That's a *very* specific and strange beef to be had, and in any case, a matter of industrial safety and plant management, not of some intrinsic environmental costs.
There's no way to tell. Even a slowly moving star would be thousands of light years away from us after such a long time, and its trajectory would be impossible to trace back due to other flybys and the resulting chaos.
The phrase originally was used to mean a reduction; take a piece of fabric and fold it in half, then fold it in half again, then fold it in half a 3rd time, and what you have is a "three fold reduction" which would be 1/8th of the original.
How much "originally"? The OED cites "threefold" in the sense of "three times as X" all the way back to 1200. "Fourfold" in a similar sense it cites from year 1000. Furthermore, it doesn't cite your purported meaning at all!
Halve the voltage, , and less than 10% the light output because of how filament resistance goes with temp.
Isn't it mostly a matter of radiation balance? One quarter the power should mean 71% of the thermodynamic temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The radiation is of course those 25%, the question is how the spectrum shifts. I'm not sure how much it's depending on the initial condition, which hasn't been specified in this case.
get one quarter the power
how filament resistance goes with temp
Sounds like a contradiction; the former seems to assume constant resistance for an ohmic load at half voltage, while the latter seems to claim the opposite.
But Bitcoin already has a pragmatic solution called the Lightning Network [lightning.network] that uses second-layer networks allowing wallets to safely transact off the chain
So the solution to the low number of transactions per second on the blockchain is...to *not* use the blockchain?
Dragon 2 can carry a total of 6 tonnes including crew, supplies etc. to ISS orbit, much less up to the Hubble orbit of course.
That's absolutely not "of course". Falcon 9 Block 5 has up to 22 tonnes of total payload to low LEO in expendable mode (modulo current PAF, of course, unless the one for Falcon Heavy is used). If Dragon 2 can carry 6 tonnes of payload mass to ISS' altitude, then it's the same amount it can carry to Hubble's altitude - precisely because it's not the Shuttle. The Shuttle had zero performance reserves counted into its payload figures, unlike F9+Dragon.
Gemini "EVA" involved both crew members being suited for space all the time in the capsule since the spacewalks involved depressurising the entire crew living quarters. The Hubble had an airlock, jumpsuited support personnel for the jumpsuited spacewalkers who assisted them into their suits and out again permitting multiple two-man multi-hour spacewalks to accomplish several different tasks on each flight which lasted several days.
Sure it's not terribly convenient to do it by depressurizing the cabin, but this is still a vehicle that was designed for up to seven people, so there's lots of room to change into EVA suits for a crew of, say, three.
Dragon is optimised to reach the ISS orbit at about 400km, carrying passengers up and down from the space station. The Hubble orbits at about 550km, a lot higher. To reach the Hubble and manoeuvre around it the Dragon would have to carry more fuel and less payload but still have parts, EVA suits, supplies for an extended flight time of over a week, an airlock etc.
Have you seen STS's altitute/payload curve? Pretty much anything has better capability. Hell, to phrase it your way, "the Shuttle is optimized to reach a 200 km altitude". Extra 150 km above the ISS is "a lot" for the Shuttle, but absolutely trivial for Dragon on top of a Falcon 9.
The Shuttle had a large dry mass but it also had a large "wet" mass -- it could launch with up to 18 tonnes of manoeuvering fuel as well as 20 tonnes of payload in the payload bay
It couldn't be tons of pesticides or hurricanes. It couldn't be invasive species. It couldn't be human tourism trampling the ground.
In the middle of the rain forest, it's hardly going to be pesticides, hurricanes, or tourists - and the invasive species would presumably be noticed by the same biologists noticing the lack of insects.
There's no reason why, for example, Dragon couldn't support EVA, the same way that Gemini did. It could also carry significant mass and volume of unpressurized spare parts in the trunk.
In fact, because of its tremendous dry mass, the Shuttle had a worse time trying to get to the HST's orbit than Dragon would have.
Slashdot Mirror
Bus Mitzvah?
Of course I am.
That's a *very* specific and strange beef to be had, and in any case, a matter of industrial safety and plant management, not of some intrinsic environmental costs.
The trees here -require- regular small fires to clear away the brush which builds up every year.
Couldn't you just...you know, rake it? Like the Finns do.
Are you suggesting that trying to replicate a factory-built firearm by hand is easier than to simply smuggle the factory-built firearm?
Considering the effective carbon cost of $220/tonne of CO2, the subsidy of $2 per gallon of gasoline seems rather substantial.
the big automakers will make electric cars at a profit.
Well, one of them might, eventually...instead of losing tens of thousands per vehicle as usual.
He likes all three movies! Pity that they never made more...
You sound like those Christians yearning for Armageddon.
They haven't learned their lesson from 1998? What good will a remake do?
There's no way to tell. Even a slowly moving star would be thousands of light years away from us after such a long time, and its trajectory would be impossible to trace back due to other flybys and the resulting chaos.
The phrase originally was used to mean a reduction; take a piece of fabric and fold it in half, then fold it in half again, then fold it in half a 3rd time, and what you have is a "three fold reduction" which would be 1/8th of the original.
How much "originally"? The OED cites "threefold" in the sense of "three times as X" all the way back to 1200. "Fourfold" in a similar sense it cites from year 1000. Furthermore, it doesn't cite your purported meaning at all!
Of course, you'd have to read TFA to realize that ...
He read an identical copy of the article but it gave him different results.
I *did* mention that, if you read carefully. Did you calculate it to be 10%?
Convent size
Convents varied in size, though - from very small ones to very large ones.
What's their conversion efficiency?
Halve the voltage, , and less than 10% the light output because of how filament resistance goes with temp.
Isn't it mostly a matter of radiation balance? One quarter the power should mean 71% of the thermodynamic temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The radiation is of course those 25%, the question is how the spectrum shifts. I'm not sure how much it's depending on the initial condition, which hasn't been specified in this case.
get one quarter the power
how filament resistance goes with temp
Sounds like a contradiction; the former seems to assume constant resistance for an ohmic load at half voltage, while the latter seems to claim the opposite.
What does chemical vapor deposition have to do with this?
Neither did Edison invent the light bulb.
Even if he did, I've never seen a carbon filament bulb in my life, so whatever is casting light in my home can't be it.
But Bitcoin already has a pragmatic solution called the Lightning Network [lightning.network] that uses second-layer networks allowing wallets to safely transact off the chain
So the solution to the low number of transactions per second on the blockchain is...to *not* use the blockchain?
Dragon crews only get one spacewalk per flight
Why?
Dragon 2 can carry a total of 6 tonnes including crew, supplies etc. to ISS orbit, much less up to the Hubble orbit of course.
That's absolutely not "of course". Falcon 9 Block 5 has up to 22 tonnes of total payload to low LEO in expendable mode (modulo current PAF, of course, unless the one for Falcon Heavy is used). If Dragon 2 can carry 6 tonnes of payload mass to ISS' altitude, then it's the same amount it can carry to Hubble's altitude - precisely because it's not the Shuttle. The Shuttle had zero performance reserves counted into its payload figures, unlike F9+Dragon.
Gemini "EVA" involved both crew members being suited for space all the time in the capsule since the spacewalks involved depressurising the entire crew living quarters. The Hubble had an airlock, jumpsuited support personnel for the jumpsuited spacewalkers who assisted them into their suits and out again permitting multiple two-man multi-hour spacewalks to accomplish several different tasks on each flight which lasted several days.
Sure it's not terribly convenient to do it by depressurizing the cabin, but this is still a vehicle that was designed for up to seven people, so there's lots of room to change into EVA suits for a crew of, say, three.
Dragon is optimised to reach the ISS orbit at about 400km, carrying passengers up and down from the space station. The Hubble orbits at about 550km, a lot higher. To reach the Hubble and manoeuvre around it the Dragon would have to carry more fuel and less payload but still have parts, EVA suits, supplies for an extended flight time of over a week, an airlock etc.
Have you seen STS's altitute/payload curve? Pretty much anything has better capability. Hell, to phrase it your way, "the Shuttle is optimized to reach a 200 km altitude". Extra 150 km above the ISS is "a lot" for the Shuttle, but absolutely trivial for Dragon on top of a Falcon 9.
The Shuttle had a large dry mass but it also had a large "wet" mass -- it could launch with up to 18 tonnes of manoeuvering fuel as well as 20 tonnes of payload in the payload bay
NOT to HTS' altitude, that's for sure.
It couldn't be tons of pesticides or hurricanes. It couldn't be invasive species. It couldn't be human tourism trampling the ground.
In the middle of the rain forest, it's hardly going to be pesticides, hurricanes, or tourists - and the invasive species would presumably be noticed by the same biologists noticing the lack of insects.
I have no idea about the latter but I suspect that Perl 5's objects will work especially well in this environment.
There's no reason why, for example, Dragon couldn't support EVA, the same way that Gemini did. It could also carry significant mass and volume of unpressurized spare parts in the trunk.
In fact, because of its tremendous dry mass, the Shuttle had a worse time trying to get to the HST's orbit than Dragon would have.
but balancing weapons by making them entirely unrealistic is making a playable game
Of course it's not, that would be an idiotic idea.