Don't hook up critical resources where sensitive information is discussed to the internet! Or the phone, or any other network with clear-text external connections.
This is the usual "oh, look at all the insurmountable problems/medical disaster" Chicken Little stuff. Since day one, there has been one scare story after another about how people aren't designed to be in space and that some unresolved disaster is waiting just a bit beyond current experience. Virtually ALL of it has proven to be nonsense or a pretty-easily-resolved problem. Same people were around when the steam engine was invented, they/you were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
There's absolutely nothing we know or suspect about this sort of mission that doesn't have a relatively simple technological solution. Solar flare? we know how to use the massive supplies as shields. 0-G effects? - solution devised in Collier's magazine in the 50's and demonstrated on-orbit in 1966.
The panel is more-or-less correct, the biggest issue is the lack of consistent funding and changing priorities from year to year. These prevent solving the real issues of the massive scale of such a project.
It's not, it's the old David Hafler/Dynaco circuit. It has interesting effects that mimic something sort of like environmental effects.
Note that virtually no other scheme replicates nor does the source material contain anything like true spatial effects anyway, they are always synthetic to one degree or another.
Of course I have heard of it. Those 260" motors were never intended to be re-usable, therefore there was no need for them to be segmented for refurbishment (which is heavy and, as clear, introduces more failure modes). If you are going to make a 22' diameter engine in one piece, you had better make it in situ.
No it wasn't. The SRBs were always going to be segmented because otherwise, they would be nearly impossible to refurbish as one-piece items. It had nothing to do with shipping it. Morevoer, the proximal cause of the accident was a compound of two issues - a design flaw that had been "normalized away" by repeated success, and launching outside the qualified temperature range.
The ET foam was always an issue (as it was on the S-II stage from the Saturn V) and the area of the bipod ramp was just a worst-case example. Arguably this was also a design flaw, also "normalized away" by time and lackadaisical attitude towards damage. The specifications on the tolerance of the TPS to damage was *zero*, none whatsoever. They got away with it time after time, until luck caught up with them.
This appears to be a press release, nearly verbatim, from ISRO. I am happy for them, but is blipping out public relations information with no other content the new Slahsdot?
TEL was added to enhance the anti-knock characteristics, it had *absolutely nothing* to do with metallurgy. As it turned out, it worked as an effective solid lubricant but that was an aside.
WWII may have been lost, or at least would have been greatly extended, if airplane engine performance was limited to fuels without TEL.
Nice summary! I would note that the ability to interconnect the bipropellant hydrazine supply to the monopropellant engines is not an "unusual choice", it's common bordering on ubiquitous. Pretty much in order to provide this option as a backup.And it has been used in exactly this way (for more-or-less the same reason) in the very recent past.
A bunch of fatuous politicians with absolutely no qualifications to decide anything sit around in the lap of luxury at taxpayers expense, crafting statements about how concerned they are, and that the solution is massive tax increases. They all leave with an agreement that is completely DOA and even if it was implemented, would have no positive effect on anything.
Make a card with that summary and laminate it, so it lasts for the next 25 years of "climate summits"
BTW, the "Karmen Line" is as made-up as any other of these arbitrary distinctions. They got the 100 KM first, then came up with a reason that it was relevant, not the other way around.
The US Air Force definition of "space" is 50 miles - also just made up, but at least they aren't claiming otherwise.
You would have been wrong, anyway. There's no mystery whatsoever what happens for a particular turn radius, center of gravity, turn bank, and speed. Someone with the necessary information can calculate the derail speed within a few mph. There's nothing to be learned by trying to test the limits.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't hook up critical resources where sensitive information is discussed to the internet! Or the phone, or any other network with clear-text external connections.
No, it's utter baseless nonsense, and not amenable to logical rebuttal. In fact, it's "not even wrong", merely illucid.
Where do you get this? Is it a figment of your hippie mind?
At the very least, it was written in a "clarity, logic, and grammar are optional" field of some sort.
This is the usual "oh, look at all the insurmountable problems/medical disaster" Chicken Little stuff. Since day one, there has been one scare story after another about how people aren't designed to be in space and that some unresolved disaster is waiting just a bit beyond current experience. Virtually ALL of it has proven to be nonsense or a pretty-easily-resolved problem. Same people were around when the steam engine was invented, they/you were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
There's absolutely nothing we know or suspect about this sort of mission that doesn't have a relatively simple technological solution. Solar flare? we know how to use the massive supplies as shields. 0-G effects? - solution devised in Collier's magazine in the 50's and demonstrated on-orbit in 1966.
The panel is more-or-less correct, the biggest issue is the lack of consistent funding and changing priorities from year to year. These prevent solving the real issues of the massive scale of such a project.
It's not, it's the old David Hafler/Dynaco circuit. It has interesting effects that mimic something sort of like environmental effects.
Note that virtually no other scheme replicates nor does the source material contain anything like true spatial effects anyway, they are always synthetic to one degree or another.
I think the people of South Korea and Japan would like to have a word with you on that one.
Yes, Mr. Kerry.
Bullshittium
Of course I have heard of it. Those 260" motors were never intended to be re-usable, therefore there was no need for them to be segmented for refurbishment (which is heavy and, as clear, introduces more failure modes). If you are going to make a 22' diameter engine in one piece, you had better make it in situ.
The heating is largely from compression heating the air, not "friction" in the usual sense.
No it wasn't. The SRBs were always going to be segmented because otherwise, they would be nearly impossible to refurbish as one-piece items. It had nothing to do with shipping it. Morevoer, the proximal cause of the accident was a compound of two issues - a design flaw that had been "normalized away" by repeated success, and launching outside the qualified temperature range.
The ET foam was always an issue (as it was on the S-II stage from the Saturn V) and the area of the bipod ramp was just a worst-case example. Arguably this was also a design flaw, also "normalized away" by time and lackadaisical attitude towards damage. The specifications on the tolerance of the TPS to damage was *zero*, none whatsoever. They got away with it time after time, until luck caught up with them.
It can be very useful as a heater in various applications, dead-nuts reliable and not too dangerous if you encase is properly.
This appears to be a press release, nearly verbatim, from ISRO. I am happy for them, but is blipping out public relations information with no other content the new Slahsdot?
TEL was added to enhance the anti-knock characteristics, it had *absolutely nothing* to do with metallurgy. As it turned out, it worked as an effective solid lubricant but that was an aside.
WWII may have been lost, or at least would have been greatly extended, if airplane engine performance was limited to fuels without TEL.
Nice summary! I would note that the ability to interconnect the bipropellant hydrazine supply to the monopropellant engines is not an "unusual choice", it's common bordering on ubiquitous. Pretty much in order to provide this option as a backup.And it has been used in exactly this way (for more-or-less the same reason) in the very recent past.
A bunch of fatuous politicians with absolutely no qualifications to decide anything sit around in the lap of luxury at taxpayers expense, crafting statements about how concerned they are, and that the solution is massive tax increases. They all leave with an agreement that is completely DOA and even if it was implemented, would have no positive effect on anything.
Make a card with that summary and laminate it, so it lasts for the next 25 years of "climate summits"
How are they smearing him, again? He's a traitor by any definition. He's lucky to not be executed.
BTW, the "Karmen Line" is as made-up as any other of these arbitrary distinctions. They got the 100 KM first, then came up with a reason that it was relevant, not the other way around.
The US Air Force definition of "space" is 50 miles - also just made up, but at least they aren't claiming otherwise.
OH, thank you so very much! Nothing like having that running through my head for a few days.
You would have been wrong, anyway. There's no mystery whatsoever what happens for a particular turn radius, center of gravity, turn bank, and speed. Someone with the necessary information can calculate the derail speed within a few mph. There's nothing to be learned by trying to test the limits.
Why do you think money solves this problem?
Thank you! Every time this comes up, I end up writing a rebuttal along the same lines.
And drug addicts walking the streets with impunity. Neo-hippie paradise.
Black people are treated nicer in Mississippi than they are in Detroit.
You're the worst kind of fool - one who believes his own bullshit.