Hm, somehow Symbian phones (all current ones with ARM11; with hypothetical shift to Cortex in a year or so at the earliest, when Symbian^4 will basically break binary compatibility) get the latest Flash, too.
But you said "...parts of the SRBs on STS-51-L (the one that killed Challenger) survived the initial explosion...". And robustness of solid rockets is probably slightly deceiving - yes, as a functional block they are tough (they need to be), but what about when you want to build more of the stack from them? What about when, because of some blowout from the side due to faulty seal (the most common failure, what happened to Challenger; something which might also destroy the couplings of "more solid" stack) or any other assymetrical thrust scenario (easier with solids, they are less controllable), the whole stack is overstressed by aeorodynamic forces? Among it - an orbiter on its side, with the "capsule" buried deep in the structure that is being disintegrated. Or - stack of something like Ares I veering off course and/or not surviving increased lateral forces. You have the end of the mission anyway, the ultimate outcome due to secondary factors. That's mostly what I was saying in that third sentence (well, middle of the night & trying to find something to do...)
IIRC the other poster is an ex silo grunt, in which case it would be a bit natural that he was trained to value long storage, when conditions are stable, plus instant readiness...and generally will love (or smth) his old darlings. Which didn't have a lot of budget limitations (not of the same kind, anyway). And are suborbital to boot.
I was trying to "prove" ("show", really) that not a lot of commercial launchers rely on solids to such a large degree as the advantages would suggest - when one would expect at least rockets with solid whole first stage to be the rule. Or our first true steps into space relying on them, at the least. But it isn't so, and that can't be a coincidence. OTOH many operational rockets rely mostly on first stage with denser liquid fuel which also has quite good thrust-to-weight ratio, while accidentally having lower specific impulse. Many Russian launchers for example; or Saturn V.
Hell, "standard" (mot much of a standard practise that is) webpages should be just structured in a way that's conductive to low resolutions and reformatting...
I wonder, how precisely it looked in the case of IBM? (not only I wouldn't remember much, IBM wasn't ever very big in my place - embargo of Comecon, etc.)
Which to me is still part of that equation, more or less.
Though I really don't know where you're getting at with your example;P - one car I'm often driving is 11 years old, works flawlessly (I realised some time ago that I still perceive it as "new"), I expect it to last gracefully at least another 4 years. And it's an econobox hatchback of average price.
Generally, it might be that "overengineering", when it comes to quality, often isn't as expensive as you assume it is, compared to other costs.
Contrary to popular belief, Challenger was actually mostly broken up by aerodynamic forces, when an SRB that destroyed one of its attachment points not only started to wreck havoc but also rapidly changed orientation of whole stack. There was really no explosion - what looked like one was basically just burning of fuel, behind the vehicle, dumped from severely structurally damaged ET. A thing to which "tough" (simply required, and the only reason why they survived such aerodynamic forces - but whole rocket stack build from them probably wouldn't survive anyway; in case of Challenger SRB the assymetry of thrust quickly became so great that the corrections involved to a large degree...also liquid fuelled block), high thrust SRB greatly contributed. Plus either way, "capsule" / cabin also survived the disintegration - unfortunatelly it had a really weird design, wasn't meant for operation without 80 or so tons of waste around it.
I syspect you present solid rockets in a bit too good light probably. When talking about really big ones, they end up a bit risky and expensive to manufacture and handle (liquid rocket is in comparison virtualy inert most of the time). Higher thrust to mass ratio at liftoff, to minimise both aerodynamic and gravity drag, is also often achieved using denser liquid fuels like kerosene - that's another way of dealing with problems which liquid hydrogen has (hm, IIRC mostly rockets which do use liquid hydrogen in first stage rely greatly on solid boosters...seems it's perhaps largely about bringing the characteristics to an area of denser liquid fuels?). Plus it's certainly not a coincidence that our orbital rockets rely mostly on liquid propellants (especially in commercial segment, where cost considerations are the quickest to take over) - higher specific impulse is good to have after all, for starters. Very lightweight structure is a good thing for a rocket. Plus liquid rocket engine can be tested before using it... (and btw, failure of the seal as on Challenger is one of the more common modes of failure for solid rockets)
Hybrid rocket engines seem to be interesting BTW; performance close to liquid, safety might end up better than anything we use.
Rocket failures, especially of vehicles not using hypergolic (or otherwise toxic) fuels, don't result in many problems, anywhere, except simply increasing the cost of making business with that launch company.
How often we would have such a payload though? That's not how we build things - even large oceanic ships are built in segments. Cargo moved in containers. Even available launchers shouldn't be too limiting when it comes to engine block, fuel tanks (or integrated packages of the two), crew compartments (plus it's nice to have at least one of them easily surrounded by fuel tanks), science platform. Connect them as required; with the possibility of greater part off the assembly line that way, too. As would be already the case with launchers (which might also improve gradually to give somewhat heavier options, but still sharing most of the components with "standard" ones), instead of an almost custom design used quite intermittently (but still with the need of maintaining standing army and infrastructure to make it)
And the biggest bonus: if one launch fails, you don't loose much.
"Actually"? The only difference in those two variants of description is preferred reference frame, they are equally valid. There's no place for "actually"...
Yes, and insurance is a response to risks ("safe" part) and directly influences costs ("efficient" and "cheap"). Essentially isn't a factor in itself, just a intermediary between things I mentioned. Even beancounters should realize it's not a business focused on short-term financial reports...
We do refueling in orbit quite often. ISS is refueled every few months; and the version of docking ports used by Progress even has provisions for fuel transfer IIRC.
Was recovering satellites (hence also building a vehicle that can do that by wasting most of its mass that's put to LEO on airframe) ever shown to be economically justified? Why no commercial launch companies and satellite operators seem to interested in it now?
Plus, we already have launchers that can put the same amount as Shuttle into LEO. And they are cheaper, they rule the commercial launch market. SpaceX is likely to push the market into even lower prices.
... except the defunct Saturn V and the Russian N-1
Also Energia (and too bad its heaviest variant, Energia Vulcan, never had a chance; that would be some sight). Not so old, and part of it still flies (Zenit). Though even if it would be possible to ressurect it, there's no funds to do it and no reason to direct them (Ares V has the same problem - what's wrong with rendezvous in orbit using few cheap launches?). Plus politics: Russia wouldn't want to depend on Ukraine, so they're building new heavy launcher - Angara; heaviest variants of which aren't quite in the league of Saturn V, N-1 or Energia, but are halfway there. Might be useful for Mir 3, I guess.
As has already been pointed out, Ares I and Falcon 9 are very similar in capabilities.
But furthermore - if Falcon 9 (or some other launcher for that matter) can launch a comparable mass to LEO, in several launches (we're good at rendezvous by now...), as one launch of the heavy Ares V (that's the rocket you're thinking of), and if it can do it still much cheaper (despite needing several launches) - then why wish for Ares V? A rocket which would be launched very rarely, hence driving the costs even more up btw.
In contrast, a launcher in the league of Falcon 9 is quite universal.
We already had a mass produced, succesfull, and very cheap launcher. Suborbital, sure - but while orbit requires from rocket an order or magnitude more work, the logistics & manufacturing aren't that dissimilar...
Are you sure it's not because the map of teritory under real control (an essential thing for large scale utilisation of resources...) looks like this? (not that much different nowadays...)
And of course the issue on the part of Afghanis isn't that merely the government is corrupt...
Slashdot Mirror
And many video types from flash containers can be piped for decoding on DSPs that many modern phones have. Also those without Cortex, et al.
Hm, somehow Symbian phones (all current ones with ARM11; with hypothetical shift to Cortex in a year or so at the earliest, when Symbian^4 will basically break binary compatibility) get the latest Flash, too.
/me is upset. And awaiting video documentary of that tongue-door-slapping thing.
But you said "...parts of the SRBs on STS-51-L (the one that killed Challenger) survived the initial explosion...".
And robustness of solid rockets is probably slightly deceiving - yes, as a functional block they are tough (they need to be), but what about when you want to build more of the stack from them? What about when, because of some blowout from the side due to faulty seal (the most common failure, what happened to Challenger; something which might also destroy the couplings of "more solid" stack) or any other assymetrical thrust scenario (easier with solids, they are less controllable), the whole stack is overstressed by aeorodynamic forces? Among it - an orbiter on its side, with the "capsule" buried deep in the structure that is being disintegrated. Or - stack of something like Ares I veering off course and/or not surviving increased lateral forces. You have the end of the mission anyway, the ultimate outcome due to secondary factors. That's mostly what I was saying in that third sentence (well, middle of the night & trying to find something to do...)
IIRC the other poster is an ex silo grunt, in which case it would be a bit natural that he was trained to value long storage, when conditions are stable, plus instant readiness...and generally will love (or smth) his old darlings. Which didn't have a lot of budget limitations (not of the same kind, anyway). And are suborbital to boot.
I was trying to "prove" ("show", really) that not a lot of commercial launchers rely on solids to such a large degree as the advantages would suggest - when one would expect at least rockets with solid whole first stage to be the rule. Or our first true steps into space relying on them, at the least. But it isn't so, and that can't be a coincidence.
OTOH many operational rockets rely mostly on first stage with denser liquid fuel which also has quite good thrust-to-weight ratio, while accidentally having lower specific impulse. Many Russian launchers for example; or Saturn V.
Or...you can just use the front camera, as at least one title for DSi does.
Anyway, "3D screen" in 3DS relies on its physical characteristics to achieve stereoscopic effect, ones which you can't really reconfigure on the fly.
Self-hosting freely distributed feature length video is lunatic without deep-pocket sponsorship
Why, with bittorrent available?
What would be the cosnequences of what you mention to the recent fuss about cameras using H.264 with "for personal use only" disclaimer?
Hell, "standard" (mot much of a standard practise that is) webpages should be just structured in a way that's conductive to low resolutions and reformatting...
I wonder, how precisely it looked in the case of IBM? (not only I wouldn't remember much, IBM wasn't ever very big in my place - embargo of Comecon, etc.)
Which to me is still part of that equation, more or less.
Though I really don't know where you're getting at with your example ;P - one car I'm often driving is 11 years old, works flawlessly (I realised some time ago that I still perceive it as "new"), I expect it to last gracefully at least another 4 years.
And it's an econobox hatchback of average price.
Generally, it might be that "overengineering", when it comes to quality, often isn't as expensive as you assume it is, compared to other costs.
But notice how the latest generations "reverted" to text messaging on their phones... (even when voice is cheap; or, often, video)
Contrary to popular belief, Challenger was actually mostly broken up by aerodynamic forces, when an SRB that destroyed one of its attachment points not only started to wreck havoc but also rapidly changed orientation of whole stack. There was really no explosion - what looked like one was basically just burning of fuel, behind the vehicle, dumped from severely structurally damaged ET. A thing to which "tough" (simply required, and the only reason why they survived such aerodynamic forces - but whole rocket stack build from them probably wouldn't survive anyway; in case of Challenger SRB the assymetry of thrust quickly became so great that the corrections involved to a large degree...also liquid fuelled block), high thrust SRB greatly contributed. Plus either way, "capsule" / cabin also survived the disintegration - unfortunatelly it had a really weird design, wasn't meant for operation without 80 or so tons of waste around it.
I syspect you present solid rockets in a bit too good light probably. When talking about really big ones, they end up a bit risky and expensive to manufacture and handle (liquid rocket is in comparison virtualy inert most of the time). Higher thrust to mass ratio at liftoff, to minimise both aerodynamic and gravity drag, is also often achieved using denser liquid fuels like kerosene - that's another way of dealing with problems which liquid hydrogen has (hm, IIRC mostly rockets which do use liquid hydrogen in first stage rely greatly on solid boosters...seems it's perhaps largely about bringing the characteristics to an area of denser liquid fuels?). Plus it's certainly not a coincidence that our orbital rockets rely mostly on liquid propellants (especially in commercial segment, where cost considerations are the quickest to take over) - higher specific impulse is good to have after all, for starters. Very lightweight structure is a good thing for a rocket. Plus liquid rocket engine can be tested before using it... (and btw, failure of the seal as on Challenger is one of the more common modes of failure for solid rockets)
Hybrid rocket engines seem to be interesting BTW; performance close to liquid, safety might end up better than anything we use.
Rocket failures, especially of vehicles not using hypergolic (or otherwise toxic) fuels, don't result in many problems, anywhere, except simply increasing the cost of making business with that launch company.
How often we would have such a payload though? That's not how we build things - even large oceanic ships are built in segments. Cargo moved in containers.
Even available launchers shouldn't be too limiting when it comes to engine block, fuel tanks (or integrated packages of the two), crew compartments (plus it's nice to have at least one of them easily surrounded by fuel tanks), science platform. Connect them as required; with the possibility of greater part off the assembly line that way, too. As would be already the case with launchers (which might also improve gradually to give somewhat heavier options, but still sharing most of the components with "standard" ones), instead of an almost custom design used quite intermittently (but still with the need of maintaining standing army and infrastructure to make it)
And the biggest bonus: if one launch fails, you don't loose much.
"Actually"? The only difference in those two variants of description is preferred reference frame, they are equally valid. There's no place for "actually"...
Slave labour forgotten? When?
(srsly, those doubts are adressed in the article and were mentioned in my post...)
Yes, and insurance is a response to risks ("safe" part) and directly influences costs ("efficient" and "cheap"). Essentially isn't a factor in itself, just a intermediary between things I mentioned. Even beancounters should realize it's not a business focused on short-term financial reports...
We do refueling in orbit quite often. ISS is refueled every few months; and the version of docking ports used by Progress even has provisions for fuel transfer IIRC.
Was recovering satellites (hence also building a vehicle that can do that by wasting most of its mass that's put to LEO on airframe) ever shown to be economically justified? Why no commercial launch companies and satellite operators seem to interested in it now?
Plus, we already have launchers that can put the same amount as Shuttle into LEO. And they are cheaper, they rule the commercial launch market. SpaceX is likely to push the market into even lower prices.
"Safe" is a large part of "efficient" and "cheap" - if only because cargo is usually quite valuable and time consuming to build.
I still expect SpaceX to get there.
... except the defunct Saturn V and the Russian N-1
Also Energia (and too bad its heaviest variant, Energia Vulcan, never had a chance; that would be some sight). Not so old, and part of it still flies (Zenit). Though even if it would be possible to ressurect it, there's no funds to do it and no reason to direct them (Ares V has the same problem - what's wrong with rendezvous in orbit using few cheap launches?). Plus politics: Russia wouldn't want to depend on Ukraine, so they're building new heavy launcher - Angara; heaviest variants of which aren't quite in the league of Saturn V, N-1 or Energia, but are halfway there. Might be useful for Mir 3, I guess.
As has already been pointed out, Ares I and Falcon 9 are very similar in capabilities.
But furthermore - if Falcon 9 (or some other launcher for that matter) can launch a comparable mass to LEO, in several launches (we're good at rendezvous by now...), as one launch of the heavy Ares V (that's the rocket you're thinking of), and if it can do it still much cheaper (despite needing several launches) - then why wish for Ares V? A rocket which would be launched very rarely, hence driving the costs even more up btw.
In contrast, a launcher in the league of Falcon 9 is quite universal.
We already had a mass produced, succesfull, and very cheap launcher. Suborbital, sure - but while orbit requires from rocket an order or magnitude more work, the logistics & manufacturing aren't that dissimilar...
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html
Sadly, the lesson was forgotten. Until now?
SpaceX seems to be building "Lamborghinis", too...just of a much more useful kind.
(and generally, you really think complexicity of something is a good thing?)
Are you sure it's not because the map of teritory under real control (an essential thing for large scale utilisation of resources...) looks like this? (not that much different nowadays...)
And of course the issue on the part of Afghanis isn't that merely the government is corrupt...