Yeah, just another fantasy... it's no wonder people are disappointed, after all the works of fiction they're attacked with, by our great achievements in space.
Well, there might be one doable mechanism - transfer of momentum to capture one element of binary asteroid. Still far from trivial, especially if such object needs to be redirected (because there doesn't seem to be one readily available). And for doubtful gains.
You want to provide a large, loosely held target, guaranteed to be hit by lots of the projectiles (and many good satellites...) which are already there? Brilliant...
(but you might start by building a ship with a hull not constrained by Archimedes' principle... its over 2 thousand years old, surely should be easier to ignore; those airplanes from "our" times, depicted in works of fiction from mere ~130 years ago, shouldn't be too far away now, too - because reality is just too boring)
Which in the end means that the goal of reaching it during flyby is quite... irrelevant. We might "just" treat it as another very interesting near-Earth object, to be closely studied not necessarily starting from 2029 (hey, it would be of course great if we could get the funding and the mission reaching it even sooner!) - one which does have higher priority due to its risks (and how a beacon on its surface could be useful), but again: nothing too special about the encounter.
Not really, no. Not only we don't know its orbital properties to desired levels - simply knowing orbit won't really give you a very good mass of some point body, you need to observe a satellite of said body.
Volume / size and mass are usually estimated from brightness and spectroscopy (comparing the latter with samples we have on Earth)
The speed, relative to Earth, during the encounter will be quite high - so a probe / lander / etc. allowing for really close study would need to get quite a kick from its rocket. And very rapidly (basically ruling out more efficient means of propulsion, those tend to have very low thrust) Probably much larger than sending it to some more optimal (regarding transfer orbits and delta-v) targets, a thing... which we are already doing!
If it turns to be practical, another nice target is good to have of course.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that the days leading up to the Iraq war were filled with Saddam Hussein making grandiose claims of being close to producing nuclear weapons.
This fiction, how you manage to "remember" it, ironically only shows how nicely the propaganda machine at your place works. Sometimes / for certain people, at least.
Follow-ups many months or sometimes years later don't change how the views of enough people become shaped in a desired way by the "big scary issue". Look how significant part of the public (or even worse - of military forces in Iraq) still thinks that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
You remind me of jokes in People's Republic of Poland, about the Party and the Soviet Union; about legendary cabaret acts (Kabaret TEY, for example) openly driving them, also on the state TV (or even movies like "Man of Iron" managing to go through TV funding, at times)... oh, wait, you tell me they shouldn't exist?
If by "propaganda" you mean being quite familiarized, firsthand, with the workings of media in (past, in my area) "commie states" - then sure. Newsflash: propaganda of evil red absolute top-down relationship between those entities... sometimes ends up looking almost humorous.
(and yeah, what Powell did was much worse than what here was done by some random TV crew... not to mention how the US media licked from his hand)
So now the government = a nation, even better... (is it really so hard to miss that Chinese people uncovered this? And that government certainly doesn't like this kind of mess caused by their media, which are generally quite used to issuing retractions & corrections of "mistakes" by now? (one could expect they shouldn't be possible with all this oversight...))
Yeah, don't let the reality of their quite frequent "mistakes" in reporting and retractions get in your way. Of course the myth of homogeneous brainwashed flock under one leadership must be true...
First, this seems to be the work of a TV broadcaster, not a nation (certainly not a communist one...)... does anyone here really think "non-commie" media are any better?
Secondly, apparently it was used as a demonstration of effects of their new missile - using a footage of exploding F-5 is even somewhat fitting, might even be not simply a case of lazy TV crew... (even if not lazy, capturing real hits would be extremely hard for little effect, they aren't particularly "cinema impressive")
But yes, you all read that right, their main TV broadcaster is called CCTV / sarcasm meter implodes:>>
PS. BTW, regarding such movies - Les Chevaliers du ciel (aka Sky Fighters), while obviously also with completely redundant plot, is much more enjoyable all-flash-no-substance kind of deal - it has much more spectacular cinematography, nvm lots more minutes of actual flying. Unlike Top Gun (where most flight sequences filming was done from the ground) - in Les Chevaliers du ciel the majority of filming was done from the air, largely via cameras hidden in modified fuel tanks of fighters, to great effect.
Plus it's much less of "a story about a man's struggle with his own homosexuality" (via Quentin Tarantino)
I was somewhat expecting more "many advantages over trains!" in your post...
Seems to have one major disadvantage though - such system seems relatively ill-suited to transport of people (yes, safety can be improved of course; worse with speed or "everything in line & linked" issues), when compared to, quite universal, roads or railways.
Bravo, with the first sentence you just said that any amount of alcohol makes one drunk (though I'm not sure if it's worth anything, since you apparently never did it, never noticed how easily the next bottle gets opened once it gets rolling - when also the difference between "unwilling" and "unable" ceases to matter... or do you suggest those people purposefully drive intoxicated?)
Really? Think in context sometimes. Say, a vehicle driven by a drunk violating the privacy of the insides of another vehicle. Or, going further, of a human skull.
(and you know, in a broadest sense it obviously takes away any meaning the privacy has for killed individual; as far its invasions go, this one is rather severe)
Not as far as I am concerned. As I said, 0.02% from my place turned out to be not too bad.
But at least you basically admit how 0.08% is from feel good populism (and one really wonders what can be represented, in larger picture, by votes of drivers who are unable for something so damn simple as abstaining from alcohol)
Yes, yes, but it's every friggin' time "just a small drink" (and you want to just trust the judgment of people who are at large unable to be honest even about such thing, even before themselves? Oh, it's suddenly about electoral success?!?!)
(@comments, seems to be one of many things which were making D2 quite great, in the end, but got axed... what is this, a misplaced effort to train us (Pavlov-style) to clicking and reloading, so ads will get more impression?)
Ultimately, a foot was established by defining it in meters / I don't think they aim for self-reference in this case;p (or that there was much of it in the past - while exact value comes from the object in France, you can get to something damn close for most purposes from the size of this planet or properties of probably the most common chemical compound in the Universe)
Seriously, so many people acting like they never experienced the effects of alcohol. Did you never notice how continuing to drink is easier once you're drunk? (it's not only reaction time BTW, it's also how alcohol changes you)
Somebody who is unable even to abstain from driving drunk (when two, which is apparently already enough, becomes three) seems to be quite impaired.
Again, "relatively small drinks" - do you just love to play it down? (and it wasn't about not being able, but about noticing - this time - what style of driving, what approach / attitude we tended to adopt)
0.08%, "very low", seriously? It's now suddenly about "very few people would consider the guy drunk", you really believe that?! (the same people who, in 80+% of cases, consider themselves to in the top 50% of drivers?)
With all the evidence how poor grip on ourselves we have, especially while intoxicated. Ever heard about placebo? How quick we are to convince ourselves of something we really want? Did you know that split-brain patients appear almost normal? Did you ever notice how big of a myth the popular idea of "self" is? (while we only convince ourselves that our memories are good, and we are in fact basically closer to our peers than to ourselves at some different live stages) There's a very localized brain trauma which makes people blind, without them realizing it!
We did a test once, me and buddies, after some wine (was around 0.05% per head), with a bike on a closed terrain. While taking care to be introspective, watchful of own actions, et al. The realization was frakking scary.
So, you want to trust that people who are unable to abstain from drinking "just a little too much" (even when obviously being sober at the start), will be reliably able to abstain from drinking definitely too much? (while already quite drunk, in the process)
Slashdot Mirror
Now they'll associate the pain with snow and penguins! (surely this can't be some MS plot... right? Right?!)
Yeah, just another fantasy ... it's no wonder people are disappointed, after all the works of fiction they're attacked with, by our great achievements in space.
Well, there might be one doable mechanism - transfer of momentum to capture one element of binary asteroid. Still far from trivial, especially if such object needs to be redirected (because there doesn't seem to be one readily available). And for doubtful gains.
You want to provide a large, loosely held target, guaranteed to be hit by lots of the projectiles (and many good satellites...) which are already there? Brilliant...
Possibly no warp drive, too
... its over 2 thousand years old, surely should be easier to ignore; those airplanes from "our" times, depicted in works of fiction from mere ~130 years ago, shouldn't be too far away now, too - because reality is just too boring)
(but you might start by building a ship with a hull not constrained by Archimedes' principle
Which in the end means that the goal of reaching it during flyby is quite ... irrelevant. We might "just" treat it as another very interesting near-Earth object, to be closely studied not necessarily starting from 2029 (hey, it would be of course great if we could get the funding and the mission reaching it even sooner!) - one which does have higher priority due to its risks (and how a beacon on its surface could be useful), but again: nothing too special about the encounter.
Not really, no. Not only we don't know its orbital properties to desired levels - simply knowing orbit won't really give you a very good mass of some point body, you need to observe a satellite of said body.
Volume / size and mass are usually estimated from brightness and spectroscopy (comparing the latter with samples we have on Earth)
The speed, relative to Earth, during the encounter will be quite high - so a probe / lander / etc. allowing for really close study would need to get quite a kick from its rocket. And very rapidly (basically ruling out more efficient means of propulsion, those tend to have very low thrust) Probably much larger than sending it to some more optimal (regarding transfer orbits and delta-v) targets, a thing ... which we are already doing!
If it turns to be practical, another nice target is good to have of course.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that the days leading up to the Iraq war were filled with Saddam Hussein making grandiose claims of being close to producing nuclear weapons.
This fiction, how you manage to "remember" it, ironically only shows how nicely the propaganda machine at your place works. Sometimes / for certain people, at least.
Follow-ups many months or sometimes years later don't change how the views of enough people become shaped in a desired way by the "big scary issue". Look how significant part of the public (or even worse - of military forces in Iraq) still thinks that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
You remind me of jokes in People's Republic of Poland, about the Party and the Soviet Union; about legendary cabaret acts (Kabaret TEY, for example) openly driving them, also on the state TV (or even movies like "Man of Iron" managing to go through TV funding, at times)... oh, wait, you tell me they shouldn't exist?
Actual cinematography (in this case the results of most basic choices about camera placement) = effects? Since when?
If by "propaganda" you mean being quite familiarized, firsthand, with the workings of media in (past, in my area) "commie states" - then sure. Newsflash: propaganda of evil red absolute top-down relationship between those entities ... sometimes ends up looking almost humorous.
... not to mention how the US media licked from his hand)
(and yeah, what Powell did was much worse than what here was done by some random TV crew
So now the government = a nation, even better... (is it really so hard to miss that Chinese people uncovered this? And that government certainly doesn't like this kind of mess caused by their media, which are generally quite used to issuing retractions & corrections of "mistakes" by now? (one could expect they shouldn't be possible with all this oversight...))
Yeah, don't let the reality of their quite frequent "mistakes" in reporting and retractions get in your way. Of course the myth of homogeneous brainwashed flock under one leadership must be true...
First, this seems to be the work of a TV broadcaster, not a nation (certainly not a communist one...) ... does anyone here really think "non-commie" media are any better?
... too, too embarrassing.
:>>
Secondly, apparently it was used as a demonstration of effects of their new missile - using a footage of exploding F-5 is even somewhat fitting, might even be not simply a case of lazy TV crew... (even if not lazy, capturing real hits would be extremely hard for little effect, they aren't particularly "cinema impressive")
And generally, regarding embarrassments - yeah, because in non-commie lands works of visual fiction would never be used in real military contexts, that's unheard of, would be
But yes, you all read that right, their main TV broadcaster is called CCTV / sarcasm meter implodes
PS. BTW, regarding such movies - Les Chevaliers du ciel (aka Sky Fighters), while obviously also with completely redundant plot, is much more enjoyable all-flash-no-substance kind of deal - it has much more spectacular cinematography, nvm lots more minutes of actual flying. Unlike Top Gun (where most flight sequences filming was done from the ground) - in Les Chevaliers du ciel the majority of filming was done from the air, largely via cameras hidden in modified fuel tanks of fighters, to great effect.
Plus it's much less of "a story about a man's struggle with his own homosexuality" (via Quentin Tarantino)
I was somewhat expecting more "many advantages over trains!" in your post...
Seems to have one major disadvantage though - such system seems relatively ill-suited to transport of people (yes, safety can be improved of course; worse with speed or "everything in line & linked" issues), when compared to, quite universal, roads or railways.
Bravo, with the first sentence you just said that any amount of alcohol makes one drunk (though I'm not sure if it's worth anything, since you apparently never did it, never noticed how easily the next bottle gets opened once it gets rolling - when also the difference between "unwilling" and "unable" ceases to matter ... or do you suggest those people purposefully drive intoxicated?)
Really? Think in context sometimes. Say, a vehicle driven by a drunk violating the privacy of the insides of another vehicle. Or, going further, of a human skull.
(and you know, in a broadest sense it obviously takes away any meaning the privacy has for killed individual; as far its invasions go, this one is rather severe)
Not as far as I am concerned. As I said, 0.02% from my place turned out to be not too bad.
But at least you basically admit how 0.08% is from feel good populism (and one really wonders what can be represented, in larger picture, by votes of drivers who are unable for something so damn simple as abstaining from alcohol)
Oh I'm sure they figured a thing or two after Newton... ;)
Yes, yes, but it's every friggin' time "just a small drink" (and you want to just trust the judgment of people who are at large unable to be honest even about such thing, even before themselves? Oh, it's suddenly about electoral success?!?!)
... what is this, a misplaced effort to train us (Pavlov-style) to clicking and reloading, so ads will get more impression?)
(@comments, seems to be one of many things which were making D2 quite great, in the end, but got axed
Ultimately, a foot was established by defining it in meters / I don't think they aim for self-reference in this case ;p (or that there was much of it in the past - while exact value comes from the object in France, you can get to something damn close for most purposes from the size of this planet or properties of probably the most common chemical compound in the Universe)
Seriously, so many people acting like they never experienced the effects of alcohol. Did you never notice how continuing to drink is easier once you're drunk? (it's not only reaction time BTW, it's also how alcohol changes you)
Somebody who is unable even to abstain from driving drunk (when two, which is apparently already enough, becomes three) seems to be quite impaired.
Again, "relatively small drinks" - do you just love to play it down? (and it wasn't about not being able, but about noticing - this time - what style of driving, what approach / attitude we tended to adopt)
0.08%, "very low", seriously? It's now suddenly about "very few people would consider the guy drunk", you really believe that?! (the same people who, in 80+% of cases, consider themselves to in the top 50% of drivers?)
With all the evidence how poor grip on ourselves we have, especially while intoxicated. Ever heard about placebo? How quick we are to convince ourselves of something we really want? Did you know that split-brain patients appear almost normal? Did you ever notice how big of a myth the popular idea of "self" is? (while we only convince ourselves that our memories are good, and we are in fact basically closer to our peers than to ourselves at some different live stages) There's a very localized brain trauma which makes people blind, without them realizing it!
We did a test once, me and buddies, after some wine (was around 0.05% per head), with a bike on a closed terrain. While taking care to be introspective, watchful of own actions, et al. The realization was frakking scary.
After that we agreed 0.02% is not too bad.
So, you want to trust that people who are unable to abstain from drinking "just a little too much" (even when obviously being sober at the start), will be reliably able to abstain from drinking definitely too much? (while already quite drunk, in the process)
So what's with all the love automatic transmissions?...