You're cute if you think that the Retardicans haven't investigated the shit out whatever they could. They absolutely did not find anywhere near the 2016 difference of almost three million votes, not by multiple orders of magnitude.
No, it's not. Also, in a metalanguage, you're not limited in for what target environments you can write code. There's no reason you couldn't write DSP code in it if you wanted. Found this in ten seconds, for example. Likewise, there have been Lisp-based hardware definition languages. There's no specific semantics imposed on all your code, which is what makes all this possible - you can define your own semantics for parts or the whole of your code if you decide that the value of this is greater than the effort expended.
there is no shortage of hydrogen on earth or anywhere else
There's also no reason to throw away 89% of the mass of water.
napkin calculations indeed, orbital mechanics are the specialty of my physics degree.
And yet somehow your spherical rocket cow in vacuum ignored material considerations.
Manned missions to interplanetary distances can't use chemical, too slow, can't be taking years to transit. That's what the napkin reveals, that you are ignorant of math and orbital mechanics.
The fact that a methalox or even hydrolox stage will have much better mass utilization, much better mass fraction, much better reusability (dozens of times, easily) except for operating the core at decreased temperatures (costing something like 20% of Isp, making the NTR even less desirable performance-wise than a single-use NTR stage would be) and better payload for a unit of mined mass is not a matter of orbital mechanics, it's a matter of materials, which, again, you conveniently ignored (did you major in physical engineering as well?). This shit is getting repetitive after decades. This ridiculous idea that NTRs are somehow vastly superior in all circumstances has wildly escalated from the original still-somewhat-sensible idea of Saturn C-5N where the second stage throw weight was a limitation.
Surely you can't be serious. Rocket engines don't run on vacuum, they run or mass you have to source from somewhere.
stupid way to argue against the more than ten times ISP of thermal nuclear vs. chemical.
Stupid way to argue against more than ten times the propellant density of chemical vs. thermal nuclear and the superiority of chemical drives on Inner Solar System interplanetary trajectories, as proven even by trivial napkin calculations.
They have the power to do what chemical cannot
The power to suck out incredible amounts of money and put it into something that is actually very difficult to even ground-test?
Musks rockets are useless for Mars colony.
At this point, *all* rockets are useless for a Mars colony. Do you want to bet that a nuclear rocket developed anywhere in the world will make it sooner to Mars than "a Musk's rocket"?
Nuclear thermal rockets are actually inferior to "Musk's chemical rockets" for reasonable interplanetary missions (let's define it as 10 km/s delta-v) once local resource utilization is taken into account, given how they throw away 89% of mined water mass. (That's even without considering the problematic mass ratios/propellant densities.)
Combustion of carbon monoxide is somewhat more difficult to ignite but it *has* been tested by NASA, and it has the benefits of fairly high fuel density AND the ability to literally suck out the fuel precursor out of the atmosphere and process it pretty much anywhere on Mars in arbitrary amounts without having to mine for water. It also has a favorable propellant mixture density of around 1140 kg/m^3, compared to 800 kg/m^3 of methalox or 340 kg/m^3 of hydrolox mixtures.
It's large enough but it's not cost efficient enough. And the way of making it more cost efficient obviously involves making it bigger to get the margins for full reusability out of it.
Scientists don't dare to claim that conclusively since they genuinely don't know, but I guess a random slashdotter has different standards for evidence.
There's this neat proverb: A robot can do anything, a human can do everything. So, yes, if you pick any single achievement, you could plausibly engineer a robotic mission to accomplish it for less money than sending a human. If you pick ALL the things you want to achieve though...well, you better send ten thousand robots, each different.
The dust storms are a red herring of sorts. Given that you want to get home, you need to store a lot of chemical energy while on surface, in form of propellant. The amount of energy is such that it should allow you to survive weeks or even months of dust storms just by siphoning off a small fraction of it for emergency cases like those dust storms.
There's always a possibility that what they found is unrelated to the reports, considering how reports are apparently vastly more numerous than actual physical evidence at that place.
Astronauts can't walk at 3.1 mph while lugging and using the same fancy stuff as Curiosity.
Obviously, they would have a wheeled vehicle, just like on the Moon. That's a no-brainer.
Your human would need to run really really fast to compete with thousands of robots.
Not movement-wise. Given Curiosity's long-term average speed of 0.1 mm/s, the astronaut would need something like 0.2 m/s of average speed to compete with 200 machines. With a wheeled vehicle at just 10 km/h, that would be 15 minutes of daily driving. To me that sounds like a rather low estimate of what you could expect in a Martian geologist's working day. For a thousand robots, make that 90 minutes of daily driving.
Zipping across the terrain does not collect any scientific data about the terrain.
It limits how much terrain you can study with a single vehicle within its lifetime. Currently the value is something like 4 km per year, which is quite atrocious.
If NASA needed to build a fast rover, they could have done it.
They actually couldn't, which is the point. You're limited by the level of autonomy of the machine and the limits of daily route planning. You couldn't possibly ever reach the speed of a human because you don't know what terrain lies 10 km ahead 24 hours in advance, and the machine *needs* to know that in advance.
The fact that the mission moves slowly and cautiously has virtually nothing to do with the fact that a dude isn't sitting in a seat driving it.
Oh, it absolutely does. Do you think NASA sends a $2.5 billion vehicle with the intent of "let's stay in the same environment as long as possible, even though two hundred miles away, there are interesting places, too"?
Slashdot Mirror
You're cute if you think that the Retardicans haven't investigated the shit out whatever they could. They absolutely did not find anywhere near the 2016 difference of almost three million votes, not by multiple orders of magnitude.
when it was such for most of a century.
So was Ceres, wasn't it?
Trump is the President of the United States, voted in by the will of the United States Electoral College.
FTFY?
Python has homoiconic macros and multiple dispatch generic functions these days? Also, did you look into the source code?
No, it's not. Also, in a metalanguage, you're not limited in for what target environments you can write code. There's no reason you couldn't write DSP code in it if you wanted. Found this in ten seconds, for example. Likewise, there have been Lisp-based hardware definition languages. There's no specific semantics imposed on all your code, which is what makes all this possible - you can define your own semantics for parts or the whole of your code if you decide that the value of this is greater than the effort expended.
there is no shortage of hydrogen on earth or anywhere else
There's also no reason to throw away 89% of the mass of water.
napkin calculations indeed, orbital mechanics are the specialty of my physics degree.
And yet somehow your spherical rocket cow in vacuum ignored material considerations.
Manned missions to interplanetary distances can't use chemical, too slow, can't be taking years to transit. That's what the napkin reveals, that you are ignorant of math and orbital mechanics.
The fact that a methalox or even hydrolox stage will have much better mass utilization, much better mass fraction, much better reusability (dozens of times, easily) except for operating the core at decreased temperatures (costing something like 20% of Isp, making the NTR even less desirable performance-wise than a single-use NTR stage would be) and better payload for a unit of mined mass is not a matter of orbital mechanics, it's a matter of materials, which, again, you conveniently ignored (did you major in physical engineering as well?). This shit is getting repetitive after decades. This ridiculous idea that NTRs are somehow vastly superior in all circumstances has wildly escalated from the original still-somewhat-sensible idea of Saturn C-5N where the second stage throw weight was a limitation.
Unlike Matlab with its bizarre idiosyncrasies, Julia actually has solid Lisp heritage.
Perhaps, in the past, bottles and pottery were much more expensive and not tossed away after a single use?
Sort of.
use of resources irrelevant
Surely you can't be serious. Rocket engines don't run on vacuum, they run or mass you have to source from somewhere.
stupid way to argue against the more than ten times ISP of thermal nuclear vs. chemical.
Stupid way to argue against more than ten times the propellant density of chemical vs. thermal nuclear and the superiority of chemical drives on Inner Solar System interplanetary trajectories, as proven even by trivial napkin calculations.
They have the power to do what chemical cannot
The power to suck out incredible amounts of money and put it into something that is actually very difficult to even ground-test?
Musks rockets are useless for Mars colony.
At this point, *all* rockets are useless for a Mars colony. Do you want to bet that a nuclear rocket developed anywhere in the world will make it sooner to Mars than "a Musk's rocket"?
Nuclear thermal rockets are actually inferior to "Musk's chemical rockets" for reasonable interplanetary missions (let's define it as 10 km/s delta-v) once local resource utilization is taken into account, given how they throw away 89% of mined water mass. (That's even without considering the problematic mass ratios/propellant densities.)
They'll be gone in a few months
I'd give it two weeks.
If only we had some way of emitting millimeter waves in only one direction...
Combustion of carbon monoxide is somewhat more difficult to ignite but it *has* been tested by NASA, and it has the benefits of fairly high fuel density AND the ability to literally suck out the fuel precursor out of the atmosphere and process it pretty much anywhere on Mars in arbitrary amounts without having to mine for water. It also has a favorable propellant mixture density of around 1140 kg/m^3, compared to 800 kg/m^3 of methalox or 340 kg/m^3 of hydrolox mixtures.
1) Make random stuff up
2) Stick it into a random discussion
3) ???
4) Profit!
It's large enough but it's not cost efficient enough. And the way of making it more cost efficient obviously involves making it bigger to get the margins for full reusability out of it.
Uh, yes. The reduced gravity IS lethal.
Scientists don't dare to claim that conclusively since they genuinely don't know, but I guess a random slashdotter has different standards for evidence.
A rocket vehicle powered by CO combustion would be rather neat for long distance trips on Mars.
There's this neat proverb: A robot can do anything, a human can do everything. So, yes, if you pick any single achievement, you could plausibly engineer a robotic mission to accomplish it for less money than sending a human. If you pick ALL the things you want to achieve though...well, you better send ten thousand robots, each different.
Seriously, there's no plan for a Martian mission with over 1000 tonnes of ground equipment per human on the ground. What are you referring to?
The dust storms are a red herring of sorts. Given that you want to get home, you need to store a lot of chemical energy while on surface, in form of propellant. The amount of energy is such that it should allow you to survive weeks or even months of dust storms just by siphoning off a small fraction of it for emergency cases like those dust storms.
Why lasers when you can fry it with microwaves?
There's always a possibility that what they found is unrelated to the reports, considering how reports are apparently vastly more numerous than actual physical evidence at that place.
Astronauts can't walk at 3.1 mph while lugging and using the same fancy stuff as Curiosity.
Obviously, they would have a wheeled vehicle, just like on the Moon. That's a no-brainer.
Your human would need to run really really fast to compete with thousands of robots.
Not movement-wise. Given Curiosity's long-term average speed of 0.1 mm/s, the astronaut would need something like 0.2 m/s of average speed to compete with 200 machines. With a wheeled vehicle at just 10 km/h, that would be 15 minutes of daily driving. To me that sounds like a rather low estimate of what you could expect in a Martian geologist's working day. For a thousand robots, make that 90 minutes of daily driving.
Zipping across the terrain does not collect any scientific data about the terrain.
It limits how much terrain you can study with a single vehicle within its lifetime. Currently the value is something like 4 km per year, which is quite atrocious.
If NASA needed to build a fast rover, they could have done it.
They actually couldn't, which is the point. You're limited by the level of autonomy of the machine and the limits of daily route planning. You couldn't possibly ever reach the speed of a human because you don't know what terrain lies 10 km ahead 24 hours in advance, and the machine *needs* to know that in advance.
The fact that the mission moves slowly and cautiously has virtually nothing to do with the fact that a dude isn't sitting in a seat driving it.
Oh, it absolutely does. Do you think NASA sends a $2.5 billion vehicle with the intent of "let's stay in the same environment as long as possible, even though two hundred miles away, there are interesting places, too"?
Current estimate of SLS-based reference projects with $20000/kg IMLEO payloads? Or do you mean all possible architectures?