Mostly becaue, say, all iPhones that are in use represent around 1% of mobile phones? Yes, it's not uniform obviously, with some places having noticeably more - but nowhere near "almost everyone", nowhere near "most" even.
Too lazy to calculate now, but I suspect the Moon would be gone from Earth orbit before that point. BTW, Sun - Jupiter system has common center of gravity slightly between them already.
However, when talking strictly about how spacious it is;) - ISS is quite comparable to a large airliner, not too bad. Plus, the capsule from the story will be also about servicing those modules; the planned small station of three will already have internal volume of ISS, and there are bound to be bigger ones. Yes, most of it will be filled with equipment or generally divided into subsections; but I'm willing to bet Bigelow, sooner or later, will leave one "empty"
Libertarianism in a nutshell: "give the People power, and they will flourish!" Sounds familiar? (well, might be because both end up in oligarchy)
What was the "original intent" BTW? And if that's such a big (and surely obvious) problem, how come the "Founding Fathers" overlooked it? (or do they?)
The above coupled with how libertarians, in the end, want to have an opportunity to exploit others while weaseling out of any contributions, makes me wonder...are you already in the "family" which will likely take over, be on top of libertarian oligarchy? Or hoping to still bribe yourself, when the time comes, into uberclass? Which one is it?
Another telling thing - everybody paying for public education of course assures that the place / society is quite stable, nice well-being or even prosperous in the long term; a thing which generally benefits you and will greatly benefit your children. Well, not if you want a society that's easy to exploit...
Also, you very much support "imperialistic wars", despite claiming otherwise; if you wouldn't, you also wouldn't want wasting resources on "the best military in the world", and instead focused on why you need it (well, I'm sure you know why, to have better "business opportunities"...). Ignoring all the places ahead of US, and with very social net systems, should be easy after the above.
Oh well, to bad like with any worshippers, you forget how your idols ("founding fathers", in this case, it would seem) lived a long time ago, in a completelly different reality; and nurtured a much, much worse one from what we have presently (I'm sure you're good by now at ignoring their frightingly anachronistic views...after all, you already pick only those suiting you)
Question is - is he so clueless, or...does he already have some favourite "family" to put on top of libertarian oligarchy? (oh well, after all - "libertarians" I had a longer talks with, when pressed, essentially admit that they just want a way to exploit the society while not contributing anything back)
Oh well, we'll wait and see. But one can't help being cautious when someone uses "taxi" metaphor;p (wasn't it also used for the Shuttle? The vehicle which was supposed to be quite cheap and with fast turnaround?)
And hey, this is still rocket science. But consider another thing with Soyuz - it demonstrably can launch under very tight schedule - on October 1113 1969, three manned missions (Soyuz 6, 7, and 8) were launched from the same pad within 48 hours; was also used much more "disposably" for over a decade of operation - but its more and more funds-starved space agency chose to not do it anymore; for some time now any short-term members of visiting crew return on "old" lifeboat. Which, despite being most likely the cheapest manned spacecraft, has great performance of its recovery system (apart from first, rushed by officials, flights of course), never uses reserve parachute AFAIK, and still can spend up to a year in space. With the rates at which Bigelow is surely aiming, 3 months should be plenty, perhaps 2 (maybe that's enough for "taxi"?)
As for propellants...only one? Are you sure about that? (don't limit yourself to manned). And heck, new Russian capsule might supposedly mostly get rid of parachutes anyway, rely on landing rockets.
Can they really know, even if being above 60? They lived almost their entire life under regime (some time ago that would be often also "under Japanese occupation initially"), and at the beginning there wasn't really much of a difference between North and South.
Plus, life expectancy in North Korea is apparently just slightly higher than 60 years anyway...
Theocracy, father (eternally ruling, apparently) + son (this one defeating death due to some elixir of youth - there was a story about it recently); I've heard something like that once, somewhere...;)
I doubt very much it's easier; it occupies the pad, adds two days at minimum, adds another possible failure mode (instead of relying on something which is already there and most likely ready) to something which is supposedly already a failure overall. In contrast, the only major thing a capsule needs, to stay alive while docked, is a powersource that will last - but it sort of needs that already to a large degree, if it needs to be on standby.
Plus, remember it's for space station usage - where people would often stay for a long time. What, the first skeleton crew is supposed to just go on, after arrival, with discarding their capsule?
If some source specifically says that (yeah, non-RTFA et al...though I was reading about this Bigelow-Boeing capsule in the last few days), I would expect it to be at most some miscommunication / confusion of autonomous & docked endurance.
C'mon, Bigelow seems to be heavily involved with this capsule. Why would they want something which can't stay docked & evacuate, if needed, crew of the space station(s?) that they're going to build?
The way Apple deals with it so far is really quite telling - helpfully reminding us that everything iPhone does badly (or can't do) is the fault of consumers. In a world of Apple, the consumer is always wrong.
Nvm that for everybody else this is clearly an obvious design flaw (and more to do with shorting antenna segments than with any significant amount of "blocking", it seems; "blocking" which isn't much of a problem for other phones). Aren't such manufacturing flaws/defects a material for class action lawsuits?;p
The only way it makes sense to hide a study and not respond to it in the product design, is if the issue is believed to be so minor, nobody will notice, and the 'harm' of the product will never be proven.
Or when the issue is believed to be so major and inherent in the design to be practically unsolvable? So why not bury the study? The product is cancelled anyway, perhaps there will be less bad press that way...and there's a chance some competitor will fall into the same trap, perhaps even much further (3DS?)
Actually, both docking standards are sort of Russian;p
Apart from the one with obvious heritage, there's also APAS, used by Shuttle (and Shenzhou, btw) - with the first version designed by Soviets for use in Apollo-Soyuz project; first spacecraft equipped with it was Soyuz (Apollo carried an adapter).
Next redesign was built for Buran, to use with Mir. Buran of course never flew to Mir, however...when the Shuttle was visiting there, it was carrying a docking collar designed for Buran. On hich current version is based.
Times en route to rendezvous are typically in the range of two days or so. That's still short enough, I guess, for people to not go crazy; having in their mind a specious space station to which they will dock.
Short duration autonomous mission; it can certainly last much longer while docked (and, say, drawing power from the station to keep itself alive) - look at Soyuz, it has the time of autonomous flight in the range of one week, in current configurations; but typically is docked around half a year to a station.
Slashdot Mirror
I raise your plasma field with shaped charge (of sorts) made from thermonuclear warhead and relativistic penetrator.
Competition got us Apollo.
It was also a cooperation. With Germans.
Mostly becaue, say, all iPhones that are in use represent around 1% of mobile phones? Yes, it's not uniform obviously, with some places having noticeably more - but nowhere near "almost everyone", nowhere near "most" even.
Now you're exaggerating. It will be just an easy to access (user friendliness, remember!) tutorial showing the only proper way to hold a mobile phone.
Too lazy to calculate now, but I suspect the Moon would be gone from Earth orbit before that point. BTW, Sun - Jupiter system has common center of gravity slightly between them already.
Uhm, yeah...
However, when talking strictly about how spacious it is ;) - ISS is quite comparable to a large airliner, not too bad. Plus, the capsule from the story will be also about servicing those modules; the planned small station of three will already have internal volume of ISS, and there are bound to be bigger ones. Yes, most of it will be filled with equipment or generally divided into subsections; but I'm willing to bet Bigelow, sooner or later, will leave one "empty"
Dispensing with ideologies a bit, and embracing thoughtful pragmatism, would be a good start...
(for the record, comment from a machine in significant enough part almost a decade old)
Libertarianism in a nutshell: "give the People power, and they will flourish!" Sounds familiar? (well, might be because both end up in oligarchy)
What was the "original intent" BTW? And if that's such a big (and surely obvious) problem, how come the "Founding Fathers" overlooked it? (or do they?)
They're not even very different when you think about it: "we, the people, will take matters into our own hands and everything will be awesome!"
When forgetting to spew your party BS for a minute, you are very clear about wanting a centralised government able to force all private assets in the country into one legislated monopoly.
The above coupled with how libertarians, in the end, want to have an opportunity to exploit others while weaseling out of any contributions, makes me wonder...are you already in the "family" which will likely take over, be on top of libertarian oligarchy? Or hoping to still bribe yourself, when the time comes, into uberclass? Which one is it?
Another telling thing - everybody paying for public education of course assures that the place / society is quite stable, nice well-being or even prosperous in the long term; a thing which generally benefits you and will greatly benefit your children. Well, not if you want a society that's easy to exploit...
Also, you very much support "imperialistic wars", despite claiming otherwise; if you wouldn't, you also wouldn't want wasting resources on "the best military in the world", and instead focused on why you need it (well, I'm sure you know why, to have better "business opportunities"...). Ignoring all the places ahead of US, and with very social net systems, should be easy after the above.
Oh well, to bad like with any worshippers, you forget how your idols ("founding fathers", in this case, it would seem) lived a long time ago, in a completelly different reality; and nurtured a much, much worse one from what we have presently (I'm sure you're good by now at ignoring their frightingly anachronistic views...after all, you already pick only those suiting you)
Don't bother with him too much next time, except remembering that he actually proposes a Soviet-style legislated monopolies
Question is - is he so clueless, or...does he already have some favourite "family" to put on top of libertarian oligarchy? (oh well, after all - "libertarians" I had a longer talks with, when pressed, essentially admit that they just want a way to exploit the society while not contributing anything back)
You are confusing libertarianism with die-hard, centralised, Soviet-style "communism" a proponent of which you are.
Or are you simply so clueless in regards to what you write? Or...which "family" you want to see at the top of your libertarian oligarchy?
Oh well, we'll wait and see. But one can't help being cautious when someone uses "taxi" metaphor ;p (wasn't it also used for the Shuttle? The vehicle which was supposed to be quite cheap and with fast turnaround?)
And hey, this is still rocket science. But consider another thing with Soyuz - it demonstrably can launch under very tight schedule - on October 1113 1969, three manned missions (Soyuz 6, 7, and 8) were launched from the same pad within 48 hours; was also used much more "disposably" for over a decade of operation - but its more and more funds-starved space agency chose to not do it anymore; for some time now any short-term members of visiting crew return on "old" lifeboat.
Which, despite being most likely the cheapest manned spacecraft, has great performance of its recovery system (apart from first, rushed by officials, flights of course), never uses reserve parachute AFAIK, and still can spend up to a year in space. With the rates at which Bigelow is surely aiming, 3 months should be plenty, perhaps 2 (maybe that's enough for "taxi"?)
As for propellants...only one? Are you sure about that? (don't limit yourself to manned). And heck, new Russian capsule might supposedly mostly get rid of parachutes anyway, rely on landing rockets.
Can they really know, even if being above 60? They lived almost their entire life under regime (some time ago that would be often also "under Japanese occupation initially"), and at the beginning there wasn't really much of a difference between North and South.
Plus, life expectancy in North Korea is apparently just slightly higher than 60 years anyway...
Theocracy, father (eternally ruling, apparently) + son (this one defeating death due to some elixir of youth - there was a story about it recently); I've heard something like that once, somewhere... ;)
Though that's probably slightly too far, it absolves of responsibility people who give those "fundamentalists" influence.
I doubt very much it's easier; it occupies the pad, adds two days at minimum, adds another possible failure mode (instead of relying on something which is already there and most likely ready) to something which is supposedly already a failure overall. In contrast, the only major thing a capsule needs, to stay alive while docked, is a powersource that will last - but it sort of needs that already to a large degree, if it needs to be on standby.
Plus, remember it's for space station usage - where people would often stay for a long time. What, the first skeleton crew is supposed to just go on, after arrival, with discarding their capsule?
If some source specifically says that (yeah, non-RTFA et al...though I was reading about this Bigelow-Boeing capsule in the last few days), I would expect it to be at most some miscommunication / confusion of autonomous & docked endurance.
C'mon, Bigelow seems to be heavily involved with this capsule. Why would they want something which can't stay docked & evacuate, if needed, crew of the space station(s?) that they're going to build?
The way Apple deals with it so far is really quite telling - helpfully reminding us that everything iPhone does badly (or can't do) is the fault of consumers. In a world of Apple, the consumer is always wrong.
Nvm that for everybody else this is clearly an obvious design flaw (and more to do with shorting antenna segments than with any significant amount of "blocking", it seems; "blocking" which isn't much of a problem for other phones). Aren't such manufacturing flaws/defects a material for class action lawsuits? ;p
The only way it makes sense to hide a study and not respond to it in the product design, is if the issue is believed to be so minor, nobody will notice, and the 'harm' of the product will never be proven.
Or when the issue is believed to be so major and inherent in the design to be practically unsolvable? So why not bury the study? The product is cancelled anyway, perhaps there will be less bad press that way...and there's a chance some competitor will fall into the same trap, perhaps even much further (3DS?)
So, what will certain 8 Letter company do now? (when they are close to releasing a 3D console that is bound to be massively overused by kids)
For that matter, doesn't this look like some sweet revenge as far as Sega is concerned?
Actually, both docking standards are sort of Russian ;p
Apart from the one with obvious heritage, there's also APAS, used by Shuttle (and Shenzhou, btw) - with the first version designed by Soviets for use in Apollo-Soyuz project; first spacecraft equipped with it was Soyuz (Apollo carried an adapter).
Next redesign was built for Buran, to use with Mir. Buran of course never flew to Mir, however...when the Shuttle was visiting there, it was carrying a docking collar designed for Buran. On hich current version is based.
Looks even better when colorised, gives the imppression (true or not, nvm) that two crew members are sitting essentially in a drawer ;)
(I still wouldn't mind, certainly not with the perspective of docking to a spacious station)
Times en route to rendezvous are typically in the range of two days or so. That's still short enough, I guess, for people to not go crazy; having in their mind a specious space station to which they will dock.
Short duration autonomous mission; it can certainly last much longer while docked (and, say, drawing power from the station to keep itself alive) - look at Soyuz, it has the time of autonomous flight in the range of one week, in current configurations; but typically is docked around half a year to a station.