They have hypergolic-fueled engines on the Dragon spacecraft. They're already in development on a more powerful hypergolic engine that could be useful for a lander.
Read the guy's blog. He eats "normal" food on social occasions, or when he just feels like experiencing a certain taste. Soylent is just supposed to be about the vast majority of meals you eat where it's just about fueling your body so you can get on with more important things.
The product being shipped to customers is not being produced in that warehouse. The warehouse in the article was for prototyping. The facility the consumer version is being produced in is an FDA regulated and inspected facility.
The actual product being shipped to customers is being prepared in a fully FDA certified and inspected facility. The place where they were making the prototype formula was just that - a place for prototyping.
Orbital and SpaceX could easily take their craft in for docking themselves, but NASA's rules require them to do it this way. NASA's rules are that nobody is allowed to put something on a trajectory that intercepts the ISS, even for an instant, for any reason. This is the reason that a secondary payload on an earlier Falcon launch wasn't allowed to be put into its desired orbit. An engine failure on the Falcon's first stage required it to take a modified trajectory into orbit, at which point boosting the secondary payload would have required that, for an instant during its boost, its trajectory pass through the ISS. For this to be dangerous, it would have required the engine to fail in the middle of its burn at a very precise instant. NASA disallowed it, so the secondary payload wasn't able to perform its mission.
So, bringing a spacecraft in for docking requires you to put your craft on a collision course. Docking is just a low-speed collision, after all. NASA will not allow this, so anyone bringing payload to the station has to rendezvous and place the craft within range for the ISS to grab it and bring it in.
The big win with kerosene over LH2 is that kerosene is much denser, so a) your tanks can be smaller and b) it's much easier to generate high levels of thrust since you don't have to move as much liquid through your engine.
If routine commuting is "fun," then you're doing it wrong. Driving safely and efficiently is, and should be, boring as hell and I can't wait for it to be illegal to operate a vehicle manually on public roadways so I can spend my commuting time doing more interesting things.
You'll always be free to do your driving for fun on private roads and tracks, but keep your "fun" off the roads that I have to share with you.
A "need" is not necessarily something you have to have or you will die. You won't die if you're locked in a room for the rest of your life with no human contact, but there's a reason that solitary confinement is considered a form of psychological torture. Social contact is a human need, emotional bonding is a human need, sex is a human need. Hell, Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs puts sex in the *bottom tier* of the pyramid.
Yeah, I think the effort of space colonization and life extension would be more appropriately put toward making the human race *worthy* of exploring the universe and living forever.
No, there is no audible difference, because the harmonics of that 22khz sawtooth which *make* it a sawtooth instead of a sine wave are above the limits of human hearing. Filter out those harmonics and what you have left is a sine wave. Not to mention that 22khz is itself arguably above the limits of human hearing itself.
What, for having different hobbies than you? You're the one who feels the compulsion to make your commute interesting, is that because you don't have anything particularly interesting to do on either side of it? That sounds a lot more sad to me.
I perform music. The rush of playing a packed house dwarfs anything that you could do even remotely safely on a public roadway. Sorry if I don't share the same emotional attachment for what I see as a tool for transporting myself and equipment between the things I do which are *actually* interesting.
Yeah...but that will make my drive to work a bore.
Too bad. My drive to work is boring already, automated driving would allow me to spend my time in the car productively rather than having to pay attention to the road the whole time. I don't understand your need to turn a commute into an adventure, I get in the car to go to the place where I will be having the adventure.
Same with motorcycles...are we going to ban them from the open roads too?
Yes. By the year 2100 people are going to shake their heads in disbelief at how reckless we were for operating our motor vehicles manually. And they'll look back in amusement at the first generation of automated vehicles which will still have manual controls, in the same way we look back at the first motor vehicles which had wooden horses attached to the front.
Recreational driving should be separated from regular commuters for the same reason that you separate skate parks from pedestrian traffic.
Again, I'm sure that once manual driving becomes illegal on public roads, folks will start opening more private roads and tracks where you can do whatever the heck you want.
I'm sure there will be a market for private roads where people can continue to drive manually for fun. Honestly, I don't want people having fun on the road I'm using to commute. I want them to be focused on operating their vehicles safely.
I would think that someone, somewhere would say "wait, can't we make the argument that the provision of federal government services should be based only on the need for those services and no other factors?" Or is that the argument that they made when challenging the drinking age thing?
I am definitely pulling this quote out next time I meet a Libertarian. I've never seen a political view become (relatively) mainstream on pure, fact-less ideology more so than with the Libertarian party.
In practice, they don't actually make switches that big, instead they use, say, 20x20 switches and then cascade them in really clever ways to simulate the 100x100 panel with far fewer actual interconnects.
Not sure where you get this. I've seen 256x256 routing switchers in the field, Grass Valley has a product with configurations up to 2048x2048.
A free market requires the possibility of competition to create efficiency and any of the other benefits of a free market. The nature of infrastructure is that building two copies of it, which you would need in order for the kind of true competition that brings about the benefits of the free market, is an inefficiency that dwarfs any efficiencies you could possibly hope to achieve through competition. There is no way to build two sets of roads everywhere so that different road-building companies can compete on service (and besides, the necessity of all those roads being built on property owned by those companies would mean they would have to have enormous amounts of capital just tied up in owning the land, it would be vastly more expensive for everybody). And if you've looked at your bill from Comcast lately and compared it to the prices of equivalent service in other countries, you would know that privately-owned utilities with no competition and no regulation will overcharge for their services relative to the cost of providing them. The only reason that private electricity generation is available at a reasonable price is because the government regulates it to keep the price close to the cost of generation. Because, again, running two sets of power lines to every building would be a gigantic inefficiency.
To summarize: There is no way to have privately owned and operated infrastructure in a way that is both maximally efficient in terms of total resources required to implement it, and provided to the consumer at a competitive price. It just can't happen, and this is why infrastructure is best implemented by a non-profit entity such as government.
You see, if you paid for services, you could just buy them in the free market, you are not looking for that, you are looking for subsidized services, so that you, personally, do not have to pay for them
I do pay for them... Through taxes, you see. I pay for the infrastructure that allows me to do business exactly proportionally with the amount of financial benefit I am able to receive from access to that infrastructure. You call this "theft," I call it "thank god I live in a country where I don't have to pay a toll every time I go out for a drive."
Besides, assuming that an employee and employer are mutually benefitted by their employment arrangement (a big stretch, employers typically have far, far more negotiating power, but for the sake of this debate I will say that their relationship is mutual since that's something you would agree with), the employer benefits *just as much* from the employee's ability to drive to work as the employee does themselves. If a business has, say, 30 employees, it would be fair to ask that business to pay 30 times as much toward those roads than any individual employee is paying, either by paying for the roads directly or by increasing employee salaries.
So you see, even under your private infrastructure arrangement, the cost would mostly be borne by business owners, because they are the ones who benefit most financially from having access to that infrastructure for themselves and their employees. Except with private infrastructure, it would cost the society more due to overhead involved in individually billing a lot of people for individual use. It's a lot more efficient for the society to build one set of infrastructure, levy taxes that pay for all of it, and let the actual providers of that infrastructure focus on providing it rather than worrying about how to monetize it.
Scandinavia went through its own huge recession 20 years ago, to fix it they started moving in the direction of freer market, the opposite direction from the one you are moving towards.
A freer market, yes, but still a massive welfare state. These are not mutually exclusive, and in fact a welfare state and the large tax burden it brings (Denmark's tax burden is around 50% of GDP) can actually create a *freer* market, because individuals have less short term financial pressure. You can turn dow
why would anybody pay income, corporate, payroll taxes at all if not paying them did not result IRS and other governmental agents with guns coming after them?
Maybe because I actually like a lot of the services that the government provides in exchange for my tax money, and recognize that receiving the benefits of living in a society requires me to pay my share of the social contract?
It does not work
I have but a single word for you that disproves your entire notion that a welfare state can't work: Scandanavia. Seriously, read up on the economic and social policies of the Scandanavian countries. Especially Denmark. According to every raving lunatic libertarian, any country with those kinds of policies should be a complete and utter hellhole... Except, it's one of the best places to live in the entire world by almost any standard you measure it by.
You want to live in a libertarian utopia where there are no taxes and everybody is absolutely free? Check out Somalia some time.
Slashdot Mirror
They have hypergolic-fueled engines on the Dragon spacecraft. They're already in development on a more powerful hypergolic engine that could be useful for a lander.
Read the guy's blog. He eats "normal" food on social occasions, or when he just feels like experiencing a certain taste. Soylent is just supposed to be about the vast majority of meals you eat where it's just about fueling your body so you can get on with more important things.
The product being shipped to customers is not being produced in that warehouse. The warehouse in the article was for prototyping. The facility the consumer version is being produced in is an FDA regulated and inspected facility.
The actual product being shipped to customers is being prepared in a fully FDA certified and inspected facility. The place where they were making the prototype formula was just that - a place for prototyping.
Orbital and SpaceX could easily take their craft in for docking themselves, but NASA's rules require them to do it this way. NASA's rules are that nobody is allowed to put something on a trajectory that intercepts the ISS, even for an instant, for any reason. This is the reason that a secondary payload on an earlier Falcon launch wasn't allowed to be put into its desired orbit. An engine failure on the Falcon's first stage required it to take a modified trajectory into orbit, at which point boosting the secondary payload would have required that, for an instant during its boost, its trajectory pass through the ISS. For this to be dangerous, it would have required the engine to fail in the middle of its burn at a very precise instant. NASA disallowed it, so the secondary payload wasn't able to perform its mission.
So, bringing a spacecraft in for docking requires you to put your craft on a collision course. Docking is just a low-speed collision, after all. NASA will not allow this, so anyone bringing payload to the station has to rendezvous and place the craft within range for the ISS to grab it and bring it in.
The big win with kerosene over LH2 is that kerosene is much denser, so a) your tanks can be smaller and b) it's much easier to generate high levels of thrust since you don't have to move as much liquid through your engine.
What do you think of SABRE?
> That means the musicians need to get .wav files instead of things like ProTools files.
Protools stores its audio as wav or aif files.
If routine commuting is "fun," then you're doing it wrong. Driving safely and efficiently is, and should be, boring as hell and I can't wait for it to be illegal to operate a vehicle manually on public roadways so I can spend my commuting time doing more interesting things.
You'll always be free to do your driving for fun on private roads and tracks, but keep your "fun" off the roads that I have to share with you.
A "need" is not necessarily something you have to have or you will die. You won't die if you're locked in a room for the rest of your life with no human contact, but there's a reason that solitary confinement is considered a form of psychological torture. Social contact is a human need, emotional bonding is a human need, sex is a human need. Hell, Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs puts sex in the *bottom tier* of the pyramid.
Yeah, I think the effort of space colonization and life extension would be more appropriately put toward making the human race *worthy* of exploring the universe and living forever.
>Cut the deficit all the way to negative. ASAP. Because austerity has worked so well for everybody else, right?
Look up how delta-sigma ADCs work some time.
No, there is no audible difference, because the harmonics of that 22khz sawtooth which *make* it a sawtooth instead of a sine wave are above the limits of human hearing. Filter out those harmonics and what you have left is a sine wave. Not to mention that 22khz is itself arguably above the limits of human hearing itself.
The F1 engine only ever flew aboard the Saturn V, and only 13 of those were ever launched. Still not the greatest odds, but much better than 1/33.
What, for having different hobbies than you? You're the one who feels the compulsion to make your commute interesting, is that because you don't have anything particularly interesting to do on either side of it? That sounds a lot more sad to me.
I perform music. The rush of playing a packed house dwarfs anything that you could do even remotely safely on a public roadway. Sorry if I don't share the same emotional attachment for what I see as a tool for transporting myself and equipment between the things I do which are *actually* interesting.
Yeah...but that will make my drive to work a bore.
Too bad. My drive to work is boring already, automated driving would allow me to spend my time in the car productively rather than having to pay attention to the road the whole time. I don't understand your need to turn a commute into an adventure, I get in the car to go to the place where I will be having the adventure.
Same with motorcycles...are we going to ban them from the open roads too?
Yes. By the year 2100 people are going to shake their heads in disbelief at how reckless we were for operating our motor vehicles manually. And they'll look back in amusement at the first generation of automated vehicles which will still have manual controls, in the same way we look back at the first motor vehicles which had wooden horses attached to the front.
Recreational driving should be separated from regular commuters for the same reason that you separate skate parks from pedestrian traffic.
Again, I'm sure that once manual driving becomes illegal on public roads, folks will start opening more private roads and tracks where you can do whatever the heck you want.
I'm sure there will be a market for private roads where people can continue to drive manually for fun. Honestly, I don't want people having fun on the road I'm using to commute. I want them to be focused on operating their vehicles safely.
I would think that someone, somewhere would say "wait, can't we make the argument that the provision of federal government services should be based only on the need for those services and no other factors?" Or is that the argument that they made when challenging the drinking age thing?
I am definitely pulling this quote out next time I meet a Libertarian. I've never seen a political view become (relatively) mainstream on pure, fact-less ideology more so than with the Libertarian party.
That explains it. :D
In practice, they don't actually make switches that big, instead they use, say, 20x20 switches and then cascade them in really clever ways to simulate the 100x100 panel with far fewer actual interconnects.
Not sure where you get this. I've seen 256x256 routing switchers in the field, Grass Valley has a product with configurations up to 2048x2048.
A free market requires the possibility of competition to create efficiency and any of the other benefits of a free market. The nature of infrastructure is that building two copies of it, which you would need in order for the kind of true competition that brings about the benefits of the free market, is an inefficiency that dwarfs any efficiencies you could possibly hope to achieve through competition. There is no way to build two sets of roads everywhere so that different road-building companies can compete on service (and besides, the necessity of all those roads being built on property owned by those companies would mean they would have to have enormous amounts of capital just tied up in owning the land, it would be vastly more expensive for everybody). And if you've looked at your bill from Comcast lately and compared it to the prices of equivalent service in other countries, you would know that privately-owned utilities with no competition and no regulation will overcharge for their services relative to the cost of providing them. The only reason that private electricity generation is available at a reasonable price is because the government regulates it to keep the price close to the cost of generation. Because, again, running two sets of power lines to every building would be a gigantic inefficiency.
To summarize: There is no way to have privately owned and operated infrastructure in a way that is both maximally efficient in terms of total resources required to implement it, and provided to the consumer at a competitive price. It just can't happen, and this is why infrastructure is best implemented by a non-profit entity such as government.
You see, if you paid for services, you could just buy them in the free market, you are not looking for that, you are looking for subsidized services, so that you, personally, do not have to pay for them
I do pay for them... Through taxes, you see. I pay for the infrastructure that allows me to do business exactly proportionally with the amount of financial benefit I am able to receive from access to that infrastructure. You call this "theft," I call it "thank god I live in a country where I don't have to pay a toll every time I go out for a drive."
Besides, assuming that an employee and employer are mutually benefitted by their employment arrangement (a big stretch, employers typically have far, far more negotiating power, but for the sake of this debate I will say that their relationship is mutual since that's something you would agree with), the employer benefits *just as much* from the employee's ability to drive to work as the employee does themselves. If a business has, say, 30 employees, it would be fair to ask that business to pay 30 times as much toward those roads than any individual employee is paying, either by paying for the roads directly or by increasing employee salaries.
So you see, even under your private infrastructure arrangement, the cost would mostly be borne by business owners, because they are the ones who benefit most financially from having access to that infrastructure for themselves and their employees. Except with private infrastructure, it would cost the society more due to overhead involved in individually billing a lot of people for individual use. It's a lot more efficient for the society to build one set of infrastructure, levy taxes that pay for all of it, and let the actual providers of that infrastructure focus on providing it rather than worrying about how to monetize it.
Scandinavia went through its own huge recession 20 years ago, to fix it they started moving in the direction of freer market, the opposite direction from the one you are moving towards.
A freer market, yes, but still a massive welfare state. These are not mutually exclusive, and in fact a welfare state and the large tax burden it brings (Denmark's tax burden is around 50% of GDP) can actually create a *freer* market, because individuals have less short term financial pressure. You can turn dow
why would anybody pay income, corporate, payroll taxes at all if not paying them did not result IRS and other governmental agents with guns coming after them?
Maybe because I actually like a lot of the services that the government provides in exchange for my tax money, and recognize that receiving the benefits of living in a society requires me to pay my share of the social contract?
It does not work
I have but a single word for you that disproves your entire notion that a welfare state can't work: Scandanavia. Seriously, read up on the economic and social policies of the Scandanavian countries. Especially Denmark. According to every raving lunatic libertarian, any country with those kinds of policies should be a complete and utter hellhole... Except, it's one of the best places to live in the entire world by almost any standard you measure it by.
You want to live in a libertarian utopia where there are no taxes and everybody is absolutely free? Check out Somalia some time.