Yeah, spacecraft design is soooo easy, omg NASA, HPL and the ESA ARE SO RETARDEDZZ!!! They should just put thinkpads on space probes to save weight LOL
Except no. Please recall:
1) Cassini was built over 10 years ago 2) Spacecraft components are not desktop components. They must be more reliable, they must be redundant, and most importantly, (big word): Radiation Hardened, which means that they can withstand more ionizing radiation, and are thus much bigger and more massive.
This just in, Star Wars Episode Pi: Some Footage We Found in the Back will be opening the Cannes 2006 Film Festival along with Torque 2: That's a Lot of Torque! and The Matrix 4: Why Didn't We Just Load In an Arsenal of Weapons Like We Could In the First Movie
yeah fine, kerosene is a fossil fuel, but hydrogen peroxide is not (also used as rocket fuel). and obtaining the liquid hydrogen through.
"Commercial bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of natural gas"
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
yes, hydrogen is produced by using natural gas, which is more abundant than petrol products. the point is that launch vehichles are so low in consumption of these resources compared to the rest of the global economy that it makes no difference if we ramp us launch rates.
just so you don't doubt me:
"Ground-testing of Bigelow's MMOD has shown that it can stop impacts by 5/8-inch-diameter aluminum pellets fired at it at 6.4 kilometers a second, several times as fast as a rifle bullet. No rigid spacecraft design can match this performance, and it's one of the reasons Nautilus has an expected life span of at least 15 years."
read the damn article. the skin is made of 18" thick woven materials like kevlar. micrometerorites will not penetrate it.
and don't say "wouldn't a nice piece of metal work etc". look at bullet proof vests. are they made of slabs of steel?
Chemical rockets for spacecraft combine fuel (liquid hydrogen, hydrazine, kerosene, etc.) and oxidizer (liquid oxygen, n204, etc) to combust and produce thrust. These are not fossil fuels. they have nothing to do with petroleum.
It sounds like you are talking about cars. Why the hell would we have cars in orbit?
i agree with most others, enterprise (*COUGH* SEASON 3 *COUGH*) has been one gigantic money shot right on the face of loyal star trek fans, until season 4.
With a few exceptions, nearly all the episodes of season 4 have been very good, mainly due to the 3-episode story arcs that are each on their own 100 times more important and interesting than all of the season 3 xindi b.s.
if they hadn't moved the timeslot to friday i seriously think the viewership would be much higher than it was last year. good job B&B, way to run a tv show with your heads firmly planet up your asses.
what i'm really curious about is the time delay
if these things are going so incredibly fast, they are experiencing time at a small fraction of what we are (not sure of the %- don't have the equation on hand).
Anyway, because of this high speed, is it logical to say that they have experienced very little time passage since they attained that velocity? in other words, are they almost 'frozen' in time?
if formula 1 racing is just a matter of "crunching numbers" then designing anything using computer simulations is just a matter of crunching the numbers.
people do realize that CFD/panair was created for PLANES right?
I work as a tech, most customers have huuuuuge amounts of spyware on their comps (and no firefox of course). 50% of them have Spybot installed on their computer already, because someone told them to. Usually i install Ad-aware se pro and find an additional 50+ objects.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, spacecraft design is soooo easy, omg NASA, HPL and the ESA ARE SO RETARDEDZZ!!! They should just put thinkpads on space probes to save weight LOL
Except no. Please recall:
1) Cassini was built over 10 years ago
2) Spacecraft components are not desktop components. They must be more reliable, they must be redundant, and most importantly, (big word): Radiation Hardened, which means that they can withstand more ionizing radiation, and are thus much bigger and more massive.
This just in, Star Wars Episode Pi: Some Footage We Found in the Back will be opening the Cannes 2006 Film Festival along with Torque 2: That's a Lot of Torque! and The Matrix 4: Why Didn't We Just Load In an Arsenal of Weapons Like We Could In the First Movie
They accepted The Brown Bunny because they wanted to see Chloe Sevigny give Vincent Gallo a bj.
weak. how about a reply to my last post
yeah fine, kerosene is a fossil fuel, but hydrogen peroxide is not (also used as rocket fuel). and obtaining the liquid hydrogen through. "Commercial bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of natural gas" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen yes, hydrogen is produced by using natural gas, which is more abundant than petrol products. the point is that launch vehichles are so low in consumption of these resources compared to the rest of the global economy that it makes no difference if we ramp us launch rates.
No, we aren't going to run out of hydrogen and oxygen any time soon.
just so you don't doubt me: "Ground-testing of Bigelow's MMOD has shown that it can stop impacts by 5/8-inch-diameter aluminum pellets fired at it at 6.4 kilometers a second, several times as fast as a rifle bullet. No rigid spacecraft design can match this performance, and it's one of the reasons Nautilus has an expected life span of at least 15 years."
read the damn article. the skin is made of 18" thick woven materials like kevlar. micrometerorites will not penetrate it. and don't say "wouldn't a nice piece of metal work etc". look at bullet proof vests. are they made of slabs of steel?
wtf are you talking about?
Chemical rockets for spacecraft combine fuel (liquid hydrogen, hydrazine, kerosene, etc.) and oxidizer (liquid oxygen, n204, etc) to combust and produce thrust. These are not fossil fuels. they have nothing to do with petroleum.
It sounds like you are talking about cars. Why the hell would we have cars in orbit?
i agree with most others, enterprise (*COUGH* SEASON 3 *COUGH*) has been one gigantic money shot right on the face of loyal star trek fans, until season 4.
With a few exceptions, nearly all the episodes of season 4 have been very good, mainly due to the 3-episode story arcs that are each on their own 100 times more important and interesting than all of the season 3 xindi b.s.
if they hadn't moved the timeslot to friday i seriously think the viewership would be much higher than it was last year. good job B&B, way to run a tv show with your heads firmly planet up your asses.
what i'm really curious about is the time delay if these things are going so incredibly fast, they are experiencing time at a small fraction of what we are (not sure of the %- don't have the equation on hand). Anyway, because of this high speed, is it logical to say that they have experienced very little time passage since they attained that velocity? in other words, are they almost 'frozen' in time?
of course i do. unfortunately, that is totally irrelevant to the point i was making, which was that:
everything that uses computer simulations, i.e. CFD, is "just a matter of numhers"
if formula 1 racing is just a matter of "crunching numbers" then designing anything using computer simulations is just a matter of crunching the numbers. people do realize that CFD/panair was created for PLANES right?
I work as a tech, most customers have huuuuuge amounts of spyware on their comps (and no firefox of course). 50% of them have Spybot installed on their computer already, because someone told them to. Usually i install Ad-aware se pro and find an additional 50+ objects.
I believe the record was over 700