone has to write those papers...)
I've known a few collegues that have stopped working in the aerospace industry because of the fact that all the paperwork required inflates the cost of a 10 dollar part to the tens of thousands.
Google for "masturbation". It may answer your questions.
NASA watches everything the astronauts do. It would make sense if there were a NASA-ordered "session" for the guys. NASA would revolutionize the gay porn industry they way they revolutionized aerospace!
Not exactly. Most engineering companies generate HUGE amounts of paperwork for parts. I used to work for a private aerospace company, and for even the simplest thing you would have a TON of paperwork. The paperwork described how the part worked, what it was used for, how to integrate it into whatever you were putting it in, what testing had to be done for the part to pass qualification, the actual qualification test results and test data, the production sampling test data (still gotta do quality assurance), and production phase modifications. In some cases you even have to say how the part should be properly disposed of.
It takes a long time for many parts to be certified to fly in space or in aircraft.
On a more interesting, but related note, a certain large US aerospace company whose name starts with a "b" has been buying parts from China in the last couple of years. As we all know, China is world renowned for its quality of parts. As evidence, the first parts that this US company received from China had some problems. The Chinese parts failed 90% of the qualification tests. These are not just tests that the company required. These are tests that the FAA requires for safety (don't want your wings falling off in flight, do you?).
It turns out this company rejected all the bad parts, retested the 10% that passed, and sent the rest back to China. Getting the necessary parts from China, in the numbers needed, ended up costing the company a LOT more than if they'd just stuck with the parts being made in the USA.
As a result of this, I personally will not fly on a plane made after the year 2000.
In space the matter is spread out much more than here on earth, which means the speed of sound through the various gases (mostly hydrogen, helium nuclei, electrons, and protons), is different. Since the gases are all spread out, the mean free paths between gas particles is pretty big. That means that your speed of sound is going to be greater.
But there is another catch!
Because the gases in space have a sigificant amount of charged particles, there is also a coupling effect between the electromagnetic field and the speed of sound. You essentially have TWO speeds of sound: one from the gas molecules bumping into each other; and one from the plasmadynamic interactions between the gas particles causing magnetosonic waves which have their own wave speed. The magnetosonic waves can only happen in a gas that is at least partially ionized.
The heliopause is a prime example of a magnetosonic shock. It's theorized to be pretty much a standing shock wave (standing still from our point of view). The heliopause should also have a sonic shock from the clashing of different materials at different speeds (two gas flows coming at each other). One gas will force the other gas to slow down; which forces the slowed-down-gas to form a shock.
In space, the speed of sound is REALLY big. 100 km/s is not an uncommon speed of sound. The magnetosonic waves should travel at speeds between the speed of sound and the speed of light. Magnetosonic wave speeds vary on how many ions exist in the gas, and on how much electromagnetic energy is transported through the gas.
Antarctica has water on it. Yet it's considered one of the driest places on Earth.
If you alternate the current in a winding, put an aluminum torus with a slot cut all the way from root to tip in the radial direction, then put another uncut aluminum torus on top of that, the top one will float.
;)
So...
Coil some wire and make the windings wrap around an axis that is coaxial with your CD's.
Cut a radial slot in an aluminum washer. Or alternatively, drill a hole and cut a slot in a disc made of aluminum.
Set that modified disc above the coils so that it is coaxial with the coils.
Turn the electricity on so that you have current in the wire coil. This has to be AC so that you get direction changes in the electric field.
Set a CD on top of this thing so that it is coaxial with the other stuff. The CD will float. It may also get a little warm, so watch out.
The reason this works is due to image currents set up in the aluminum pieces. You could use copper, gold, or whatever, but aluminum is the lightest and probably easiest to get.
Note that you don't ever need a ferrous material to set up a magnetic field.
Look in some documents called FAR. Federal Acquisition Regulations. The FARs should have something in there about export restrictions. I say that only because there is a list of import restrictions.
The other place that may have the list is here:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/index.html
Title 22, Chapter 39 may be useful.
I'm violating the assualt weapons ban?
I see that it could be useful to have a mobile base. But only if that base is backed up by an underground, permanent base too. The mobile base could be useful for just getting really far away from the permanent base... like the other side of the moon.
But I can't possibly see a mobile base taking over for a permanent underground facility. Like you said, there is radiation, micrometorites, and the possibility of breaking down, which all point to needing a permanent facility where you can service the vehicles.
Umm... that's only on some weapon systems. A lot of smart bombs don't switch over to cameras, they just go to the last target position they had. The GPS jammers the Russians sold to the Iraqis work just fine.
The problem the Iraqis ran into when using them was literally not using them properly. They overwhelmed certain areas with GPS jamming, while leaving other areas fully exposed to GPS guided weapons.
This had the effect of allowing the US airstrikes to pick targets off just outside the jamming range and occasionally those targets would be GPS jammer locations, so the Iraqis would also lose coverage as the airstrikes moved in. Sometimes the US would just skip a target all-together to get to a different, more valuable target.
As for the "switch" that you refer to between the civilian and military versions...
Basically, the military just turned off the encryption that was in the data on the second carrier wave. With no encryption on the signal, a GPS receiver can use both signals simultaneously. It's not that one signal is more accurate than the other. You use some math to get more accurate location info based on the two signals. You still have the high-latitude restrictions, and the restrictions associated with weather effects.
And that loosening of GPS was done about 4 or 5 years ago.
Yep. It's standard after the X-1's flight to have power assisted (or mechanically assisted) flight control surfaces for vehicles that go supersonic. It's also pretty standard to have your RCS thrusters engage when the local pressure drops sufficiently.
Sort of. Much of the energy that would normally go into the recoil of the gun actually is in the form of electric current in the rails. You are pushing back on the electric field in the rails, which pushes the electrons back and pushes against the existing electric field in the rails. Most of the recoil is noticed as heat.
Hah! If I had mod points you'd get a +1 funny.
Okay... the above was a reply to someone else's post...
;)
In case anyone was wondering why I was replying to my own posts.