The one in Houston is exposed to the environment as well. I found myself staring at her and thinking "holy shit, what a waste." There was grass growing between the sections of the ship. Sucks.
this is neither a winged vehicle nor a capsule, it's a lifting body (presumably one which does not create enough lift to glide to a landing). I'd say this is progress just in terms of spaceframe because you drop the added dead weight of wings while retaining atmospheric maneuverability.
We didn't use it to get to the moon, and certainly didn't use it to rendezvous with Skylab or the Russians. It didn't prove itself to be a fabulously versatile spacecraft at all; nope, not one iota.
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe there was NOTHING WRONG with the capsule design in the first place, and that the only reason the Shuttle has wings is so that the Air Force could have warm fuzzies about it?
I don't understand the orbital rendezvous thing either. If I was to guess, I'd say I think it might make the vehicle as a whole more flexible in terms of fuel and cargo space requirements.
The craft does not appear to use ceramic tiles. They mention a carbon-carbon heat shield. Also, it would appear to be reusable. Capsules are limited in terms of maneuverability - this design appears to have some control over its descent into the atmosphere.
And it makes sense to use the same craft for LEO as well as Moon and Mars for the same reason it makes sense to use the orbital rendezvous requirement - modularity.
This craft is clearly intended to be a general-purpose "mission operations and habitat" spacecraft.
I actually really like this design - it reminds me of the equally sensible Russian Kliper design.
As for the lunar timeline, I expect this time around we will be establishing something closer to a permanent presence on the Moon.
Watch for international squabbles over Lunar resources like He-III to start cropping up.
Well which one was the best, then? Certainly not TOS, which with some notable exceptions (City on the Edge of Forever, Balance of Terror) had some terrible writing and direction.
Probably TNG, followed up closely by (in my opinion) DS9 and Enterprise. Then TOS, then that abomination Voyager. How ST:VOY lasted as long as it did is completely beyond me.
However, you need to look at Enterprise for what it is: a depiction of a proto-Federation, with a proto-Starfleet. Archer is a blowhard because ALL space captains at this time are blowhards; hell, clearly the blowhard syndrome doesn't wear off well into the 24th century.
I doubt the engines will even be engaged on this ship. Engines require a buttload of maintenance. More than likely they'll tow her out to location, anchor her 500 different ways, and use generators combined with solar or some other energy source to keep her systems going.
I wouldn't be surprised if the engines get stripped out of the ship altogether. Ships that don't go anywhere get emasculated on a regular basis - witness the USS Intrepid, which is literally bolted to the harbor bottom.
As a general rule, if it has Internet access, it's of use to *everyone*. Everyone can benefit from the information accessible via the Internet, whether you're a farmer, factory worker, or housewife.
That's right. Which means that all those gorgeous images the previous poster was talking about will no longer be available other than with false color.
Why they can't put a visible light CCD on the JWT is beyond me, but whatever. Not to mention the fact that the JWT will be impossible to service at a LaGrange point.
Although I will point out that there is another even more pragmatic reason not to campaign against birth control: rampant overpopulation throughout the world which will only get worse.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the problem is political. People hear the word "nuclear" or "fission" and have wild, asinine, completely out-of-proportion NIMBY reactions.
The one in Houston is exposed to the environment as well. I found myself staring at her and thinking "holy shit, what a waste." There was grass growing between the sections of the ship. Sucks.
Very sad that it'll never happen.
this is neither a winged vehicle nor a capsule, it's a lifting body (presumably one which does not create enough lift to glide to a landing). I'd say this is progress just in terms of spaceframe because you drop the added dead weight of wings while retaining atmospheric maneuverability.
:)
So we're both wrong.
Now we have decent stories AND T&A.
Where's the problem here?
The current shuttle runs on the equivalent of 5 C64s.
It's actually 5 6502s, 4 of which operate in parallel and 1 as a backup or tie-breaker.
Right, because Apollo didn't work at all.
We didn't use it to get to the moon, and certainly didn't use it to rendezvous with Skylab or the Russians. It didn't prove itself to be a fabulously versatile spacecraft at all; nope, not one iota.
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe there was NOTHING WRONG with the capsule design in the first place, and that the only reason the Shuttle has wings is so that the Air Force could have warm fuzzies about it?
I don't understand the orbital rendezvous thing either. If I was to guess, I'd say I think it might make the vehicle as a whole more flexible in terms of fuel and cargo space requirements.
The craft does not appear to use ceramic tiles. They mention a carbon-carbon heat shield. Also, it would appear to be reusable. Capsules are limited in terms of maneuverability - this design appears to have some control over its descent into the atmosphere.
And it makes sense to use the same craft for LEO as well as Moon and Mars for the same reason it makes sense to use the orbital rendezvous requirement - modularity.
This craft is clearly intended to be a general-purpose "mission operations and habitat" spacecraft.
I actually really like this design - it reminds me of the equally sensible Russian Kliper design.
As for the lunar timeline, I expect this time around we will be establishing something closer to a permanent presence on the Moon.
Watch for international squabbles over Lunar resources like He-III to start cropping up.
Well which one was the best, then? Certainly not TOS, which with some notable exceptions (City on the Edge of Forever, Balance of Terror) had some terrible writing and direction.
Probably TNG, followed up closely by (in my opinion) DS9 and Enterprise. Then TOS, then that abomination Voyager. How ST:VOY lasted as long as it did is completely beyond me.
However, you need to look at Enterprise for what it is: a depiction of a proto-Federation, with a proto-Starfleet. Archer is a blowhard because ALL space captains at this time are blowhards; hell, clearly the blowhard syndrome doesn't wear off well into the 24th century.
Really "all" we have to do is move the energy economy away from petroleum. If we make the right investments now, we'll be okay with a minimum of pain.
That would be awesome. It looks like the mp3 copies have already been slashdotted and are unavailable.
jtd@starNOSPAMkruzr.com
It hasn't been a crappy show for quite a few episodes now. They had a change of writers in this beginning of this season and it got a lot better.
They are value-neutral.
Why did they detract from the quality of the film? Simply because they differed from the details of the book?
If they had done the movie to the letter of the book, it would have sucked.
Don't be a fanboy.
As you say, it would only be occasional. Doubtless it is a lot cheaper to have a tug do maneuvering.
Your bad weather point is well-taken, however. I suppose we'll see as the project begins.
I doubt the engines will even be engaged on this ship. Engines require a buttload of maintenance. More than likely they'll tow her out to location, anchor her 500 different ways, and use generators combined with solar or some other energy source to keep her systems going.
I wouldn't be surprised if the engines get stripped out of the ship altogether. Ships that don't go anywhere get emasculated on a regular basis - witness the USS Intrepid, which is literally bolted to the harbor bottom.
I mean, who DANCES these days?
Is it an 802.11g card?
As a general rule, if it has Internet access, it's of use to *everyone*. Everyone can benefit from the information accessible via the Internet, whether you're a farmer, factory worker, or housewife.
I could mod you up as being "offtopic, but makes an incredibly salient collection of points."
I suppose that's what Underrated is for.
Thanks for this. The Catholic Church could be such a wonderful thing if it focused on service and the core messages of Christ.
That's right. Which means that all those gorgeous images the previous poster was talking about will no longer be available other than with false color.
Why they can't put a visible light CCD on the JWT is beyond me, but whatever. Not to mention the fact that the JWT will be impossible to service at a LaGrange point.
I am most worried about the last bit of your post.
There ARE quite a few very conservative candidates for the papacy - people even more conservative than JP2 was.
I fear for the future of the Catholic Church.
Probably because while it is Stuff That Matters, it is not News for Nerds.
They'll stall and stall on that Internet access, citing OMGTERRAR!!!11 as the reason when really they're just lazy and don't want to be bothered.
Betting on the pessimistic view is nearly always safe in situations like these.
don't you think?
Although I will point out that there is another even more pragmatic reason not to campaign against birth control: rampant overpopulation throughout the world which will only get worse.