Where were you able to find such rip-off for A1200? (while still barely available, it's already at a bit over $100 / should be sub-100 relatively soon; oh, and in practice the differences are much larger for me - the less prosperous the place, the bigger the premium on top of US prices, doubly (or triply, or...) so for niche products - OTOH not so bad for mass consumer ones)
Generally, that 170 degrees seems horizontal / full-frame. What I had in mind would greatly benefit from hemispherical (hey, people are doing lots of weird shit with optical paths of cameras not meant for replaceable lenses / knowing optometrist/optitian might help / I sure as hell wouldn't put my DSLR on-board;p... though some future (once the novelty factor wears off) compact mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras might be another option)
Oh, but they did lost (three, actually) satellites previously - but again, it was a different rocket, Proton (their heavy workhorse, also with great success ratio; coincidentally, also envisioned at one point as an ICBM - one for Tsar Bomba!)
Generally, ISS is serviced by another launch vehicle (different manufacture lines, launch facilities, et al) - "the most reliable... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world". The other discussed rockets aren't even meant for launching people. Proton does launch larger ISS segments, but that's a rare thing and the rocket is even in different configuration then, without the part which failed now (upper stage, basically an exoatmospheric tug to place one or several smaller satellites in desired orbits; this list gives a good idea; coincidentally, that's also the part which failed in Rokot now... (but different, unrelated upper stage, and in this case more integral to the rocket type, apparently)). Also: Proton was cleared for another (successful) flight mere 2 weeks after that failure.
Russians are damn good at this stuff. It might be largely our propensity to notice patterns which aren't there, in your impression of this "sequence"
Hm, still quite expensive, when compared with new Canon digicams (A1200 and A2200 just around the corner...), and almost certainly not so nice video capabilities - heck, none of the other big digital camera makers comes close to Canon now in video (and I'm thinking about really ridiculously wide FOV / total fish-eye, to have a shot at stabilization in post-production;>> / video per se isn't even required, just time-lapse of most-of-surface-capturing photos)
And S/PDIF (what do you think "S" means?). And FDD (what is to greatest extent the FDD, at least), DAT, DV, HDV. What you probably didn't realize. And I'm probably missing some, too.
(is it so hard to google CCD or DAP? But I'll add: apart from tons of imaging sensors - also fabulous and affordable NLE (yeah, I'm bad;) ) software - finding great use by indy artists... hm, a "competition" for Sony Pictures?)
Heck, you didn't know anything about the character of their e-book stuff...
So you didn't even bother to check the link, got it... (hint: US newspapers) UK urls was just where I have seen similar news (funnily enough, regarding TFA url...)
And considering relative audiences - yeah, UK mass media is pretty much the world when compared to US ones / you're doing it wrong (it's usually the other way around)
Using long tether helps a bit... or an aerodynamic 'brake'/ribbon while going up. But generally: good question, for something so dainty, and with such weight constraints.
In my occasional toying in this area I might even one day try a variant of Picavet suspension, or segmented tether made from partly-rigid segments of unequal length (to get in the way of clean or even self-exciting oscillations), just to mention two (quite possibly ineffective) ideas (plus especially the second might have problems with regulations at my place, the tether can't be too strong; and both possibly getting in the way of required recovery mechanism)
Or one day I'll just have enough cash for disposable fish-eye lenses...
Even about balloon-lifted stratospheric UAV... (after most straightforward attempt at news search; I think I've seen more than one "just a balloon" in UK mainstream media few years ago)
Which in itself wasn't unheard of since a few years even in 2005... (BTW, except for "just a balloon" media fad resurfacing in a few years and people forgetting this round, I fully except "OMG it's a spaceplane!" fad relatively soon)
Not even that, I'm pretty sure there were some media reports at least over half a decade ago. They're just... two engineering PhDs who jumped on recent media bandwagon about one type of small fun projects done by middle-schoolers (for many years)
The guys putting together the video apparently couldn't be innovative even regarding the soundtrack; it's non-viewable in many places / some copyright hiccups, it seems.
Yes, you're supposed to coordinate the launch with local airspace authority (at least that's the way at my place...). Also, the payload should conform to certain requirements... (if it gets hit despite all the precautions, apparently)
But generally, a very straightforward formality / folks dealing with it tended to be nice.
Not only that - what is suddenly the point of having the same exact news (just with different people...) again and again, every month or two? Especially if it's something done for many years...
The rocket in question is an inexpensive, surplus, repurposed old ICBM. Out of 18 launches as Rockot it had 1 catastrophic failure and 1 partial failure (this one) - pretty decent.
At least it had the decency to notice going bankrupt and folding down, instead of going on spending frenzy and trying to keep the rest of the world from minding it too much...
Who knows what we would have if some ignorant Soviet generals didn't insist on matching (nonexistent) "strategic advantage" given by STS (one might wonder if that wasn't the main point of the Shuttle, to provoke the Soviets into massive pointless spending on "counterpart" program; but in that case - why was it allowed to suck NASA dry for 2 decades after fulfilling its goal?). I wouldn't be too surprised if (for much less than what Energia-Buran cost them, working out the quirks of N-1 instead of scrapping it just when v2 was almost ready) they would be able to maintain small lunar base for the last ~3 decades. Though that would probably require them not having hiccups along the way, winning the initial Moon Race... which in the end could be great! The US would probably aim for the next "big mission" in such case, and we could have some short term Mars landings by now. More fun all around.
(and you know, the growth of China in the last 3 decades is not precisely due to "more democratic or a more social form of communism")
Readiness to "take just about anything to tip the odds in my favor" might take attention from, or even obscure some things which actually are important.
I'm not sure what they're doing is very unique... not a far as, for example, the crew of Apollo 8 or some activities (secretly, this time) of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the Moon are concerned. Or ritualistically watching White Sun of the Desert and urinating on the launch pad.
Slashdot Mirror
The OP is me ;p
;p ... though some future (once the novelty factor wears off) compact mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras might be another option)
Where were you able to find such rip-off for A1200? (while still barely available, it's already at a bit over $100 / should be sub-100 relatively soon; oh, and in practice the differences are much larger for me - the less prosperous the place, the bigger the premium on top of US prices, doubly (or triply, or...) so for niche products - OTOH not so bad for mass consumer ones)
Generally, that 170 degrees seems horizontal / full-frame. What I had in mind would greatly benefit from hemispherical (hey, people are doing lots of weird shit with optical paths of cameras not meant for replaceable lenses / knowing optometrist/optitian might help / I sure as hell wouldn't put my DSLR on-board
Oh, right ... but doesn't Yahoo use Bing now?
Oh, but they did lost (three, actually) satellites previously - but again, it was a different rocket, Proton (their heavy workhorse, also with great success ratio; coincidentally, also envisioned at one point as an ICBM - one for Tsar Bomba!)
... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world". The other discussed rockets aren't even meant for launching people. Proton does launch larger ISS segments, but that's a rare thing and the rocket is even in different configuration then, without the part which failed now (upper stage, basically an exoatmospheric tug to place one or several smaller satellites in desired orbits; this list gives a good idea; coincidentally, that's also the part which failed in Rokot now... (but different, unrelated upper stage, and in this case more integral to the rocket type, apparently)). Also: Proton was cleared for another (successful) flight mere 2 weeks after that failure.
Generally, ISS is serviced by another launch vehicle (different manufacture lines, launch facilities, et al) - "the most reliable
Russians are damn good at this stuff. It might be largely our propensity to notice patterns which aren't there, in your impression of this "sequence"
Hm, still quite expensive, when compared with new Canon digicams (A1200 and A2200 just around the corner...), and almost certainly not so nice video capabilities - heck, none of the other big digital camera makers comes close to Canon now in video (and I'm thinking about really ridiculously wide FOV / total fish-eye, to have a shot at stabilization in post-production ;>> / video per se isn't even required, just time-lapse of most-of-surface-capturing photos)
Ah, so you've never heard the Commonwealth... (and how popular in any random place at least BBC generally tends to be)
And S/PDIF (what do you think "S" means?). And FDD (what is to greatest extent the FDD, at least), DAT, DV, HDV. What you probably didn't realize. And I'm probably missing some, too.
;) ) software - finding great use by indy artists ... hm, a "competition" for Sony Pictures?)
(is it so hard to google CCD or DAP? But I'll add: apart from tons of imaging sensors - also fabulous and affordable NLE (yeah, I'm bad
Heck, you didn't know anything about the character of their e-book stuff...
They are an evil Japanese competition, you should be happy for their failures!
So you didn't even bother to check the link, got it... (hint: US newspapers) UK urls was just where I have seen similar news (funnily enough, regarding TFA url...)
And considering relative audiences - yeah, UK mass media is pretty much the world when compared to US ones / you're doing it wrong (it's usually the other way around)
Using long tether helps a bit... or an aerodynamic 'brake'/ribbon while going up. But generally: good question, for something so dainty, and with such weight constraints.
In my occasional toying in this area I might even one day try a variant of Picavet suspension, or segmented tether made from partly-rigid segments of unequal length (to get in the way of clean or even self-exciting oscillations), just to mention two (quite possibly ineffective) ideas (plus especially the second might have problems with regulations at my place, the tether can't be too strong; and both possibly getting in the way of required recovery mechanism)
Or one day I'll just have enough cash for disposable fish-eye lenses...
Even about balloon-lifted stratospheric UAV... (after most straightforward attempt at news search; I think I've seen more than one "just a balloon" in UK mainstream media few years ago)
Which in itself wasn't unheard of since a few years even in 2005... (BTW, except for "just a balloon" media fad resurfacing in a few years and people forgetting this round, I fully except "OMG it's a spaceplane!" fad relatively soon)
Not even that, I'm pretty sure there were some media reports at least over half a decade ago. They're just ... two engineering PhDs who jumped on recent media bandwagon about one type of small fun projects done by middle-schoolers (for many years)
Their balloon had no provisions to efficiently damp acquired oscillations.
Luna can be considered as essentially launched from Earth, most likely, via Giant Impact Hypothesis...
The guys putting together the video apparently couldn't be innovative even regarding the soundtrack; it's non-viewable in many places / some copyright hiccups, it seems.
What's with TFS image depicting planets, and linking to "space" filter?
At least three Slashdot stories in the past couple months... (easy and inexpensive enough (or less, regarding price...) without smartphone, too)
Random two engineering PhDs?... A lot less qualified folks are launching such balloons for many years. Also, 350 pounds is strangely expensive.
Just call it what it is (constant reporting of it, not the fun activity itself!) - some temporary media fad / phenomena.
Yes, you're supposed to coordinate the launch with local airspace authority (at least that's the way at my place...). Also, the payload should conform to certain requirements... (if it gets hit despite all the precautions, apparently)
But generally, a very straightforward formality / folks dealing with it tended to be nice.
Not only that - what is suddenly the point of having the same exact news (just with different people...) again and again, every month or two? Especially if it's something done for many years...
...if having an analytic mind capable of any technology is a tool...
Yeah, what I was saying.
The rocket in question is an inexpensive, surplus, repurposed old ICBM. Out of 18 launches as Rockot it had 1 catastrophic failure and 1 partial failure (this one) - pretty decent.
At least it had the decency to notice going bankrupt and folding down, instead of going on spending frenzy and trying to keep the rest of the world from minding it too much...
... which in the end could be great! The US would probably aim for the next "big mission" in such case, and we could have some short term Mars landings by now. More fun all around.
Who knows what we would have if some ignorant Soviet generals didn't insist on matching (nonexistent) "strategic advantage" given by STS (one might wonder if that wasn't the main point of the Shuttle, to provoke the Soviets into massive pointless spending on "counterpart" program; but in that case - why was it allowed to suck NASA dry for 2 decades after fulfilling its goal?). I wouldn't be too surprised if (for much less than what Energia-Buran cost them, working out the quirks of N-1 instead of scrapping it just when v2 was almost ready) they would be able to maintain small lunar base for the last ~3 decades. Though that would probably require them not having hiccups along the way, winning the initial Moon Race
(and you know, the growth of China in the last 3 decades is not precisely due to "more democratic or a more social form of communism")
Readiness to "take just about anything to tip the odds in my favor" might take attention from, or even obscure some things which actually are important.
... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world (with most of its history in times when Russian Orthodox Church wasn't so openly cooperating with / used by the authorities)
It's not like they're not doing something right, having the most reliable
Medieval torture devices are still, in very limited way, used by enthusiasts, historians and fetishists.
See how meaningless any argument becomes once you water it down sufficiently, including "they're used to know about how they were used"?
I'm not sure what they're doing is very unique ... not a far as, for example, the crew of Apollo 8 or some activities (secretly, this time) of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the Moon are concerned. Or ritualistically watching White Sun of the Desert and urinating on the launch pad.