Just be prepared to renounce U.S. citizenship and become a citizen of that country that did not sign the treaty. See CFR 14 part 413.3; the AST (launch licensing branch of the FAA) governs launches by U.S. citizens regardless of where they launch on Earth.
Sure, just as long as you're willing to renounce U.S. citizenship and become a Guatemalan citizen:
CFR 14 part 413.3: Who must obtain a launch license.
[snip]
An individual who is a U.S. citizen or an entity organized under the laws of the United States or any State must obtain a license--
(1) To launch a launch vehicle outside the United States;
[snip]
This is because, according to the Outer Space Treaty, the U.S. is responsible for what its citizens lob into space, regardless of where they launch it.
Just make sure to renounce your U.S. citizenship (if you're American) and become a citizen of that tiny Pacific nation. Because no matter where you launch on Earth, if you're still a U.S. citizen, the AST (launch permit branch of the FAA) still governs you. This is because as a U.S. citizen, the U.S. will be responsible for what you lob into space.
I get so pissed off at compression artifacts (mosquito noise; banding; blocks in fast-moving, busy shots) that I think I'd *prefer* analog (this is probably a curse of too many years in video post-production where I was paid to notice problems in video). Back when I had analog cable, I almost never had the noise associated with over-the-air analog broadcasts, and of course I didn't have compression artifacts. Alas, that was a long time ago. It really annoys me when cable companies (and others) tout "digital quality!" as if that means anything by itself.
In fact, this is why I haven't bought into HDTV yet -- if I spend a couple grand on a TV and extra per month for HD channels only to see compression artifacts in high resolution, something's getting sent through the front window.
You were trying to point out the flaw in the 9/11 theory by saying, "then why didn't we plant WMD in Iraq?".
Correct. As in, "surely a government evil enough to murder so many of its own people would, once they invaded Iraq on the primary pretext of protecting the region and the world from its WMD and then not finding any, plant some to cover up their gigantic, damaging screw-up."
There was no need to plant WMD in Iraq, because the government wasn't trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq's WMDs.
Here is where we seem to be talking at cross-purposes; I don't even understand that statement. Did you think I meant that they'd plant the WMD *before* the invasion to try to tie it to 9-11 somehow? The need to plant WMD would be to hide the monumental blunder of not finding any after invading, after using WMD to sell the whole thing to everyone in the first place.
I'm simply trying to establish a mindset of the administration: A government that would do such evil for nefarious purposes on the one hand, doesn't even bother to try to cover its ass in another completely separate and unrelated event, when not doing so would so badly damage their reputations and their party's future? I don't buy it for a second.
Huh? I've re-read my post three times now and I don't see how your response has any relevance; it seems like a complete non sequitur to me.
My point is that these conspiracy theorists want us to believe that the U.S. Government is evil enough to murder thousands of its own citizens for... greed, I think is the usual claim.
Yet this same government -- same administration even -- wouldn't just plant WMD when they didn't find it just to save face? They'd mass-murder for their own ends but not plant evidence? Just makes no sense.
The fact that 9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq has exactly zero relevance to my point.
One of the best arguments against the "U.S. Government was behind the WTC attacks" belief I ever heard was: why would a government willing to murder thousands of its own citizens not also just plant WMD in Iraq when it didn't find any? (I mean, never mind the other holes in the theories.)
When I hear a response to that with any kind of coherence, I *might* start looking past tinfoil hats.
On the topic of naming conventions, *I* would have thought, intuitively, that "sleep" would mean "don't do anything except be ready to awaken quickly when I ask you to." So then what would I expect a mode that turns off the screen but still allows background stuff like checking for incoming calls or emails be called? "Standby," I suppose, or something along those lines. But not "sleep."
I'm not trying to defend not reading the manual and finding out what "sleep" actually means on the iPhone, just speaking to what it intuitively meant to me, since Apple seems to care a lot about intuitive interfaces. Of course, *I* might just be an idiot.
Hmmm. As I type this, I'm looking at my current, fully itemized, [Cingular->]AT&T Wireless bill. Maybe enough people like you complained/dropped their service that they changed their billing approach?
No balloon has ever gone as high as SS1 with a person, not even close. Highest manned balloon flight: 113,740 feet. SS1 flights: 328,000+ feet. SS1 brought two separate pilots to what is considered space, no balloon can do that.
is "Matt" the only one in possession of the video?
Yes, it's sitting on my kitchen counter back in the States right now.
Is his ENTIRE path to Germany devoid of internet connections?
Nope, obviously I'm posting on the internet right now. It's just that my laptop is not good enough to capture video reliably over its Firewire connection (believe me, I've tried). And besides, I was under the impression when I left that John was not going to be posting any video until the next update anyway, which will be after I get back. Hell, I never expected this to make Slashdot without a video to see yet.
Including the place he stayed until he leaves "the next day"
Because I was leaving for Germany the next day, and because our Saturdays at Armadillo usually run late, I had very little time to do ANYTHING other than make sure I had all of my travel essentials in order (Did I get some cash for the trip? Are the dogs taken care of? Do I have all my stuff packed? Do I have my itinerary printed out? Where's my damn passport? Is everything battened down at the "day job"? Etc.) Of course, I could have just forsaken sleep to make sure UbuntuDupe didn't become suspicious of something nefarious...
You see, we're all volunteers at Armadillo, and therefore all have day jobs. My day job required me to come to Germany for the Leipzig Games Convention to promote things entirely unrelated to Armadillo. This is the job that actually provides a salary, so it kind of takes precedence over Armadillo sometimes.
Could I have left the video with the others so that they could capture it and get it up on the web page? Well, no one else on the team has any experience with that -- their expertise is in software design, electronics, manufacturing, welding, etc. So I'd have had to train them to do it. And again, why would I do that when, as I understood it, John's not going to post the video till the next update anyway?
But you go and believe whatever you want. Just know that we WILL post the video when I get back.
Actually, the Apollo program's lunar lander would not be able to win this prize according to the prize rules: it left its descent module on the moon. This prize requires the whole rocket make both legs of the flight profile.
You're quite right. Back in June, Armadillo successfully demonstrated the full Lunar Lander Challenge level 1 flight profile at the Oklahoma Spaceport. That impressive feat wasn't deemed worthy of Slashdot (though Firehose showed it was submitted), but crashing a rocket is.
IANA Rocket Scientist, but don't you need a *lot* more thrust to hover in earth gravity than lunar gravity?
Yes you do, but the Lunar Lander Challenge is not meant to demonstrate a vehicle capable of flying the same profile on the moon as it does in this competition. It's meant to demonstrate the performance necessary to fly between the lunar surface and lunar orbit -- basically, if you can hover in Earth's gravity for 180 seconds (the requirement for each leg in the Level 2 challenge), then you've demonstrated the performance that would be necessary to take off from the lunar surface and get to lunar orbit, or vice-versa.
As for certain things needing to be stouter than they'd have to on the moon, such as landing legs, yes, that's true. But this competition isn't about coming up with an actual lunar lander prototype, it's about spurring innovation among private companies who will hopefully be able to develop technologies that might be useful for future missions to the moon (or just to space in general), for vastly less cost that it takes NASA to do it.
...which isn't going to get anyone to the moon, considering rockets based on H2O2 are barely enough to get you into a suborbital flight.
H202 based rockets are actually capable of making all the way to orbit if you're using it in combination with a fuel, like kerosene. Witness the British Black Arrow. It may not be the best way to do it, but it's got the capability.
But anyway, this competition isn't about getting something from Earth to the moon, it's about demonstrating the performance to fly between the moon's surface and its orbit.
What are you talking about? Neither Carmack nor id have ever sworn not to work with Apple again. Are you thinking of them swearing off Nintendo long ago, maybe?
I've done both and the Zero-G ride is more fun. In the Cessna (I actually did it in a Cirrus), you still have to concentrate on keeping control of the aircraft, and you're seat-belted in so you can't do a whole lot.
On the Zero-G ride, you've got about 25 seconds a pop to do almost anything you want, like flips and so forth. And then on the bottom of the parabola you can try 2G push ups if you like.
My original point was that the fact that no U.S. president rises to the point of the worship that the Thai king does is VERY telling, just, perhaps, not in the way you were trying to put forth.
"People need to stop trying to force their culture on the rest of the world."
Who's trying to force culture on the rest of the world here? We're just geeks "talking" in a forum.
"I have an idea, let the thai's deal with Thailand."
As far as I can tell, nobody's suggesting otherwise. We're criticizing them, but we're not suggesting Thailand should abandon their laws and succumb to ours, no matter how much we think it might be better for them:)
"No wonder asia can't stand you.."
In that sense, Asia "can't stand us" because we value the individual over pretty much all other concerns. Most Asian cultures value the society and culture over the individual, hence the Japanese proverb "the nail that sticks up will be hammered down."
Surely Asian cultures have every right to think and live that way, but we have every right to point out how we think that's wrong. It's just human nature.
"If you don't agree with that or can't understand that, then you are not qualified to discuss it."
The "understand" part I get, but, if I don't agree with a country's laws or customs I'm not qualified to discuss them? And to think I was frightened at hearing what the Swiss guy was sentenced to...
Slashdot Mirror
Just be prepared to renounce U.S. citizenship and become a citizen of that country that did not sign the treaty. See CFR 14 part 413.3; the AST (launch licensing branch of the FAA) governs launches by U.S. citizens regardless of where they launch on Earth.
Sure, just as long as you're willing to renounce U.S. citizenship and become a Guatemalan citizen:
CFR 14 part 413.3: Who must obtain a launch license.
[snip]
An individual who is a U.S. citizen or an entity organized under the laws of the United States or any State must obtain a license--
(1) To launch a launch vehicle outside the United States;
[snip]
This is because, according to the Outer Space Treaty, the U.S. is responsible for what its citizens lob into space, regardless of where they launch it.
Just make sure to renounce your U.S. citizenship (if you're American) and become a citizen of that tiny Pacific nation. Because no matter where you launch on Earth, if you're still a U.S. citizen, the AST (launch permit branch of the FAA) still governs you. This is because as a U.S. citizen, the U.S. will be responsible for what you lob into space.
Minor point, but Blue Origin was not a contestant in the Ansari X Prize.
I get so pissed off at compression artifacts (mosquito noise; banding; blocks in fast-moving, busy shots) that I think I'd *prefer* analog (this is probably a curse of too many years in video post-production where I was paid to notice problems in video). Back when I had analog cable, I almost never had the noise associated with over-the-air analog broadcasts, and of course I didn't have compression artifacts. Alas, that was a long time ago. It really annoys me when cable companies (and others) tout "digital quality!" as if that means anything by itself.
In fact, this is why I haven't bought into HDTV yet -- if I spend a couple grand on a TV and extra per month for HD channels only to see compression artifacts in high resolution, something's getting sent through the front window.
I'm simply trying to establish a mindset of the administration: A government that would do such evil for nefarious purposes on the one hand, doesn't even bother to try to cover its ass in another completely separate and unrelated event, when not doing so would so badly damage their reputations and their party's future? I don't buy it for a second.
Huh? I've re-read my post three times now and I don't see how your response has any relevance; it seems like a complete non sequitur to me.
My point is that these conspiracy theorists want us to believe that the U.S. Government is evil enough to murder thousands of its own citizens for... greed, I think is the usual claim.
Yet this same government -- same administration even -- wouldn't just plant WMD when they didn't find it just to save face? They'd mass-murder for their own ends but not plant evidence? Just makes no sense.
The fact that 9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq has exactly zero relevance to my point.
One of the best arguments against the "U.S. Government was behind the WTC attacks" belief I ever heard was: why would a government willing to murder thousands of its own citizens not also just plant WMD in Iraq when it didn't find any? (I mean, never mind the other holes in the theories.)
When I hear a response to that with any kind of coherence, I *might* start looking past tinfoil hats.
On the topic of naming conventions, *I* would have thought, intuitively, that "sleep" would mean "don't do anything except be ready to awaken quickly when I ask you to." So then what would I expect a mode that turns off the screen but still allows background stuff like checking for incoming calls or emails be called? "Standby," I suppose, or something along those lines. But not "sleep."
I'm not trying to defend not reading the manual and finding out what "sleep" actually means on the iPhone, just speaking to what it intuitively meant to me, since Apple seems to care a lot about intuitive interfaces. Of course, *I* might just be an idiot.
Hmmm. As I type this, I'm looking at my current, fully itemized, [Cingular->]AT&T Wireless bill. Maybe enough people like you complained/dropped their service that they changed their billing approach?
At what point would it go from "too fscking bad" to "too fscking wrong"? If the charges were $48,000? $480,000? How about $4.8 million?
This is not a challenge, but an honest question: Where do you draw that line?
No balloon has ever gone as high as SS1 with a person, not even close. Highest manned balloon flight: 113,740 feet. SS1 flights: 328,000+ feet. SS1 brought two separate pilots to what is considered space, no balloon can do that.
You see, we're all volunteers at Armadillo, and therefore all have day jobs. My day job required me to come to Germany for the Leipzig Games Convention to promote things entirely unrelated to Armadillo. This is the job that actually provides a salary, so it kind of takes precedence over Armadillo sometimes.
Could I have left the video with the others so that they could capture it and get it up on the web page? Well, no one else on the team has any experience with that -- their expertise is in software design, electronics, manufacturing, welding, etc. So I'd have had to train them to do it. And again, why would I do that when, as I understood it, John's not going to post the video till the next update anyway?
But you go and believe whatever you want. Just know that we WILL post the video when I get back.
Matthew Ross
Armadillo Aerospace
Actually, the Apollo program's lunar lander would not be able to win this prize according to the prize rules: it left its descent module on the moon. This prize requires the whole rocket make both legs of the flight profile.
You're quite right. Back in June, Armadillo successfully demonstrated the full Lunar Lander Challenge level 1 flight profile at the Oklahoma Spaceport. That impressive feat wasn't deemed worthy of Slashdot (though Firehose showed it was submitted), but crashing a rocket is.
As for certain things needing to be stouter than they'd have to on the moon, such as landing legs, yes, that's true. But this competition isn't about coming up with an actual lunar lander prototype, it's about spurring innovation among private companies who will hopefully be able to develop technologies that might be useful for future missions to the moon (or just to space in general), for vastly less cost that it takes NASA to do it.
H202 based rockets are actually capable of making all the way to orbit if you're using it in combination with a fuel, like kerosene. Witness the British Black Arrow. It may not be the best way to do it, but it's got the capability.
But anyway, this competition isn't about getting something from Earth to the moon, it's about demonstrating the performance to fly between the moon's surface and its orbit.
What are you talking about? Neither Carmack nor id have ever sworn not to work with Apple again. Are you thinking of them swearing off Nintendo long ago, maybe?
I've done both and the Zero-G ride is more fun. In the Cessna (I actually did it in a Cirrus), you still have to concentrate on keeping control of the aircraft, and you're seat-belted in so you can't do a whole lot.
On the Zero-G ride, you've got about 25 seconds a pop to do almost anything you want, like flips and so forth. And then on the bottom of the parabola you can try 2G push ups if you like.
You were being summoned on Sunday. You failed to appear:
r eshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=19014301
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233701&th
Been there. Done that. And?
My original point was that the fact that no U.S. president rises to the point of the worship that the Thai king does is VERY telling, just, perhaps, not in the way you were trying to put forth.
"People need to stop trying to force their culture on the rest of the world."
:)
Who's trying to force culture on the rest of the world here? We're just geeks "talking" in a forum.
"I have an idea, let the thai's deal with Thailand."
As far as I can tell, nobody's suggesting otherwise. We're criticizing them, but we're not suggesting Thailand should abandon their laws and succumb to ours, no matter how much we think it might be better for them
"No wonder asia can't stand you.."
In that sense, Asia "can't stand us" because we value the individual over pretty much all other concerns. Most Asian cultures value the society and culture over the individual, hence the Japanese proverb "the nail that sticks up will be hammered down."
Surely Asian cultures have every right to think and live that way, but we have every right to point out how we think that's wrong. It's just human nature.
"and the west has nothing quite like him (I can think of no US president who even comes close)"
I think that's pretty telling, too. But probably for the opposite reason you think so.
"If you don't agree with that or can't understand that, then you are not qualified to discuss it."
The "understand" part I get, but, if I don't agree with a country's laws or customs I'm not qualified to discuss them? And to think I was frightened at hearing what the Swiss guy was sentenced to...