Ok, but most of that light gets absorbed by walls, air, windows, etc. only a little bit actually escapes THROUGH windows and random holes. What does the absorbed light turn into? heat.
Isn't massport a public corp? like TVA? If that's the case, then they're even bigger jerks than everyone figures. The argument gets stickier when government is given the opportunity to uphold its own ability to suck money from 'da rubes.
Just the kind of masshole thing to expect from the commonwealth of massachusetts.
My guess is it took at least that long before they even noticed the problem. Figure it takes on average 3 months of use on the order of your use. Now consider that most people that buy treadmills use them for a week as a treadmill then convert them for use as a laundry drying rack.
I know you're being sarcastic, but my favorite professor (that i've heard of) from caltech is Dr. Richard Feynman who was a noted ladies man, grey hat, world traveler, bongo player, O-ring failure demonstrator, and orange juice afficionato.
Oh wait you said math professor. nevermind. No way they can be as cool as Feynman: "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation"
What they need to do is decouple the reason from the mod. There are quite a few flamebaits that are worth reading and a +1 flamebait might be a useful mod. as would -1 funny. There are far too many comments that are hillarious, but not actually relevent to the article. I want to see posts that are both funny and insightful and configure my account for +5 funny down the line to read all the funniest but irrelevant comments without context later if i so choose.
Everytime someone uses the marxist, "{thing} is the opiate of the masses," I have to wonder for whom opium, morphine, codiene, heroin, demerol, vicodin, oxycodone, etc. are the opiates.
Look at the frequency plans for the nextel system. It goes through an analog repeater network. In other words, your walkie-talkie feature broadcasts everything you say in the clear, possibly across state lines depending on how the repeaters are linked. I assume that the repeaters are placed on the same towers as the cells because if they aren't, why not put a cell there once you have the tower?
Indeed. Instead of finishing the CRV or going with your plan, we're going to do nothing at all. It's much cheaper that way (unless you consider the cost of "complete space shuttle revamps" every 18 months as som'a'kind'a disaster befalls unfortunate, but brave crews.)
Is it seriously called that by any official body? That's the best name ever for a place (far better than "four-corners") I half expect that if you have a meeting there you'd need to use the "cone of silence"
the Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) was cancelled. Since the CRV would've enabled 7 station astronauts to return to earth in the event of emergency, lack of it is the limiting factor on the number of astronauts on the station. A common figure bandied about is that maintenance of station requires about 2.5 astronauts on average throughout their stay. That leaves.5 astronauts on average to work on "science" assuming the full 3 that can be returned on a soyuz capsule are present. (there are often only 2 present however...) So the only time there are actually enough people to make any progress is when a shuttle is actively docked with the station during crew-swap.
BTW, just because a preliminary design requires materials that don't yet exist does not mean the project should be scrapped. All preliminary designs have physical problems that much be addressed. These are called engineering problems because they are solved through the engineering process. Either materials would've been developed that met the requirements of the vessel or the project would've been refined to the point that they were not necessary. At which point you have a prototype and eventually a production model.
Take calls, play mp3's, browse web, with hdd for downloading, the latest linux distro, keeps me warm in the winter, keeps me cool in the summer, Mega Massage setting for when I'm very tense, Those crazy electric muscle exerciser thingies, heart monitor, video games, High speed gyros for force-feedback during games, video camera, regular camera, multi-format flash card reader, usb connector, RS232 serial interface with data logger, corkscrew, penknife, extra-sharp knife, toothpick, bottle opener, bat-signal, tincture of bat-anti-merry-go-round spray, laser level, laser sight, laser weapon, maser, pants reinforcing field 'cause the phone's got everything, microwave doppler radar, compass, gps, small vial of whisky/gin/vodka/... for sprucing up drinks, mint spray for sprucing up dates, emergency chocolate ration for mountain rescue or sprucing up dates, calender for remembering dates, hypno spray for getting dates despite the gigantic cellphone holster, Forget-o-spray for making the joke, "Is that a rediculously oversized marginally usefull phone in your pocket or...", appear less lame, kitchen sink, Plays episodes of Family Guy when i'm bored
If all those things are added to cell phones, i'll almost be satisfied.
And yet these prototypes or worse, "product samples" have already had more flights than the mature system they replaced. If they're going to be used as a replacement for a refined rocket system, it's perfectly fair to compare them to the very system they've replaced.
Ok, but the shuttle is part of the structural mass. You wouldn't count it as part of the payload since none of it is optional.* How does your weight comparison hold when you consider the mass of the saturn V structure?
Remember that the weight the space shuttle can put into LEO, the saturn V can put on the moon.
*Some have suggested adaptations on the space shuttle stack with a focus on non-human payload.. no requirement to return to earth would result in a heavier lifter. None of these have been built, so current speculation as to their capacity is just that.
Kind of reminds me of the scene in "from the earth to the moon" where the one fella asks if they have to get the astronauts back: couldn't we just keep sending up supplies until we figure out how to get them back?
Seriously. How is this news? hydrolic/pneumatic "robots' have been around for half a century. Disney called them animatronics. While you are incorrect about there being "girl-robots" in the "Hall of Presidents," There are some pretty wenches on "Pirates of the Carribbean"
No thanks. I'd rather stay here and make out with my Marilyn Monroe-bot...
What's "funny" is that the shuttle wasn't supposed to be the be-all end-all solution, they only made five of 'em for pete's sake. With a "production run" of five, the only label that could reasonably be applied is, "prototype"
The space shuttle experiment was a great success. It proved that with late 70's technology, an RLV was simply not as cost effective or as safe as you would expect. Of course, saturn V's are not much better ($ per launch), but they make up for it in $ per kg.
No, you can't achieve that. The space shuttle still has the highest success rate of any launch system even after Columbia. The russian system is close, less than a percent away. Most manned launch vehicles hover at around 98% success. Of course, most launch vehicles in general have improving success rates: the low rates are generally due to failures early in the life cycle. This is the advantage of disposeable rockets: everything's new every time and you can work improvements into the design for each launch. There aren't a whole lot of data points (and manned rockets must also return to be considered a success, which biases the results in favor of the non-manned systems, but it looks like, for the time being, 98% is a fundamental limit of safety for manned spacecraft: the point at which the additional expenditure of dollars is not justified by the increase in safety. (according to whatever bean-counters are in charge)
If there are people still willing to take that risk, then as long as it is an informed decision, I think we should let them. As long as there is a scientific/economic reason to send anyone at all that is.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, but most of that light gets absorbed by walls, air, windows, etc. only a little bit actually escapes THROUGH windows and random holes. What does the absorbed light turn into? heat.
Isn't massport a public corp? like TVA? If that's the case, then they're even bigger jerks than everyone figures. The argument gets stickier when government is given the opportunity to uphold its own ability to suck money from 'da rubes.
Just the kind of masshole thing to expect from the commonwealth of massachusetts.
My guess is it took at least that long before they even noticed the problem. Figure it takes on average 3 months of use on the order of your use. Now consider that most people that buy treadmills use them for a week as a treadmill then convert them for use as a laundry drying rack.
I know you're being sarcastic, but my favorite professor (that i've heard of) from caltech is Dr. Richard Feynman who was a noted ladies man, grey hat, world traveler, bongo player, O-ring failure demonstrator, and orange juice afficionato.
Oh wait you said math professor. nevermind. No way they can be as cool as Feynman: "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation"
What they need to do is decouple the reason from the mod. There are quite a few flamebaits that are worth reading and a +1 flamebait might be a useful mod. as would -1 funny. There are far too many comments that are hillarious, but not actually relevent to the article. I want to see posts that are both funny and insightful and configure my account for +5 funny down the line to read all the funniest but irrelevant comments without context later if i so choose.
Everytime someone uses the marxist, "{thing} is the opiate of the masses," I have to wonder for whom opium, morphine, codiene, heroin, demerol, vicodin, oxycodone, etc. are the opiates.
Look at the frequency plans for the nextel system. It goes through an analog repeater network. In other words, your walkie-talkie feature broadcasts everything you say in the clear, possibly across state lines depending on how the repeaters are linked. I assume that the repeaters are placed on the same towers as the cells because if they aren't, why not put a cell there once you have the tower?
Indeed. Instead of finishing the CRV or going with your plan, we're going to do nothing at all. It's much cheaper that way (unless you consider the cost of "complete space shuttle revamps" every 18 months as som'a'kind'a disaster befalls unfortunate, but brave crews.)
Is it seriously called that by any official body? That's the best name ever for a place (far better than "four-corners") I half expect that if you have a meeting there you'd need to use the "cone of silence"
the Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) was cancelled. Since the CRV would've enabled 7 station astronauts to return to earth in the event of emergency, lack of it is the limiting factor on the number of astronauts on the station. A common figure bandied about is that maintenance of station requires about 2.5 astronauts on average throughout their stay. That leaves .5 astronauts on average to work on "science" assuming the full 3 that can be returned on a soyuz capsule are present. (there are often only 2 present however...) So the only time there are actually enough people to make any progress is when a shuttle is actively docked with the station during crew-swap.
BTW, just because a preliminary design requires materials that don't yet exist does not mean the project should be scrapped. All preliminary designs have physical problems that much be addressed. These are called engineering problems because they are solved through the engineering process. Either materials would've been developed that met the requirements of the vessel or the project would've been refined to the point that they were not necessary. At which point you have a prototype and eventually a production model.
Is his name Tommy?
no astronomy discussion would be complete without reference to the death star and the eerie resemblance of saturn's moon, Mimas?
What i'd like in a phone
Take calls, play mp3's, browse web, with hdd for downloading, the latest linux distro, keeps me warm in the winter, keeps me cool in the summer, Mega Massage setting for when I'm very tense, Those crazy electric muscle exerciser thingies, heart monitor, video games, High speed gyros for force-feedback during games, video camera, regular camera, multi-format flash card reader, usb connector, RS232 serial interface with data logger, corkscrew, penknife, extra-sharp knife, toothpick, bottle opener, bat-signal, tincture of bat-anti-merry-go-round spray, laser level, laser sight, laser weapon, maser, pants reinforcing field 'cause the phone's got everything, microwave doppler radar, compass, gps, small vial of whisky/gin/vodka/... for sprucing up drinks, mint spray for sprucing up dates, emergency chocolate ration for mountain rescue or sprucing up dates, calender for remembering dates, hypno spray for getting dates despite the gigantic cellphone holster, Forget-o-spray for making the joke, "Is that a rediculously oversized marginally usefull phone in your pocket or...", appear less lame, kitchen sink, Plays episodes of Family Guy when i'm bored
If all those things are added to cell phones, i'll almost be satisfied.
About the summary,
Since when does 0 == 2?
And yet these prototypes or worse, "product samples" have already had more flights than the mature system they replaced. If they're going to be used as a replacement for a refined rocket system, it's perfectly fair to compare them to the very system they've replaced.
It will be. Then when it comes within the Roche limit, it will be destroyed. We won't see it though, we'll already be dead.
Because the couldn't get the coating off once they reach orbit and the adhesive would ruin the thermal properties anyway.
and IMNSHO, if you go the air-breathing route, you're carrying one whole engine more than you should be.
Ok, but the shuttle is part of the structural mass. You wouldn't count it as part of the payload since none of it is optional.* How does your weight comparison hold when you consider the mass of the saturn V structure?
Remember that the weight the space shuttle can put into LEO, the saturn V can put on the moon.
*Some have suggested adaptations on the space shuttle stack with a focus on non-human payload.. no requirement to return to earth would result in a heavier lifter. None of these have been built, so current speculation as to their capacity is just that.
Kind of reminds me of the scene in "from the earth to the moon" where the one fella asks if they have to get the astronauts back: couldn't we just keep sending up supplies until we figure out how to get them back?
They laughed then, but Who's laughing now?!
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
The following statement is true:
The preceeding statement is false.
Only Lucas would right something like that and not betray any knowledge of the self-referential irony.
What's "funny" is that the shuttle wasn't supposed to be the be-all end-all solution, they only made five of 'em for pete's sake. With a "production run" of five, the only label that could reasonably be applied is, "prototype"
The space shuttle experiment was a great success. It proved that with late 70's technology, an RLV was simply not as cost effective or as safe as you would expect. Of course, saturn V's are not much better ($ per launch), but they make up for it in $ per kg.
WE didn't. This is earth.
But I can see how you would make that mistake, being a B-ark descendant.
No, you can't achieve that. The space shuttle still has the highest success rate of any launch system even after Columbia. The russian system is close, less than a percent away. Most manned launch vehicles hover at around 98% success. Of course, most launch vehicles in general have improving success rates: the low rates are generally due to failures early in the life cycle. This is the advantage of disposeable rockets: everything's new every time and you can work improvements into the design for each launch. There aren't a whole lot of data points (and manned rockets must also return to be considered a success, which biases the results in favor of the non-manned systems, but it looks like, for the time being, 98% is a fundamental limit of safety for manned spacecraft: the point at which the additional expenditure of dollars is not justified by the increase in safety. (according to whatever bean-counters are in charge)
If there are people still willing to take that risk, then as long as it is an informed decision, I think we should let them. As long as there is a scientific/economic reason to send anyone at all that is.